Legal Carry ???

[Spiveyman]

There are good points on both sides of this. I'm all about rights for property owners, but for me the distinction is "inside my own car." That should be like a piece of sovereign Spiveyland. Certianly I agree with an employers right to tell employees that they can't have a piece in their desk or on them while at work, but in the car that brings them to work is another deal. Can an employer ban free speech on their property? In fact, they do on a regular basis. There's an expample of private property rights superseding the constitution. My right to defend myself should supersede a political stance on guns in your car on company property.

Here's the thing that gets me. It's a pretty sure bet that you are going to get fired if you actually shoot your boss or someone else at work right? By the way, it's also illegal to do that and you're likely going to go to jail for a really long time, or be fried if you live in TX. So, if someone is of a mindset to shoot someone at work, he's already willing to loose his job, and his freedom, and maybe his life. Do you think he will care if the company says he can't have a gun in his car? Of course not. Those who would obey that rule, wouldn't shoot people at work in the first place. Those who would shoot people aren't going to follow the rules regardless. So all you do with rules like that is prevent law abiding, rule following people from being able to defend themselves or others in that situation.

I own a small company. As we grow, I think I'm going to add a CCDW check box to the application for employment. If the government can't trust you to carry a gun, I don't want you working for me.

 

[WVBill]

Just curious here -

A number of the contributors to this thread seem to be suggesting leaving a firearm in an unattended vehicle for an extended period of time - for example, while at work.

Is this a wise/safe/OK thing to do? Particurlarly if your place of employment is in an area where one feels they need to cary for their own safety.

WVBill

 

[RoyJackson]

Just curious here -

A number of the contributors to this thread seem to be suggesting leaving a firearm in an unattended vehicle for an extended period of time - for example, while at work.

Is this a wise/safe/OK thing to do? Particurlarly if your place of employment is in an area where one feels they need to cary for their own safety.

WVBill

I carry a handgun almost all the time. However, if company policy dictates no firearms on the property (one company even specified no guns in the vehicles even if licensed to carry), I normally don't then. I have cheated on occasion though.
I'd wrote about one company specifying no guns...that resulted from one of the managers losing their carry piece in the plant several years ago. Pretty stupid to lose your weapon, huh?

 

[RollTideRam]

I guess what gets me in the entire discussion, is why do some of you think that your right to carry a gun (which I happen to agree with) supersedes the right of the property owner to determine what goes on at their property?

All talk of 13 years, it is a good job, jobs are scarce etc, does nothing in my mind about the fact that it is "their" property that you are on.

You have a choice, just like most of us did this morning, working in the civillian marketplace, as to if you are going to go too work this morning.

As I told my crew two weeks ago, you hold out your hands, and one fill's with the crud parts of the job, the hours, being somewhere when you would rather be fishing, not being allowed to carry your gun, working with your co-workers whatever, and you weigh that against the other hand which fills with the good, the pay is usually central, then maybe benefits etc.

As long as the good keeps outweighing the bad, you get up, get dressed, and go to work. And when you do, you follow the rules that they have established. You wear the clothes they tell you to wear, etc. etc.

When they change something, then too me, you sit down and re-weigh the scales. For you, they just changed that gun carry deal, for me they just cut my (and every other Crew leads) pay $2 an hour.

For me, I weighed it out and came to work. I need the job and have 16+ years tied in. Sounds like you will do much the same.

That said, I will ask about the pay, the wheres the whys, and at the end, if they won't budge, I will just have to reweigh my decision and see where it leaves me.

I have been offered several jobs paying over 200 a year, but I weigh out the risks, and the benefits and to not find them worthwhile. (and at those jobs they would provide my gun ) and so far, I have walked from them. That said, several of my guys here lately have decided that it was worth the risk.

Well, I wander too much.

Weigh it out, and make your decision. If you want to stay, then follow the rules and speak with HR about getting them modified, or possibly them giving you relief from that rule.

Good luck, hope it works out positively.

I already stated I need my job and would abide by the rules. It was alright to carry last week but can't do it anymore. What I'm really trying to figure out is, What good is it for me to get a permit to carry a gun, If I can't carry it where I am going? It seems I'm legal while driving, I just can't park unless it is at my house. More or less I'm only free to protect myself at home. JC

 

[jimg]

>>Pretty stupid to lose your weapon, huh?
Just a bit!

