Guns in vehicles while at work

[muncie1]

My employer will not allow guns at work. They will allow guns locked away in a car. But if I worked at a place that prohibited guns in the vehicle, I would keep my mouth shut if I did have a gun. However, I porbably would not carry beacuse I would not want to run the risk of getting fired. Yes I agree I have a right to carry a weapon, however if I get fired, It may take a long time to get a new job and on top of that I wouldn't have enough money to hire a lawyer to try to get my job back.

 

[Bummer]

No, his argument is that the corporation is the same as a person in that they can choose how their property is being used. Your argument is meaningless because, while you're trying to make it sound like the corporation has no right to choose how they use their property, they do.

Mine is meaningless? Right. Well argued.

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a legal entity created by government at the request of a person who then gives the property to the corporation and therefore no longer owns it. The corporation is granted many of the same rights as a person by the government, but not all. Does a corporation have a Natural Right to Life? No, it may be shut down. Who says? Government. A Natural Right to Liberty? No, it may be sold. Who says? Government. Does it have a Natural Right to Property? Nope. It is not a person. It has no Natural Rights at all. It has a Legal Right to Property because it is a legal entity. That right may be modified by its creator - Government.

Certainly a corporation has a right to choose how to use its property. It may do as its creator, the Government allows.

Got something other than 'is not'? I'm looking to learn here, so if you have something that logically refutes my points I'm interested.

 

[IndyIN]

Mine is meaningless? Right. Well argued.

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a legal entity created by government at the request of a person who then gives the property to the corporation and therefore no longer owns it. The corporation is granted many of the same rights as a person by the government, but not all. Does a corporation have a Natural Right to Life? No, it may be shut down. Who says? Government. A Natural Right to Liberty? No, it may be sold. Who says? Government. Does it have a Natural Right to Property? Nope. It is not a person. It has no Natural Rights at all. It has a Legal Right to Property because it is a legal entity. That right may be modified by its creator - Government.

Certainly a corporation has a right to choose how to use its property. It may do as its creator, the Government allows.

Got something other than 'is not'? I'm looking to learn here, so if you have something that logically refutes my points I'm interested.

I've tried to research this a little, and want to better understand your position. My understanding (and your post also states this) is that a corporation is granted many of the same rights as a person by the government. It seems that you are lumping the right to property ownership in the same bucket as right to life and liberty, however I would argue that it is one of the the many rights granted to a corporation. By owning a property, the individual rights of ownership are extended to that corporation.

I find this very interesting, and would love more information about corporations and what you see as the difference to legal and natural rights of ownership. My argument is that they are one in the same (more or less). I'm not calling you out, but if you can point me to sources it would be helpful.

This isn't a new debate, either. There is case history available (ConocoPhillips), you can read a little more about it here---http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0511b.asp

 

[nascar6829]

I think I would have a big prob being I work at a school.

Schools are one of the exceptions to the law. You can't have it in the car.

 

[23mar03]

I heard from a source, that the City of Jeffersonville would continue to forbid city employees to house their firearms on city lots. Someone else hear same?

 

[Bummer]

I've tried to research this a little, and want to better understand your position. My understanding (and your post also states this) is that a corporation is granted many of the same rights as a person by the government. It seems that you are lumping the right to property ownership in the same bucket as right to life and liberty, however I would argue that it is one of the the many rights granted to a corporation. By owning a property, the individual rights of ownership are extended to that corporation.

I find this very interesting, and would love more information about corporations and what you see as the difference to legal and natural rights of ownership. My argument is that they are one in the same (more or less). I'm not calling you out, but if you can point me to sources it would be helpful.

This isn't a new debate, either. There is case history available (ConocoPhillips), you can read a little more about it here---http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0511b.asp

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Life. The up side is that it gave me the time to actually think about what you’ve written.

I am not able to offer you a reading list of consequence. I read Hobbes and Locke many years ago. I’ve read portions of works by groups as diverse as the Stoics, the Founders in the form of books on the creation of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and writings of modern political philosophers. I’m afraid I didn’t keep forty years of footnotes. Sorry.

