Employer superceding my 2A rights? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Employer superceding my 2A rights?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2010, 02:16 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 5,988
Liked 4782 Times on 2313 Posts
Likes Given: 1473

Default

You might consider calmly asking your HR department why these signs have been put up. Most likely they'll say something about "making employees feel safe". You can then present them with statistics showing that an armed populace is a polite populace, and that you feel distinctly unsafe as a result of these signs. You might also ask if they have consulted with their attorneys to determine their liability if a criminal -- who won't be deterred by the signs -- does shoot up the place and no one is able to defend themselves. Remember to mention that the police do not exist to protect people from harm.[/QUOTE]

BKT correctly explains the property rights issue, however, I DO NOT advise his suggestion of talking about this with your HR department. Your feelings are NOT going to change corporate policy and making them known WILL get you additional scrutiny at a minimum. There is nothing feel good HR folks like more than to feel good at the expense of the GUN NUT from the accounting department. Do not give them the chance. If you value your job and your safety, keep your mouth shut and your rosco well hiden.

Should you need it, it's use MAY cost you your job but it absence could cost you a whole lot more.

TACK
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2010, 02:33 PM   #22
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
You might consider calmly asking your HR department why these signs have been put up. Most likely they'll say something about "making employees feel safe". You can then present them with statistics showing that an armed populace is a polite populace, and that you feel distinctly unsafe as a result of these signs. You might also ask if they have consulted with their attorneys to determine their liability if a criminal -- who won't be deterred by the signs -- does shoot up the place and no one is able to defend themselves. Remember to mention that the police do not exist to protect people from harm.

BKT correctly explains the property rights issue, however, I DO NOT advise his suggestion of talking about this with your HR department. Your feelings are NOT going to change corporate policy and making them known WILL get you additional scrutiny at a minimum. There is nothing feel good HR folks like more than to feel good at the expense of the GUN NUT from the accounting department. Do not give them the chance. If you value your job and your safety, keep your mouth shut and your rosco well hiden.

Should you need it, it's use MAY cost you your job but it absence could cost you a whole lot more.

TACK
Well, you can do as you wish. If you carry in violation of their policy and you get caught, don't feel bad if you get fired.

If you try to talk to them, they might ask you if you're carrying or have a firearm in your car. If you're smart, you won't be carrying or have one in your car. At least, not on that day.

Tack's probably right that you're not going to reach someone who bases their decisions on emotion rather than rational thought. But it may be that HR doesn't really have a vested interest one way or another on the issue of banning lawfully-carried firearms; they may be bending to the whim of one brain-donor in the department.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 08:22 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
The Bill of Rights is an acknowledgment that individuals have certain rights and a guarantee that the Federal government will not step on those rights. While many of the first 10 amendments have been incorporated against state governments, 2A has not (I'm not counting the 9th Circuit Court's decision because it is the most overturned court in the country).

These rights do NOT apply to personal property. You cannot come onto my front lawn or wander into my living room and rant about your personal ideological beliefs with a megaphone. I have the right to kick you off my land and this isn't an abridgment of your rights. The same goes for 2A. As irrational as these clowns are who post "No Weapons Zone" signs at businesses, they are not stepping on your rights when they do.

You might consider calmly asking your HR department why these signs have been put up. Most likely they'll say something about "making employees feel safe". You can then present them with statistics showing that an armed populace is a polite populace, and that you feel distinctly unsafe as a result of these signs. You might also ask if they have consulted with their attorneys to determine their liability if a criminal -- who won't be deterred by the signs -- does shoot up the place and no one is able to defend themselves. Remember to mention that the police do not exist to protect people from harm.
I agree with most,but strongly disagree with some-of your post.

First,I agree totally that people dont have the right to do whatever they want on your property.While I believe corporations are different-your front lawn or your living room are definitely 'private property' where YOU and YOU ALONE have dominion.

Your last paragraph is definitely the most excellent thing I've read on this topic.

But to my objections-The point that the Bill of Rights only applies to limit the federal government,is I believe-a misconception.

The Bill of Rights,being part of the Constitution,falls under the Supremacy Clause,which clearly sets the Constitution and its Amendments as the Supreme Law of The Land,which ALL government must abide.

I find it interesting that the 'incorporation' of the Second is what you say is necessary to actually make government abide the Second on all levels besides the Federal level.
Correct me if I'm wrong,but isnt the 'incorporation' thing a 14th Amendment issue?

After reading that illuminating information you turned me on to about the 14th,why should we now assume to go along with government when it creates an abstract mockery of the actual power of the Constitution by denying its applicability to all levels of government within the Republic by claiming that the 14th amendment is the only way to 'incorporate' a part of the Constitution which is already supported in its authority over ALL governments within the jurisdiction of the Republic by the Supremacy Clause?

