Zero guns allowed at work!!! What are your options??

[Darkpriest667]

Understood, but, when any “premises owner” is a public business which invites and solicits public entry, they should have a burden of protecting those they try to disarm, and should be liable for injuries/damages they cause, or faciitate, to those who do enter.

And, i ask again, which other basic enumerated RIGHT should be permitted to be denied ?

leVieux

Its your own job to protect yourself, not the property owner's job. If you're disarmed you walked in knowingly disarming yourself. That's called personal responsibility and making a choice.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Its your own job to protect yourself, not the property owner's job. If you're disarmed you walked in knowingly disarming yourself. That's called personal responsibility and making a choice.

And why I choose not to disarm.

I advocate for each to count the cost of their choice and be good with it.

While carrying past a 30.06/7 single is illegal, it is now only a Class-C as recognition of the questionable stance of a business to invade the privacy of their customers by inquiring about armed status and discriminating against them.

Concealed is concealed and I won't submit to a de facto verbal search by a business or other entity if at all avoidable.

As Davy Crockett said: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead."

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[Big Dipper]

Property rights are what we're talking about here. If I own property do I have the right to bar activity on it. The answer is yes.

Unless you're a public employee in which case the constitution should supercede any rules on government property as far as firearms, but Dell has a legit 30.05/30.06/30.07 sign on the building 2 and 1 and I respect it. I don't agree with their decision but I accept that it's their property and they can make the rules on their property.

Kind of like no shoes no shirt no service. Private property and business owners have rights too.

So just what right as a property owner allows you to impose your whims on what I have under my clothes and then expect me to self-police what I have based on those whims?

What if you don’t like obscene tattoos, religious amulets in my pocket, pocket knives, … any of which are unseen and not likely to offend any other visitors?

If you want to ”bar the activity“ you need to be in a position to identify it, not just expect your visitors to self-police!

Just to be clear, I have NO problem with “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or 30.07 restrictions.

 

[Darkpriest667]

So just what right as a property owner allows you to impose your whims on what I have under my clothes and then expect me to self-police what I have based on those whims?

What if you don’t like obscene tattoos, religious amulets in my pocket, pocket knives, … any of which are unseen and not likely to offend any other visitors?

If you want to ”bar the activity“ you need to be in a position to identify it, not just expect your visitors to self-police!

Just to be clear, I have NO problem with “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or 30.07 restrictions.

Its called pirvate property for a reason.

 

[Big Dipper]

Its called pirvate property for a reason.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about private property that was “open to the public”, not private property subject to invitation.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about private property that was “open to the public”, not private property subject to invitation.

Technically no private property is open to the public. It's that the property owner doesn't put physical barriers up stopping you from entering, although they are legally allowed to do so. See lots of corporate offices with fences and entry gates.

 

[Big Dipper]

.

 

[Lonesome Dove]

So just what right as a property owner allows you to impose your whims on what I have under my clothes and then expect me to self-police what I have based on those whims?

What if you don’t like obscene tattoos, religious amulets in my pocket, pocket knives, … any of which are unseen and not likely to offend any other visitors?

If you want to ”bar the activity“ you need to be in a position to identify it, not just expect your visitors to self-police!

Just to be clear, I have NO problem with “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or 30.07 restrictions.

Follow rules or be terminated.
Is what it comes down to. Places that set these rules sometimes use metal detectors for entrance and exit.
There are times in life when you just don't get to do everything you want to do. Only way around it is to leave that place of employment or get caught and get terminated and lose more than just your job. Believe it or Not!

 

[Axxe55]

This is but o9ne side of the argument, we do understand, ut don’t necessarily agree with your one-sided conclusion. Indeed, that is what this dispute is about.

Tell me, which other baic enumerated Constitutional RIGHT of visitors are “property owners” allowed to negate ?

We ask for some balance of these conflicting rights !

leVieux

Witin the confines of my property you rights are what i allow them to be don'like it then get your asss off my propertyproperty ower's rights trunp everthing

Sorry, I thought we were talking about private property that was “open to the public”, not private property subject to invitation.

Open to the public does not negate the fact that it's still private property

 

[seeker_two]

Witin the confines of my property you rights are what i allow them to be don'like it then get your asss off my propertyproperty ower's rights trunp everthing

Open to the public does not negate the fact that it's still private property

Put up a "NO NEGROS OR JEWS" sign in your store window....see how private your property is.....