The distinction between Natural Rights and Legal Rights is still a point of argument. Some support the distinction, others do not. I support the distinction. I am not troubled by the word Rights, though some are, insisting that it should be “Privileges”. I do not mind, though I have no trouble separating the concepts. If you find this troubling, please simply replace Legal Right with Legal Privilege as you read this.

I personally prefer the term “Natural Rights” to “God Given Rights”. I believe that humans were hunter/gatherers roaming in family bands then small tribes long before the Jews spoke of Yahweh. I believe that these early men had a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and Property, simply because they were alive. Of course, you may think of these as God Given Rights if you choose, though that would raise the question of whether atheists had “God Given” Rights, since they don’t believe in God. This could also lead to the question of whether people of different faiths had “God Given” Rights. It is unlikely that issue need interfere with the issue at hand.

I accept the concept of Legal Rights, because I find it very hard to believe that hunter/gatherers had a natural right to an attorney, or to not house troops, and other things perceived as rights under the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. Equally, of one wishes to go with the “God Given” version, why would Adam, at the time of his creation, need the right to an attorney? God had not yet created woman, and a new leaf could be had on just about any tree.

I argue that the right to Keep and Bear Arms is a right derived from the Right to Life, and as such is a Derived Natural Right. After all, one can hardly have a Natural Right to Life without the ability to defend that right, whether it be with a pointy stick or automatic weapons. I also argue that since one can not simply give up a Primary Natural Right, if someone denies you that right they take it up as a responsibility. Since it is a Natural Right it becomes an absolute responsibility. Since a man can simply throw down a pointy stick, thereby giving up his Natural Right to Property over it, Property is a much lower level Right than Life or Liberty.

You asked me to read an article, which I did. I have some problems with it. First, I do not feel that it rises to the level of case history. It’s really just an opinion piece in an online magazine/blog.

Mr. Richman states, as his first stipulation, that if two rights conflict one must be counterfeit. I do not agree. You have a right to Property that allows you to do as you please with your property. You may not, however, kill me for coming onto your property. My right to Life stands above your right to Property. You may not enslave me. My Right to Liberty stands above your right to Property. You may chase me off, however infringing my Right to Life or Liberty does not fall under the list of things you Right to Property allows. In short: There’s a reason they were listen in that order: Life, Liberty, Estate (Property). None of this means that your Right to Property is counterfeit. Mr. Richman is incorrect.

Aside from his first stipulation, Mr. Richman’s article was fine all the way to his final conclusions, where he started to waffle. Mr. Richman uses "should" a lot toward the end. Mr. Richman was ultimately stating how he wished things are, not how they actually are.

Business owners do give the property to the business for protection from liability. The company is a piece of paper, and pieces of paper can not own things. That is why companies are given entity status. In no small part that exists so that the owners can hide behind the entity “company”. When it serves their purposes most company owners are just fine with this.

I can give you a substantial list of things I believe we would all have been more free without, but sadly, Government went ahead and did it all. Courts have decided that Government can get away with it, even though often “it” doesn’t meet the standards of the Constitution as written. Those things are not going away unless Government chooses to undo them, or the people decide to undo Government. I don’t see either of those things happening. As a result I have no choice but to see those things as realities.

Incorporation is a legal fact of life, and as such, so is the entity created by incorporation.

Since Company has entity status, and owns the property, the company owner does not. He has given his Natural Right to Property away. One does not retain the right to property that one has sold, traded, or given away.

The Company owner has the Right to Property over Company, and can tell Company to do whatever he wants, but Company may only do those things it’s allowed. Company is not a Natural Entity, but rather, an entity formed by Government at the request of the Owner. Any Property Rights held by the Company must be Legal Rights. Legal Rights are at the mercy of Government.

The Government of the State of Indiana has decided that Company may not deny Citizen the Derived Natural Right to Self Defense. Citizen may have a weapon in Company’s parking lot. If Owner doesn’t like it, he should not give the property to Company. Nobody forces Owner to do this, it is his choice. Choices have consequences, even when they are inconvenient.

Where have I erred?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Mine is meaningless? Right. Well argued.