Doesn't this sort of back-door the actual authority of the Constitution,almost like giving the government the ability to re-ratify the amendments?
And to choose which laws it wants to obey and at which level it wants to obey them,when the Constitution itself already asserts that it is to be the 'Supreme Law'?

14th amendment?

We don' need no stinkin' 14th amendment...........
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 06-01-2010 at 08:27 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 09:51 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WannaGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 357
Default

It is your choice to carry or not.

You can be fired because of some stupid company policy.

In the end it all boils down to is it better to be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

__________________

"True Happiness is a warm .357,.45 ACP,.38 Special,.410 or a 12 gauge & a cold Sun Drop." ME

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
(Benjamin Franklin)

'God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal'." (Ann Coulter)

" Praise The Lord but Polly pass the Ammo"( Unknown)

"The 1st one through the door gets the copper coated candy." ( Andy the gunshop owner from "Dawn of the Dead")

WannaGator is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 10:58 PM   #25
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
But to my objections-The point that the Bill of Rights only applies to limit the federal government,is I believe-a misconception.

The Bill of Rights,being part of the Constitution,falls under the Supremacy Clause,which clearly sets the Constitution and its Amendments as the Supreme Law of The Land,which ALL government must abide.
While I agree completely in principle, the actual intent of the Framers and the view of the courts is different. The objective of the BoR was to limit the Federal government, not state governments.

To provide support to that position, I would ask why some but not all of the amendments in the BoR have been incorporated against the states? If the BoR automatically applied equally to all states, there would be no reason for incorporation in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
I find it interesting that the 'incorporation' of the Second is what you say is necessary to actually make government abide the Second on all levels besides the Federal level.
Correct me if I'm wrong,but isnt the 'incorporation' thing a 14th Amendment issue?
No, it isn't. 14A calls for equal application of the law at a particular level and within a particular jurisdiction. Think about it. If a crazy b@stard plans and carries out a heinous murder campaign of a bunch of grade school kids in Texas, he's liable to have a date with Mr. Needle at some point. If he does the very same thing in New York, he'll never be put to death. That's because states, not the Federal government, determine punishments for crimes outside those defined by the Constitution. Presumably, everyone who does such an act in Texas will be treated the same way in Texas, and everyone who does such an act in New York will be treated the same way in New York.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
After reading that illuminating information you turned me on to about the 14th,why should we now assume to go along with government when it creates an abstract mockery of the actual power of the Constitution by denying its applicability to all levels of government within the Republic by claiming that the 14th amendment is the only way to 'incorporate' a part of the Constitution which is already supported in its authority over ALL governments within the jurisdiction of the Republic by the Supremacy Clause?
There's a lot to deal with in that question.

First and foremost: the Constitution applies not to states but to the Federal Government. Its purpose is to establish the bounds within which a central government must operate. It in no way applies to states except in areas where specific responsibilities are assigned to the Federal government and thus denied to state governments (eg: signing treaties).

Second, the Supremacy Clause pertains to the Federal Government. No Federal law may be made that supersedes the Constitution. No treaty may be signed that supersedes the Constitution. The only way to circumvent what is in the Constitution is to choose one of two ways to amend it.

Finally, how (or whether) you react to the knowledge that 14A was never legitimately ratified and thus acknowledge that we've largely been living a farce is up to each individual. For day-to-day activities, it hasn't been downright tyrannical, so you may be content as things are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
Doesn't this sort of back-door the actual authority of the Constitution,almost like giving the government the ability to re-ratify the amendments?
Or ignore them entirely?

Yeah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
And to choose which laws it wants to obey and at which level it wants to obey them,when the Constitution itself already asserts that it is to be the 'Supreme Law'?

14th amendment?

We don' need no stinkin' 14th amendment...........
Read Article IV Section 4 in the context of the illegal alien problem. Here we have a clear-cut, unambiguous mandate from the highest law of the land, and still the Federal government ignores it.

They selectively enforce the law. May we selectively obey it? Lotsa luck....
__________________

Last edited by bkt; 06-01-2010 at 11:04 PM.
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 11:27 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Of course,the history of the Bill of Rights is very valid,as the document was written and ratified in response to the Federal Governments' growth in power from the Articles of the Confederacy to the adoption of the Constitution.

But it is a part of the Constitution.

Lets look at the Supremacy Clause for a minute.

Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I'm sure its a given that we both understand -not to mention I'm sure the other forum members understand- that the Supremacy Clause does NOT give credibility to just any law the feds make-the law has to be in line with the Constitution,and that being said,we have this-

Quote:
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That doesnt mean that the law of the state and local governments arent likewise bound to obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well?
That doesnt basically spell out that the government both state and local,as well as federal-are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Law?
That federal,state,and local laws must not contradict the Supreme Law?
That judges are bound to rule in accordance with the law?

Of course-even if we here agreed on this as valid,its not like anyone in government will ever bow to the limits placed on their seemingly ever growing power..........
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2010, 11:59 PM   #27
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

In the context of the Constitution, the words "the United States" is analogous to "the Federal Government". It was not meant to apply to all state and local governments and the Federal government as one homogeneous entity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
That doesnt mean that the law of the state and local governments arent likewise bound to obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well?
Only in the context of what the Federal government is mandated to do and the state governments are prevented from doing. It originally did NOT mean that state governments could not ban speech, establish state religions, etc.

I know that sounds nuts, but it's the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
That doesnt basically spell out that the government both state and local,as well as federal-are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Law?
Again, only in the context of the Constitution. The jurisdiction and nature of a legal issue determine the role the Constitution may or may not play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
That federal,state,and local laws must not contradict the Supreme Law?
As Obama is fond of pointing out, the Constitution is a list of negative liberties outlining what the Federal government must do and may not do. It does not determine what state governments must do except on issues where the Federal government has authority.

In regard to the Bill of Rights, no special authority was granted to the Federal government to enforce it against state governments. Not, that is, until the SCOTUS began incorporating various parts of it against states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
That judges are bound to rule in accordance with the law?
Of course they are. But they must understand state and local law and jurisdiction, not just the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
Of course-even if we here agreed on this as valid,its not like anyone in government will ever bow to the limits placed on their seemingly ever growing power..........
True enough. The question is this, then: who holds the real power...The government or the people? Clearly, it is the people who are not dependent on the government who hold the power. Whether or not they have the balls to do something about the problem is another matter.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 12:26 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

It does sound nuts-especially the part about Obama having any understanding of the Founding Documents beyond their use as sanitary napkins......



Now lets see him actually obey the list of negatives imposed on government.
According to his interpretation of the Constitution,the Commerce Clause gives him the authority to order us all to buy a product.......

He's a 'living document',big government proponent and a very bad example to use my new friend!


So the idea here is that the federal government was not given the authority to assert the Constitution on the states....I believe thats a part of the concept I have not considered.

And this is an important distinction-the federal government was originally given no police power to assert the Constitution.VERY important to note.

And your right about that,but am I correct in asserting that the courts -federal,state,and local- must abide by the Constitution while making their decisions and rulings,and that if the state governments aren't homogenized -which they should not be- under a broad federal police power to enforce the Constitution,then at least the Supremacy Clause must have some authority over the courts-or why did the founders write it the way they did,with the mention of judges and such?

Quote:
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby
So the feds originally did not have the police power to homogenize the states,but via 'incorporation' they now do,however originally the courts were bound -all courts,state,local,and federal- to obey and uphold the Constitution?

Is that correct?
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 09:34 PM   #29
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
So the idea here is that the federal government was not given the authority to assert the Constitution on the states....I believe thats a part of the concept I have not considered.
Sure. Most states' constitutions reasonably closely matched what was in the BoR anyway. And people (back then, anyway) had the power to bring about change in state governments or state laws relatively easily. So if something chafed them, they could fix it.

There was no need or desire to force state governments to do anything. A central government forcing states to do anything was a no-no, even if the intent and the law were good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
And this is an important distinction-the federal government was originally given no police power to assert the Constitution.VERY important to note.
If a state law stepped on the Federal government's toes and the case worked itself up to the Federal level, then yes, the Federal government (Judicial branch) could torpedo the state law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
And your right about that,but am I correct in asserting that the courts -federal,state,and local- must abide by the Constitution while making their decisions and rulings,and that if the state governments aren't homogenized -which they should not be- under a broad federal police power to enforce the Constitution,then at least the Supremacy Clause must have some authority over the courts-or why did the founders write it the way they did,with the mention of judges and such?
The potential for contention between states was high. The objective was to have a Federal constitution that could loosely bind the states together to remain independent but play nice together. By force, if necessary.

All courts must abide by the Constitution if the matter is a constitutional one. If it's a local one, then no, the Constitution doesn't enter into it. The Federal government does not ban semi-auto handguns, but some locales do. Since 2A has not yet been incorporated against the states (and their subordinate governments), it is legal for there to be a ban on semi-autos in some places.

