This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Which right holds sway?

Sounds like we agree, then. If I'm armed then I'm not consuming alcohol, not because you say-so, but because that's already illegal through other regulation.

You're ignoring the context and scope of my argument again. You're trying to change the goal-posts by changing Independent Variable #4 from a 'private business' to a 'private residence'. Please stop doing that.

You toss respect right out the door when you want a gun-free zone but don't have a 'need'. Preference is invalid because gun-free zones are a public hazard, see the CO shooting.

The instant you ask for my weapon and/or post a sign, you are being a disrespectful little punk.

You I are going to have to agree to disagree. I have the right as a private citizin to regulate MY property as I see fit. You may not agree or like it, but thats the way I see it. Its a freedom thing with me. I HATE being impossed upon. And as far as being unpolite its simple I HAVE the right to POST a sign and to have MY propererty and association rights respected. If you find that implolite or direspectful, too bad. Like I said my place my rules. You as an employee or patron are free to associate elsewhere. You cannot force me to accomadate you and like it, agree with it, or go along with it. Before you go on about ordinaces law ect, I routinely break them as I see fit. I dont cotton to people tellin me how to go about my business, I am rather old school that way. I've paid plenty of money to operate as I please, its a matter of priciple. I would love to be able to carry in a restruant or theature or the mall, but if they dont want people to carry it is their right to say so and enforce that policy as they see fit. It is my right to patronize else where. Which I do routinly The same argument applies to employment. You are not forced to work at a particular employer.

Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.

I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.

Re: Which right holds sway?

Your property is different than your business. You have the right to not allow Latinos on your property, because they are Latinos. Or Asian, or Black or hell even if you are a minority and they are White. You don't have to let them queers, or fairies or dykes on your property either. In fact I am sure in most states if they don't leave you could get away with making them.

But you see 'your' business isn't like that. You asked permission to do that. Not only did you ask permission, you asked for protection.

“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Re: Which right holds sway?

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

We are not actually talking about Private person rights vs Private Business rights. We are actually talking about Private property rights vs Private Property rights. I own land which is my private property which also not a government entity. When you enter my private property and tell me that you can carry a gun non matter what I say you have violated my control of my private property.It does not matter whether that land is a business or not since I am the owner of the private property I am the legally responsible party of that private property.

Your argument isn't specific to an employee carrying a gun. You're saying you shouldn't have to comply with anything you don't want to, and that's just factually incorrect. Yes, you are giving up some aspects of control over your property when you hire people to come work on it. I agree. I argue that these controls you give up are justified. You could hate on Muslims all day long, for example, but if you hire a Muslim women and she shows up wearing a Hajib, if you don't like it, that's just to bad. Once you've hired someone you lost to the right to discriminate against them within your own property. If you don't want to comply with labor laws then don't hire anyone, just do it yourself.

And why the hell would I tell you I'm carrying? The whole point of concealed carry is to fly under the radar.

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

An adult over 21 can have alcohol on their person legally. Yet there are private properties that do not allow you to have alcohol in your possession on their property.

OSHA doesn't allow me to drink while working, so I would not otherwise be in lawful possession of alcohol the way I would otherwise be in lawful possession of a firearm.

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

As a contractor you are not allowed to do whatever you want on the property that you are working on. You cannot just waltz into the off limits area of the property without permission. You also cannot in many cases use foul language as an employee around the customers. Doing so may get you fired on the spot. So much for free speech?

As an employee I gave up a level of sovereignty just as you did when you hired me, and for the exact same reason: I engaged in commerce. Yes, I can't go do just whatever I want, wherever I want. While I'm on your property as an employee I have to otherwise be performing my job. A concealed pistol doesn't stop me from doing my job. Likewise I've already acknowledged concessions an employee should make to the employer while carrying, such as allowing the employer to make a copy of the CCW for their records, banning open carry, and the gun must remain on the employee's person at all times (never left in a purse or bag, etc).