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a legal entity created by government at the request of a person who then gives the property to the corporation and therefore no longer owns it. The corporation is granted many of the same rights as a person by the government, but not all. Does a corporation have a Natural Right to Life? No, it may be shut down. Who says? Government. A Natural Right to Liberty? No, it may be sold. Who says? Government. Does it have a Natural Right to Property? Nope. It is not a person. It has no Natural Rights at all. It has a Legal Right to Property because it is a legal entity. That right may be modified by its creator - Government.

Certainly a corporation has a right to choose how to use its property. It may do as its creator, the Government allows.

Got something other than 'is not'? I'm looking to learn here, so if you have something that logically refutes my points I'm interested.

You forgot its two most important rights a corporation has. The right to hire you - or not. And the right to fire you.

You have no right whatsoever to a job. Any job.

Now back to your argument. It's weak. A corporation has the right to own property as a legal person. That ownership is the only right that matters. All the other rights you listed (most of which do exist, contrary to your assertion to the contrary, but we're not debating that) are irrelevent.

 

[Bummer]

You forgot its two most important rights a corporation has. The right to hire you - or not. And the right to fire you.

Agreed

You have no right whatsoever to a job. Any job.

Agreed

Now back to your argument. It's weak.

And "is not" is a strong rebuttal? Right.

A corporation has the right to own property as a legal person.

No. A corporation has the right to own property as a Legal Entity. It is not a Person. That is why the term Entity is used. As a Legal Entity a corporation has no Natural Rights since it is not a Natural Person, but a creation of Government (at the request of Owner who was happy to hide behind Corporation until it became inconvenient).

That ownership is the only right that matters.

All rights matter, to differing degrees. Natural Rights rise above Legal Rights. My Natural Right to Life stands above your Natural Right to property you gave away. My Natural Right to Life stands far above any Legal Entity's Legal Right to Property.

All the other rights you listed (most of which do exist, contrary to your assertion to the contrary, but we're not debating that) are irrelevent.

I believe I gave a thorough explanation, not just a simple "is not".

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Agreed



Agreed



And "is not" is a strong rebuttal? Right.



No. A corporation has the right to own property as a Legal Entity. It is not a Person. That is why the term Entity is used. As a Legal Entity a corporation has no Natural Rights since it is not a Natural Person, but a creation of Government (at the request of Owner who was happy to hide behind Corporation until it became inconvenient).



All rights matter, to differing degrees. Natural Rights rise above Legal Rights. My Natural Right to Life stands above your Natural Right to property you gave away. My Natural Right to Life stands far above any Legal Entity's Legal Right to Property.



I believe I gave a thorough explanation, not just a simple "is not".

You gave a copious explanation of something. Unfortunately most of it was irrelevent.

Your Natural Right to Life does not entitle you to enter any piece of property. Period. Claiming it does is at the least a little silly. At most it is a communist leaning. I'm not saying you're one way or the other.

A property owner is that - the property owner. The one who owns the property has paid for the exclusive right to the property, and to direct its use within the confines of the law. Laws that abrogate property rights are theft. Plain and simple.

 

[Bummer]

You forgot its two most important rights a corporation has. The right to hire you - or not. And the right to fire you.

You have no right whatsoever to a job. Any job.

The Company's right to hire and fire is a Legal Right handed it by the Indiana Legislature. As such, the Indiana Legislature can modify or remove that right at will. The Indiana Legislature has decided that the Company's Right to Hire and Fire will not include cases involving an Employee who simply keeps a handgun in his/her car for protection to and from work.

What Government giveth Government can taketh away. Don't like it? Don't incorporate. Nobody makes you.

Note that in cases where the owner chooses not to incorporate or give the property to any other entity, and as a result still actually owns the property, the law under discussion is an infringement of a Natural Right the owner still holds.

 

[Bummer]

You gave a copious explanation of something. Unfortunately most of it was irrelevent.

Your Natural Right to Life does not entitle you to enter any piece of property. Period. Claiming it does is at the least a little silly. At most it is a communist leaning. I'm not saying you're one way or the other.