 

[Axxe55]

Put up a "NO NEGROS OR JEWS" sign in your store window....see how private your property is.....

It's because there is a difference between constitutional rights and civil rights

 

[Big Dipper]

Follow rules or be terminated.
Is what it comes down to. Places that set these rules sometimes use metal detectors for entrance and exit.
There are times in life when you just don't get to do everything you want to do. Only way around it is to leave that place of employment or get caught and get terminated and lose more than just your job. Believe it or Not!

Witin the confines of my property you rights are what i allow them to be don'like it then get your asss off my propertyproperty ower's rights trunp everthing

Open to the public does not negate the fact that it's still private property

In regards to your comments and the OP, yes the terms of your contract with your employer override everything. If you work at a diamond mine and are required to have a strip search at the end of your shift, so be it.

I thought that the thread drift had gone to more generic limitations regarding places open to the public.

Yes, there are but two types of property; public and private. But there are, in my way of thinking, many gradations of both and, thus, limitations and requirements for both.

Roads and parks are both public property. Don’t try driving through a playground.

Parks and courts of law are both public property. You can fairly easily get away with using a bullhorn to shout “let’s go Brandon” in only one of them.

Similarly private property where the public is allowed to freely come and go with little if any limitation is clearly different than private property where “strangers” are automatically considered to be hostile.

Things on my person not visible at Sam’s Deli are NOT subject to his whims unless he is willing to verify (magnetometer and or strip search) that they are present. I also have a right to ”be secure in person”.

btw Axxe55 is the Bill of Rights a list constitutional rights or a civil rights?

 

[seeker_two]

It's because there is a difference between constitutional rights and civil rights

Remind me....which one is enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

 

[Lonesome Dove]

Secure in person will be over ridden in some cases. Nothing is absolute.

 

[candcallen]

 

[Cool 'Horn Luke]

If the employer bans guns, they should be 100% responsible for any and all injuries or deaths caused by violent criminal action that could have been prevented by an armed individual. There needs to be a balance between the rights of a business, and the rights of the employees, and the right to defend one's life is arguably more important than a business' right to make whatever assinine policies they want.

Personally - I've taken the approach of carrying despite policy. No law was broken, only a stupid company policy. Boss found out, said no carry, I carried anyway. Finding another job is easy, finding another life - not so much. Said boss had a conversation with a coworker about me carrying - coworker pointed out to him that he was SOL anyway if something happened. If I had to shoot someone, he was probably getting sued. If I got hurt because I wasn't carrying, he was getting sued. He hadn't looked at that angle. He dropped the issue at that point. Policy never changed, but he never said another word about it either.

Now, I wasn't working in an office - I worked out of my truck, and drove all over a large metropolitan area, dealing with the general public, at all damn hours of the day & night, and we dealt with cash and people's property, and we got to interact with the general crazies you'd find out and about.

Employers that ban guns think they're limiting their liability in lawsuits, or the policies are made by antigun people, period. There may be jobs where carrying a concealed firearm could be a detrement, they're few & far between. Stores, office jobs, warehouse jobs, schools, etc... most of those wouldn't be negatively impacted by someone carrying.

Businesses that are open to the public should likewise either assume 100% responsibility for the safety of patrons, or not be allowed to ban carry. "No guns" signs should likewise not have weight of law behind them.

There is not ONE legitimate reason that we must surrender our Constitutional rights just because of what our job is, or who we choose to work for.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

There is not ONE legitimate reason that we must surrender our Constitutional rights just because of what our job is, or who we choose to work for.

Welcome to the Forum!

 

[Geezer]

When I worked, corporate was no guns in the building. Our location was pretty lax on this because of our location. In our area, many people hunted and also owned guns for pleasure and protection.

I carried every day and no one knew it. I didn't want anyone to know that I carried. Co-workers would have been OK with it but, they didn't need to know. The manager carried on occasion but he would always tell people he was carrying.

 

[candcallen]

Welcome to the Forum!

Ok cam its you.

 

[rotor]

There will always be those that argue private property rights vs rights for self defense. If Texas eliminated 30.06/07 would the rights of property owners be decreased? They would still have the right to verbally ask you to leave if they knew you were carrying. Is it really necessary for a voting booth to not have a concealed carrier present? You get my point.