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

I am confronting your argument.

You're trying to change the independent variables upon which my dependent variable is based instead of falsifying the dependent variable directly. Therefore, no, you are not confronting my argument, you're changing the goal posts. You're doing it right now, even with the alcohol reference, since my gun is otherwise lawfully possessed while a bottle of liquor is not. If I were under 21 and carrying a pistol, that would = carrying liquor. If I didn't have a CCW permit, that would = a bottle of liquor. If the pistol were illegally modified, that would = a bottle of liquor. But no, my concealed pistol is 100% otherwise legal.

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

But you are not accepting any of the logic that I am showing you.

That's correct, because your trying to change the goal posts instead of falsify the dependent variable directly. You aren't addressing the merits of my argument, you're ignoring them and trying to change the conditions under which my argument is true.

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

For example in order for you to carry a weapon it must be in your possession. What you are calling mere possession is actually inescapable reality. If you are entering a piece of private property and are confronted with a rule that has banned you from carrying a gun you can take the gun off of the property and store in a place that you pick. So legally you ahve not lost possession of your gun at all. I raised this concept since you were asserting that your person was being violated while in reality your person was not violated at all.

And again, my argument does not regard mere 'possession', but carrying on my person. You are again ignoring my argument instead of confronting it.

Re: Which right holds sway?

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

You I are going to have to agree to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree means allowing the difference to exist. No, I'm not allowing the difference to exist, I'm pressing the issue. It's not acceptable, it is unconstitutional discrimination and can not be tolerated. You can retract your hand, I won't be shaking it.

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

I have the right as a private citizin to regulate MY property as I see fit.

You lose degrees of that right when you hire employees, hence the advent of labor law.

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

You may not agree or like it, but thats the way I see it.

And you're wrong, please see labor law and public accommodation for details.

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

Its a freedom thing with me. I HATE being impossed upon. And as far as being unpolite its simple I HAVE the right to POST a sign and to have MY propererty and association rights respected.

Yup, you can post those signs all day long, I'll just keep ignoring them.

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

If you find that implolite or direspectful, too bad.

I'll just keep on carrying anyway.

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

Like I said my place my rules.

So you just want to ignore the existence of labor laws. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

You as an employee or patron are free to associate elsewhere. You cannot force me to accomadate you and like it, agree with it, or go along with it.

You mean like when we forced you to leave our gun alone while they're in our cars? That kind of "cannot for me" sort of thing? I'm here to tell you, oh yes we can. He have before, and we will again.

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

Before you go on about ordinaces law ect, I routinely break them as I see fit. I dont cotton to people tellin me how to go about my business, I am rather old school that way. I've paid plenty of money to operate as I please, its a matter of priciple. I would love to be able to carry in a restruant or theature or the mall, but if they dont want people to carry it is their right to say so and enforce that policy as they see fit. It is my right to patronize else where. Which I do routinly The same argument applies to employment. You are not forced to work at a particular employer.

If you don't want to comply with labor and anti-discrimination laws, then don't hire employees. It's that easy.

Re: Which right holds sway?

Originally Posted by Jerry

Your argument isn't specific to an employee carrying a gun. You're saying you shouldn't have to comply with anything you don't want to, and that's just factually incorrect. Yes, you are giving up some aspects of control over your property when you hire people to come work on it. I agree. I argue that these controls you give up are justified. You could hate on Muslims all day long, for example, but if you hire a Muslim women and she shows up wearing a Hajib, if you don't like it, that's just to bad. Once you've hired someone you lost to the right to discriminate against them within your own property. If you don't want to comply with labor laws then don't hire anyone, just do it yourself.

And why the hell would I tell you I'm carrying? The whole point of concealed carry is to fly under the radar.

OSHA doesn't allow me to drink while working, so I would not otherwise be in lawful possession of alcohol the way I would otherwise be in lawful possession of a firearm.