A property owner is that - the property owner. The one who owns the property has paid for the exclusive right to the property, and to direct its use within the confines of the law. Laws that abrogate property rights are theft. Plain and simple.

Communist? Now that's actually funny. You might try taking a Poly Sci class.

As stated, Owner gave the property to Corporation and no longer owns it. Nobody stole it. He gave it away to have something to hide behind. No longer actually having a Natural Right to Property over property one has given away is a consequence of giving it away.

As explained, Corporation's Right to Property has been modified by Corporation's Creator. All within the confines of law.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The Company's right to hire and fire is a Legal Right handed it by the Indiana Legislature. As such, the Indiana Legislature can modify or remove that right at will. The Indiana Legislature has decided that the Company's Right to Hire and Fire will not include cases involving an Employee who simply keeps a handgun in his/her car for protection to and from work.

What Government giveth Government can taketh away. Don't like it? Don't incorporate. Nobody makes you.

Note that in cases where the owner chooses not to incorporate or give the property to any other entity, and as a result still actually owns the property, the law under discussion is an infringement of a Natural Right the owner still holds.

Socialist. And Communist. Just one paragraph apart.

Communist? Now that's actually funny. You might try taking a Poly Sci class.

As stated, Owner gave the property to Corporation and no longer owns it. Nobody stole it. He gave it away to have something to hide behind. No longer actually having a Natural Right to Property over property one has given away is a consequence of giving it away.

As explained, Corporation's Right to Property has been modified by Corporation's Creator. All within the confines of law.

And you might try taking a Law class.

 

[Bummer]

Socialist. And Communist. Just one paragraph apart.



And you might try taking a Law class.

I'm still waiting for you to actually refute something I've written. As far as I'm concerned bluster isn't getting you anywhere.

 

[finity]

Communist? Now that's actually funny. You might try taking a Poly Sci class.

Yeah.

That seems to be a standard retort by many to shut down discussion of a topic.

It's sad how many don't know the difference between the type of ECONOMY a country has (capitalist, mixed, socialist, communist, etc.) & it's type of government (democracy, republic, oligarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc.)

In a democratic communist society (AKA "communes" & they have existed even if for a short time) the government doesn't "take" things away from the people, the people are the government & everyone contributes willingly for "the common good". Even if the "government" does enforce the will of the people on someone who decides that they no longer want to contribute that doesn't make the government any less of a democracy.

That has nothing to do with a company owner that willingly gives up his property rights, even in a "capitalist" economy, to some, or even an extensive, degree as a shield against personal liability for damages caused by that company & a protection of his PRIVATE assets in case of a failure of that company.

While corporations have the least right to complain about governmental regulation I still say that any company who hires & fires should still be expected to follow some MINIMUM standard of safety/working conditions & those expectations should be enforced through law. One can argue that we can let the so-called (not fully existant) "market" decide but we've tried that (up to the beginning of this century, in fact) & it didn't work.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The Company's right to hire and fire is a Legal Right handed it by the Indiana Legislature. As such, the Indiana Legislature can modify or remove that right at will. The Indiana Legislature has decided that the Company's Right to Hire and Fire will not include cases involving an Employee who simply keeps a handgun in his/her car for protection to and from work.

What Government giveth Government can taketh away. Don't like it? Don't incorporate. Nobody makes you.

Note that in cases where the owner chooses not to incorporate or give the property to any other entity, and as a result still actually owns the property, the law under discussion is an infringement of a Natural Right the owner still holds.

Yeah.

That seems to be a standard retort by many to shut down discussion of a topic.

It's sad how many don't know the difference between the type of ECONOMY a country has (capitalist, mixed, socialist, communist, etc.) & it's type of government (democracy, republic, oligarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc.)

In a democratic communist society (AKA "communes" & they have existed even if for a short time) the government doesn't "take" things away from the people, the people are the government & everyone contributes willingly for "the common good". Even if the "government" does enforce the will of the people on someone who decides that they no longer want to contribute that doesn't make the government any less of a democracy.

That has nothing to do with a company owner that willingly gives up his property rights, even in a "capitalist" economy, to some, or even an extensive, degree as a shield against personal liability for damages caused by that company & a protection of his PRIVATE assets in case of a failure of that company.

