Employer superceding my 2A rights? - Page 4
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Employer superceding my 2A rights?


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-03-2010, 05:28 AM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skullcrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio,Ohio
Posts: 10,949
Liked 18 Times on 12 Posts

Default

I now have a headache. Mainly because my eyes see punctuation, but no space.....

What I mean *ahem* is that the OP stated that his employer has stated that firearms are not allowed on their property. This has turned into a US Constitutional debate that has nothing to do with the original premise of the thread.

I can't quote the sections and articles of The Ohio Revised Code (state of residence of the OP), but I can tell you that Ohio is a "Right to Work" state. That means that an employee does not have to join any Union where they work, but it also means that the employer does not have to have a reason for dismissal. "For Cause" is the blanket statement the employers use, and proof of any unjust reason is the burdon of the employee. Now, the unjust causes include any descriminaiton based on age, race, gender, religion, creed...we know the rest. There is no clause for, "I asked about having a gun on property and it freaked out the HR Director who is a total firearm fearing freak who says it was taken as a threat." It would not matter if a gun was present or not. "For Cause."

From one Ohioan to another, if it is safe or feasable to park off property in the public "right-of-way" and you have CC, then park on the street and conceal your gun. If that is not an option, then obey your employer's wishes and keep your eyes open. Have a plan of evade and live to fight another day if something were to ever happen. Escape routes, safety areas, other forms of defense, befriend fellow self-defenders...basically look out for yourself. Understand and accept that it is not your job to be the saviour of your fellow employees, it is your job to earn a living and return to your family and loved ones daily for the rest of your life.

As far as fighting the Ohio Revised Code and making it a Supreme Court fight is not cheap or quick. I would like to think I could ride out such a storm, but that ride is best handled with baby steps. I'm just saying, and I am saying that about this whole post.
__________________
From C3Shooter:
Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
...without the Second, we cannot protect the rest!

Last edited by skullcrusher; 06-03-2010 at 05:56 AM.
skullcrusher is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 08:45 AM   #32
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

Josh, any time subjective terms like "reasonable" are introduced into legislation or a court ruling, all bets are off; someone at some time will screw with your rights by applying their definition of "reasonable".

We could go 'round for some time arguing whether or not the Framers intended that Joe Sixpack should be permitted to keep a tactical nuke in his garage, but we have strayed far enough from the original intent of this thread.

Hopefully, MacDonald v. Chicago will go a long way to eliminating onerous gun control laws at the state and municipal levels.

Skull, you're right. Sorry for hijacking the thread.
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 08:23 PM   #33
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
Josh, any time subjective terms like "reasonable" are introduced into legislation or a court ruling, all bets are off; someone at some time will screw with your rights by applying their definition of "reasonable".

We could go 'round for some time arguing whether or not the Framers intended that Joe Sixpack should be permitted to keep a tactical nuke in his garage, but we have strayed far enough from the original intent of this thread.

Hopefully, MacDonald v. Chicago will go a long way to eliminating onerous gun control laws at the state and municipal levels.

Skull, you're right. Sorry for hijacking the thread.
Yeah sorry.

I got carried away.

The tactical nuke thing is a straw man hoplophobic fantasy,but I'll save that for a relevant post.
__________________
"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 06-05-2010, 02:47 AM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5012 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
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.
Getting fired for breaking company policy IS a risk I'm willing to take.

Getting killed for following company policy IS NOT.

Life is about making the decisions you need to make and living with the consequences.

TACK
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 06:09 PM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Following Tackleberry1's line of thought-a good idea would be a really small -tiny- carry piece like those KelTec's.

I've been looking into one for my girlfreind-I see they have these pocket clips that you can put on the frame,you could be wearing one of those without any notice on the most physical of jobs,I'll bet.
__________________
"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
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



Newest Threads