Hopefully, McDonald v. Chicago will change all that for the better and I can get my Sig without asking permission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
So the feds originally did not have the police power to homogenize the states,but via 'incorporation' they now do,however originally the courts were bound -all courts,state,local,and federal- to obey and uphold the Constitution?
The equal-protection bit of 14A is the precedent for the incorporation theory. Some amendments and some parts of other amendments have been incorporated from the Federal level on down. Other amendments have not been incorporated.

For example, it is illegal for a municipal government to ban your blog because they don't like what you're saying (assuming you're not libeling anyone). It isn't that the Feds have 'police powers' to ensure that local town councils aren't making unconstitutional laws. It just means that in the event someone has a claim of an unconstitutional law, it could theoretically escalate all the way to the SCOTUS, and if the problem falls within the body of the Constitution or an incorporated amendment, the Feds should rule according to the Constitution and not according to local precedent.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:15 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Focusing specifically on the McDonald v. Chicago case as an example for my logic,that case is supposed to 'build' on the Heller vs. DC case.

I'm not a big fan of the Heller ruling.

In it,the majority opinion writes that the government may 'reasonably regulate' the right to keep an bear arms.
I strongly disagree with this,as 'reasonable regulation' is not the same as respecting 'shall not be infringed'.

I assert instead that the Second Amendment,like all the other individual rights we are inalienably endowed with by our creator,of which some are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights and others are not,are only subject to the limitation of the rights of others.The government is there only to act as an arbitrator when disputes arise.
It is NOT there to place what it or a majority might deem as 'reasonable regulations' on our rights.

Now,that being said-I still assert that the courts must apply the Constitution - and your right again- when an issue of constitutionality comes up.

This means our right to keep and bear arms.

I personally hold that by virtue of the Second Amendment and the authority of the Constitution as defined by the Supremacy Clause,that the Second Amendment is the highest law of the land and should be referred to in all court dealings in every court in this nation when it comes to the issue of a citizens arms.

This means we shouldnt need the Heller case or the McDonald case.

And we certainly dont need them re-defining the Second Amendment into a permission to enact 'reasonable regulation' where there is absolutely no intent as prescribed by the law -the Second Amendment- which DOES NOT say 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable government regulation'.....that law instead demands that government may not infringe on its object.

I recall the argument pre-heller about the Second and its militia preamble being a permission to 'regulate' -or control- arms and that the Second was a 'collective right'-we've recently rehashed this subject here in another post,needles to say the preamble to the Second Amendment gives government no power nor does it diminish government power,its legally 'neutral',so the operative law,the part of the law that has to be considered as having authority,reads-"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.

I believe our courts are not and have not obeyed this law for decades,and this new excersize in declaring an obviously individual right as such and then declaring that that right is somehow subject to 'reasonable regulation' is total trash.

Anyhow,the conclusion I'm coming to is that the courts must obey the Constitution when the issue at hand is a constitutional issue,they must all act in compliance of the law that denies government the authority to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms,thus making the law relevant in relation to all forms of government from local to state to federal,because if a law that is unconstitutional is challenged in court the court must err on the side of the Supreme Law.

Getting them to do that however is the trick.

Hopefully,something can be done to make sense of the Heller decision-the SCOTUS claimed that the Second was not 'unlimited' just as the First is not 'unlimited'-which in theory is very true.
None of our rights are 'unlimited' -our rights end where the next persons' rights begin- ,but the differences between the limitations on our First Amendment rights and the right to bear arms is that the first amendment is not regulated to the point of over 20,000 laws and with a specifically tasked federal agency to oversee its object.
In fact,its more in line with the idea that as long as we arent violating the rights of others by slandering or libeling them,we can pretty much say as we please.

I often wonder just what America would look like if the First Amendment was as 'reasonably regulated' as the Second Amendment is.

If there was a federal agency that oversaw the use of individual free speech,would we tolerate it?

P.S-by the way,you'll still need to ask permission for your pistol via a background check,which will produce paperwork that will be kept for the federal government in the care of the licensed dealer you do business with,and which serves as de-facto registration.
I wonder how we'd act if in order to shoot off our mouths-we'd need to have a background check and register our words.

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 06-02-2010 at 11:26 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Indications Your employer Offers National Health Care IGETEVEN The Club House 4 08-04-2009 10:59 PM
State Rights vs. Federal Rights, opaww Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 07-31-2009 08:47 PM
can my employer really do this? spittinfire The Club House 14 06-17-2009 06:49 PM
State employer scrutinizing gun buyers IowaCity Politics, Religion and Controversy 10 05-27-2009 01:20 PM
An EXcon for every Employer and Other Obama Programs BigO01 Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 10-11-2008 08:06 PM