While corporations have the least right to complain about governmental regulation I still say that any company who hires & fires should still be expected to follow some MINIMUM standard of safety/working conditions & those expectations should be enforced through law. One can argue that we can let the so-called (not fully existant) "market" decide but we've tried that (up to the beginning of this century, in fact) & it didn't work.

I totally agree about your statement about not knowing the difference between the types of economies and system of governments.

I didn't realize that capitalism, communism, socialist, etc. were types of economies. I've been under the mistaken impresession for the past 30 years or so that the three types of economies were market, command, and traditional (with a smattering of mixed when the lines between the three are blurred). When did political ideology elevate itself to types of economies? Is this a new math thing?

The statement that hiring and firing practices are a right handed down by the government through its legislature implies a belief that the government controls the means of production, which is a socialist ideology.

The statement that what the government giveth the government can taketh away (in this context property ownership) implies a belief that all property is owned by the government, and rights to use that property come from the government, which can curtail those rights at it's will. As government is a ficticious entity established to administer and enforce the will of the people collectively, the further implication is that property is owned by the people collectively. This is a communist ideology.

Both of these statements are antithical to American ideals. They are better made by a Chicom than an American.

I'd love to hear more about these new types of economies sometime. Is there a book or something I can get?

I'm still waiting for you to actually refute something I've written. As far as I'm concerned bluster isn't getting you anywhere.

That's because your logic is so flawed and premise so patently incorrect it is hardly worthy of discussion. This is not intended as a slight in any way. But when you cannot recognize that a legal person can own property and exercise control over that property there is little common ground from which to debate.

 

[snowman46919]

Can we just agree to disagree? Neither of you are practicing corporate lawyers or law makers. The constant back and forth of repeating yourselves as to what is legal and what is not is simply a fight in vane of the fact that it doesn't matter unless you find a representative worth his salt to represent your ideas at a much higher level than an internet forum. We are only capable of legally doing what our government says we can, if we want it changed then we must work for it not through the gnashing of teeth but through working together for a better tomorrow for gun ownership.

 

[youngda9]

^^ I disagree, I find it interesting and enlightening. I learned a couple things even. Just ignore the thread if you don't like it.

 

[snowman46919]

^^ I disagree, I find it interesting and enlightening. I learned a couple things even. Just ignore the thread if you don't like it.

I'm not going to lie I have ignored the last few posts because it seemed it was going to get a bit derogatory and that is why I posted what I did. It seems my assumptions had no basis but keeping with the fact that I don't edit my posts I am going to leave it and stand by what I said. +reps for keeping it respectful.

 

[dice dealer]

I don't keep one in my car at work , It is on my side in plain sight while I am at work

 

[Bummer]

I totally agree about your statement about not knowing the difference between the types of economies and system of governments.

I didn't realize that capitalism, communism, socialist, etc. were types of economies. I've been under the mistaken impresession for the past 30 years or so that the three types of economies were market, command, and traditional (with a smattering of mixed when the lines between the three are blurred). When did political ideology elevate itself to types of economies? Is this a new math thing?

The statement that hiring and firing practices are a right handed down by the government through its legislature implies a belief that the government controls the means of production, which is a socialist ideology.

The statement that what the government giveth the government can taketh away (in this context property ownership) implies a belief that all property is owned by the government, and rights to use that property come from the government, which can curtail those rights at it's will. As government is a ficticious entity established to administer and enforce the will of the people collectively, the further implication is that property is owned by the people collectively. This is a communist ideology.

Both of these statements are antithical to American ideals. They are better made by a Chicom than an American.

I'd love to hear more about these new types of economies sometime. Is there a book or something I can get?



That's because your logic is so flawed and premise so patently incorrect it is hardly worthy of discussion. This is not intended as a slight in any way. But when you cannot recognize that a legal person can own property and exercise control over that property there is little common ground from which to debate.

Thinly veiled insults and misrepresentation of my arguments. I wish I could say I'm shocked, but sadly I'm not even slightly surprised.