As an employee I gave up a level of sovereignty just as you did when you hired me, and for the exact same reason: I engaged in commerce. Yes, I can't go do just whatever I want, wherever I want. While I'm on your property as an employee I have to otherwise be performing my job. A concealed pistol doesn't stop me from doing my job. Likewise I've already acknowledged concessions an employee should make to the employer while carrying, such as allowing the employer to make a copy of the CCW for their records, banning open carry, and the gun must remain on the employee's person at all times (never left in a purse or bag, etc).

You're trying to change the independent variables upon which my dependent variable is based instead of falsifying the dependent variable directly. Therefore, no, you are not confronting my argument, you're changing the goal posts. You're doing it right now, even with the alcohol reference, since my gun is otherwise lawfully possessed while a bottle of liquor is not. If I were under 21 and carrying a pistol, that would = carrying liquor. If I didn't have a CCW permit, that would = a bottle of liquor. If the pistol were illegally modified, that would = a bottle of liquor. But no, my concealed pistol is 100% otherwise legal.

That's correct, because your trying to change the goal posts instead of falsify the dependent variable directly. You aren't addressing the merits of my argument, you're ignoring them and trying to change the conditions under which my argument is true.

And again, my argument does not regard mere 'possession', but carrying on my person. You are again ignoring my argument instead of confronting it.

Ok we seem to be talking past each other and are making no headway at all in either direction. I want to better understand the reasons that you have joined a movement to create a new law(s).
Obviously we both have real concerns about our rights being stepped on. Which means that theoretically we both have valid arguments.

On one side we we have a legal citizen enjoying their Constitutional right to carry a firearm. The gun that the person is carrying is concealed and presumably not obvious to anyone else, and is also legal. In most places in the country there is nothing wrong with such activity. the idea is that this person would like a law that states that an employer cannot under any circumstance disallow the gun owner from carry a gun at first in locked their vehicle in a parking lot and later on their person in the work place.

Im just try to make sure that I have your side correct at this point and that you understand mine. So please by all means correct me if Im wrong. Believe it or not I am actually to a certain extent in agreement with you. You should also realize that the parking lot laws to a certain extent in certain states are in agreement with me also. I already stated so much when I said this: " Workplace protection gun laws are usually limited to locked vehicles on employee parking lots. Thus, covered employers can often prohibit guns from company buildings and other areas. Some statutes allow the employer to ban handguns from a secured or gated parking lot. Under some statutes, employers can also designate certain parking lots for concealed handgun licensees, so long as the parking lot is reasonably close to the main parking lot. Not all states provide immunity that protect employers from liability. Respondeat superior, negligence in breach of a duty to protect employees, and negligence in hiring and retaining dangerous employees all pose a possibly liability for employers."

On the other side we have a landowner who feels that they do not want just anyone running around in their place of business with a gun concealed or otherwise. (At this point I am going to ignore the anti gun nuts that just want no guns anywhere since that simply is not anywhere near what I want) I am not demanding that all work places are gun free zones. From my personal point of view I just want to be able to stop an employee that perhaps at onetime I trusted the employee with a firearm in my shop or just in his car on my property. But today he seems a little off or actually he has said some things that make me worried that he might go off and shoot me or someone else. No they didnt say enough for me to call the police its more of an hunch. So I want to tell him that today he needs to take his gun home. Which is a judgement call that I am employing to curb a possible bad scene. I could be wrong and up till now the guy was a good worker. So instead of mentioning the gun I just tell him that he is not needed today.

The next day he shows up looking even more unusual for him. Im not sure that he has a gun or not. So I again send him home.

Now if the law that you are wanting were be in effect I would not be able to justify a reason for sending this employee home. And at the key time when the guy demands a reason why I keep sending him home would get me in possible trouble. perhaps if he had not had a gun present on himself or in his vehicle I would have just let him work and see how he does. But considering that I do not want to risk being shot or risk having to shoot someone myself I chose a much more civil course and just sent him away to sort out his own problems away from where if he does go off he will not be doing so anywhere near me hopefully.