>>Is this a wise/safe/OK thing to do? Particurlarly if your place of employment
>> is in an area where one feels they need to cary for their own safety.
Its possible to properly secure your piece in a vehicle. Its up to the owner to make sure its done right.

 

[LMTC]

Can an employer ban free speech on their property? In fact, they do on a regular basis. There's an expample of private property rights superseding the constitution. My right to defend myself should supersede a political stance on guns in your car on company property.

There is a subtle difference....the right to free speech, as well as to keep and bear arms, is in the Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence lists the right to Life as an inalienable right....one endowed by the Creator. By definition (and maybe what we're discussing now is just semantics) no one has any right, property rights notwithstanding, to strip anyone of that inalienable right.

My argument is predicated on that inalienable right...I maintain that requiring me to yield the primary means of defending my Life against one who would harm or take it is a violation of that inalienable right. I accept that others will not see the right to keep a firearm as a direct extension of that inalienable right to Life...that's just how I see it.

 

[firedog]

I would tend to agree with the "inalienable rights" issue, however, as my Dad had always said "your rights end where another man's rights begin". My right to the pursuit of happiness ends when it involves breaking into your house and stealing your TV, exactly where your right to the pursuit of happiness begins by dropping me in my tracks.
I believe that a property owner, whether home or business, has the right to not allow firearms on their property, however in doing so, they should then assume the responsiblity for your life and/or safety to the extent you are unable to defend yourself. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it like me.


Note: For those who work in plants, refineries, etc. where guns are not allowed to be brought in. Ever notice that the random vehicle searchs are done on your way out.

 

[Soundguy]

I don't specifically disagree with your point.. in fact.. I'm a fan of people's rights.. all of em'... property or personal carry..

On the property rights issue, I think it boils down to a liability scare, and a control issue.

On the gun carry.. I think most would agree it boils down to a 'security' issue.

You might be able to phrase it as a question and say 'what is mor eimportant.. a landowners liability or someone personal safety. Hard hair to split for sure.

I'd hate to think of someone who got attacked while getting into their vehicle in a parking lot that had no security.. when the -might- have been able to fight off the attachker if they had their firearm handy

on the flip side.. the business's insurance company probably worries about a situation where a disgruntled employee gets fired and then retrieves a gun from his vehicle then comes in and starts .. uh.. creating liability lawsuits...

I don't see an easy 'in between' in that situation.. however i do believe i see some faulty logic.

It appears that business's believe that the mere presence of a firearm must somehow 'cause' a problem. if that was so.. a police station would be a VERY DANGEROUS place. You could counter argue that police are trained and have undrgone background checks.. etc... of course.. same goes for CCW holders.

I've never understood why the govt' can decide that a person is responsible and law abiding and allow them to carry a gun for self defense.. however, depending on what type of building they are in, that responsibility somehow diminishes???

Anyway.. just rambling.. and soapbox is kicked back to the center of the room..

soundguy

I guess what gets me in the entire discussion, is why do some of you think that your right to carry a gun (which I happen to agree with) supersedes the right of the property owner to determine what goes on at their property?

.

 

[Soundguy]

There is a subtle difference....the right to free speech, as well as to keep and bear arms, is in the Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence lists the right to Life as an inalienable right....one endowed by the Creator. By definition (and maybe what we're discussing now is just semantics) no one has any right, property rights notwithstanding, to strip anyone of that inalienable right.

My argument is predicated on that inalienable right...I maintain that requiring me to yield the primary means of defending my Life against one who would harm or take it is a violation of that inalienable right. I accept that others will not see the right to keep a firearm as a direct extension of that inalienable right to Life...that's just how I see it.

Interesting argument... I like it.. has some plausibility...

Let me know if it works for you! (wink )

Soundguy

 

[AlanB]

For the sake of discussion, if you would give me some lattitude.

Inalieanable right to defend yourself.

What if I decide that I will be defended by my German Shepard?

Does that give me the "right" to bring him with me everywhere?

I fully agree with the man that said to effect, your rights end where mine begin.

I guess, in turn, I would ask LMTC, what if you did not want something occuring at your business. Let's say ****. but that is in one of your employees definitions of "pursuit of happiness" or maybe it is in some whacko's "religion". Generally accepted no-go, but hey, there is always someone arguing something I think crazy in court.

Do you think he should be allowed to have **** on your property even though you disagree with it?

Not sure if I am making this too political for the forum or not, if so, I would hope that a Mod would erase it, and I will drop it. But I honestly do enjoy the "debate" of things here, with folks I respect.