Before some of you guys start thinking of me in conjuction with rope + tree
let me remind you I was replying to
Antipitas who asked:
So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?
Your preeminent right is self-defense. Except within some very narrow circumstances, you
always have that right.
Your right to self-defense is preeminent.
Not self-defense
with a firearm.
Not self-defense
with an edged weapon.
Not self-defense
with chemical agents.
This distinction is important. While you retain the right to self-defense, it does not automatically equate to the right to always carry weapons. If you must defend yourself against a potentially lethal attack then the use of any tool(s) you can obtain is generally permissible. Historically, weapons are barred in courtrooms, voting places, jails & prisons, military reservations and secure government facilities. You still have your right to self-defense, simply with limited means.
divemedic said:
It gets worse. There is a company in my area that fires people for smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else, for that matter. All of you private property advocates can explain to me how that can not be extended to a policy of firing gun owners, or even by requiring your employees to bring in an absentee ballot with a vote for a certain political candidate in order to keep your job.
It is amazing some of the things some businesses required of their employees in the past and even today. Henry Ford once required his workers to live in his company Fordtown. Facial hair was prohibited, families were required to attend church weekly, no alcohol was allowed and certainly no firearms.
Today the 'evil sin' is smoking tobacco. Tomorrow it will be people who are not height/weight proprotionate (it's already started). After that, it will be people with a history of
any recurring illness. However, forcing employees to vote for specific candidates has already been quashed. The right to possess firearms as a civil right
should prevent employers from requiring people not own firearms.
Tennessee Gentleman said:
The problem is that the law does not recognize that principle [a higher burden where arms are forbidden]. IIRC, unless the company has prior knowledge of a known threat (meaning a specific person) then they will withstand a lawsuit and still prohibit you from carry. That is immoral. They have the authority to disarm you but are not responsible for your safety and claim that you "waive" the right to SD by enjoying entry on their property. Again, IMO immoral.
I don't believe that is true. It certainly isn't true for businesses that do not have a "walk-in trade" - such as corporate offices. After several incidents of workplace violence, legal arguments brought up the prohibition of "weapons" in the workplace, including even small jack-knives in some cases and the subsequent lack of security in the offices, regardless of known threats.
The result was that businesses not "open to the public" can be held liable for workplace injuries if unauthorized persons can easily gain access to the buildings. This forced many businesses to spend thousands of dollars on access control. To wit:
- Installing card-key locks on all exterior doors
- Fencing and/or gating outdoor break/lunch areas and adding card-key access
- Issuing cards with photographs and/or colored badges.
- Requiring constant display of access card/badges
- Securing elevator and stairwell access on every floor.
- Prohibiting employees from "piggybacking" inside on another employee's card.
- Maintaining security in shipping/receiving dock areas.
- Prohibiting of propping doors open in non-secured areas, such as trash disposal.
I once had an employer who's employee handbook was written from some kind of lawyer-ese boilerplate and then modified for the company. One of the more poorly written rules was about weapons. It read "Employees are forbidden to possess drugs, firearms and other weapons in any facility during working hours." I asked specifically how that would work in a tele-commuting situation or if it applied to an employee staying in a hotel during a business trip. That started some fun discussions with the V.P. of HR claiming it applied regardless of location and several of us telling her to pound sand.
Certain businesses are "high risk". Liquor stores, check-cashing, 7-11 or convenience stores, certain restaurants, etc. Yet these businesses will prohibit cashier employees from being armed on the basis of corporate liability, danger to coworkers and the public for accidents and other claims. Yet, those same companies are NOT required to disclose to potential employees the number of violent crimes that have occurred nor how many times they've been robbed. That, to me, is patently wrong.
This is verbose, I'll get back on topic with campus firearms in the next post.