Under OSHA rules if a fear that a employee is potentially dangerous I can send them home. In fact OSHA refused to ban guns in the work place because they felt that OSHA regulations already cover anything including guns. 09/13/2006 - Request for OSHA national policy banning guns from the workplace and OSHA enforcement policy regarding workplace violence."In a workplace where the risk of violence and serious personal injury are significant enough to be "recognized hazards," the general duty clause [specified by Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)] would require the employer to take feasible steps to minimize those risks. Failure of an employer to implement feasible means of abatement of these hazards could result in the finding of an OSH Act violation."

In most workplaces where risk factors can be identified, the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions. One of the best protections employers can offer their workers is to establish a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence. This policy should cover all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel.

By assessing their worksites, employers can identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring. OSHA believes that a well written and implemented Workplace Violence Prevention Program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence in both the private sector and Federal workplaces."

You seemed to have asserted that the only thing that matters is that you have the legal right to carry your gun on your person. Does this mean that the employer is banned from making a judgement call and sending an employee home on a gut feeling? Bob seem uptight today or Joe lost his house and his family or whatever is causing him such huge distress. Larry keeps yelling at his coworkers or refuses to work. Usually these situations call for some type of decision by the employer. In some cases an employer will give the employee some time off to sort things out. But if any of these employees are carrying a gun the employer may just cut to the chase and send any employee home that seems distressed for any reason. No one wants a person around that isnt themselves while carrying a gun. It doesnt matter where work a bar home or wherever any rational person would be at ease around a distraught person with a gun. But if your law bans employers from making the cautious call of sending a possibly dangerous employee home, well count me and opponent of your movements law.

I would be happier with a law that bans the government from imposing new laws that limit places that you can take guns. I think that the fight to retain our rights are better fought in more logical locations. IMHO

Re: Which right holds sway?

Originally Posted by Jerry

Agreeing to disagree means allowing the difference to exist. No, I'm not allowing the difference to exist, I'm pressing the issue. It's not acceptable, it is unconstitutional discrimination and can not be tolerated. You can retract your hand, I won't be shaking it.

You lose degrees of that right when you hire employees, hence the advent of labor law.

And you're wrong, please see labor law and public accommodation for details.

Yup, you can post those signs all day long, I'll just keep ignoring them.

I'll just keep on carrying anyway.

So you just want to ignore the existence of labor laws. Good luck with that.

You mean like when we forced you to leave our gun alone while they're in our cars? That kind of "cannot for me" sort of thing? I'm here to tell you, oh yes we can. He have before, and we will again.

If you don't want to comply with labor and anti-discrimination laws, then don't hire employees. It's that easy.

You sound like your fighting mood. So am I. I could care less about labour law and all the rest. I have paid lots of fines for voilating all sorts of laws. Been in court more time than I could count. Know what, that don't deter me in the least. Theres principle of the matter, that counts for me. You and everybody else dont get a say in how I manage my property, or business. I never put up with that nonsence and never will. I dont have to accomadate you. You could sue but, you will be in court buried under a mountain of paper. Literally. There are certain things you just dont do. One of them is come on to my property and do as you please, that dont happen without a fight.

People have the right to manage their property and business as they see fit, so long as no one is harmed. That is as old as civilization. If there is harm there is remidy in the courts, if you choose to go that far.

Quite frankly I can see why someone would ban weopons on their property, and that would have to do with insurance and the assocated fees, not to mention liability issues, amongst other issues. Would I do it? No. With a caveat, that would be if have a client that is deadset against weopons on THEIR property then I would expect my employees to aceed to the demand, as I would. On my property different story. I could care less if my employees were armed or not. I am not in business to protect someones rights, I am in business to make money. That said I am also against the goverment making more laws about were you can and cant go with your weapons.

Have you ever tried just asking the places you go to if they would be kind enough to allow you to carry? You might want to ask, you may be pleasently suprised. I ask, sometimes they say no, and others they say yes. More often then not they let me carry. As far as your employer well thats between you all.

I dont know about the rest of you, but ignoring signs on my property can be unhealthy.

You dont like my position so be it. You dont think my hand is worth shaking so be it aswell. Its a shame you see it that way. You aint gona get me to see otherwise on my position. I dont expect to change your mind. You seem pretty set in your opinion. For the most part you seem like a reasonable fellow. You aint backin down and I aint backin down. Now what?

Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.

I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.

Re: Which right holds sway?

Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll

Ok we seem to be talking past each other and are making no headway at all in either direction. I want to better understand the reasons that you have joined a movement to create a new law(s).
Obviously we both have real concerns about our rights being stepped on. Which means that theoretically we both have valid arguments.

I'll be more than happy to give your post a more detailed response later today, but for the time being I'd like to just put my finger directly on my objection. Hopefully this will help make myself clearer.

Since the right to keep and carry is a specifically enumerated right, any gun ban must meet 'Strict Scrutiny' requirements.

There are three levels of scrutiny that the Court employs to evaluate intentional discrimination (either facial discrimination or discriminatory motive): (1) strict scrutiny, (2) intermediate scrutiny, and (3) low-level scrutiny.

For example, racial discrimination falls into the category of strict scrutiny. Other forms of discrimination don’t get that kind of presumption of hostility. For example, when the government discriminates between optometrists, opticians, and ophthalmologists, it seems reasonable to think there is a valid reason. Someone attacking such a rule, though it is discriminatory, will face an initial presumption against them. Each choice of the level of scrutiny is an indicator of the judicial mindset as to the type of discrimination at hand.

If you’re in the zone of strict scrutiny, the discriminatory law must serve a compelling interest and the law must be necessary. For example, in California, they have had a long-standing practice of segregating prisoners on the basis of race for the first 60 days until the prison officials determine how dangerous and violent the prisoners are. This is a practice that would usually demand strict scrutiny. However, there is a doctrine that says that discrimination in prison will be treated differently and possibly considered with the rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny. Maybe segregating prisoners could be rationally related to the goal of preventing prison violence. But on the other hand, it may not be necessary. Thus, the test chosen may be entirely dispositive as to whether the practice violates the Equal Protection Clause or not.

The first requirement of Strict Scrutiny is where my chief objection with 'land owner preference' is. The first requirement is that the law allowing the land owner to ban must serve a 'compelling interest', ie; something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

Constantly repeating 'my property, my rules' is affirming that your ban is merely a preference. Preference fails the Strict Scrutiny test. The land owner must have a 'compelling interest' in order to ban employees from exorsizing a specifically enumerated constitutional right.

Re: Which right holds sway?

As a sidebar:
Folks who oppose employees from even keeping a gun in their car are welcome to share examples of that gun harming anyone, while lawfully stored, as evidence that the land owner has a 'compelling interest'.

Also, folks who disagree with employees carrying while on the job are welcome to share examples of holstered pistols harming anyone.

Re: Which right holds sway?

Originally Posted by PirateMk1

You aint backin down and I aint backin down. Now what?

Well, you post your sign, I carry concealed. If you catch me before the law is changed, I'll have to leave. If you catch me after the law is changed, if the cops I call can't calm you down, then I'll be filing a lawsuit.

Re: Which right holds sway?

Originally Posted by Jerry

As a sidebar:
Folks who oppose employees from even keeping a gun in their car are welcome to share examples of that gun harming anyone, while lawfully stored, as evidence that the land owner has a 'compelling interest'.

Also, folks who disagree with employees carrying while on the job are welcome to share examples of holstered pistols harming anyone.

This has nothing to do with personal opposition to carrying. It is about the right of business owners to exclude guns from their private property and not to be forced by government to allows things they don't want on their PRIVATE PROPERTY.