Gun zealots put Floridians at risk

[gemurdock]

I almost hate to say this, but I agree with the property rights angle.  I don't want government telling me what I have to allow on my property.  They reach far enough into my life already. 

Ironically, we used the property rights angle to defeat a carry ban in the state legislature this past session.  A ban on carry in our casinos and racetracks was hidden in a big omnibus funding bill.  I testified in a judiciary committee hearing in favor of an amendment to strike the ban.  My angle was pretty much the standard "why gun control is silly."  But the president of the WVCDL, he had felt out some of the legislators prior to the hearing.  And the property rights angle was what won the day.  This would've been the first ban in state history (to our knowledge) where the legislature reached into private property to prohibit carry.  We fought hard against it because of the legislative precedent that would've been set.

While I see that this is a victory for gun owners, and I'm glad for the citizens of Florida, I generally dislike legislative intrusion into property rights.  Because it is a double-edged sword. 

Imagine the hypothetical, where the legislature MANDATES, under force of law, that you must allow flag-burning in your parking lot on first amendment grounds.  It'd be a lot harder to celebrate the advocacy of property rights infringement in that case, no?

What about pocket knives?  Can I (or my car) be searched to determine if you are "safe" on your own (publicly) accessible privete property from my Swiss Army knife?  What about underwear?  Does the employer or property owner have the right to declare whether or not you are permitted to wear underwear on "their" property?  Should they search YOU first? Can I videotape it and post it on YouTube?

Curious,
George

[keithm]

What about pocket knives?  Can I (or my car) be searched to determine if you are "safe" on your own (publicly) accessible privete property from my Swiss Army knife?  What about underwear?  Does the employer or property owner have the right to declare whether or not you are permitted to wear underwear on "their" property?  Should they search YOU first? Can I videotape it and post it on YouTube?

While this is clearly a straw man argument, I'll indulge it briefly.  Some employers do exactly that.  There are defense contractors that absolutely search your PERSON let alone your car.  And, since we live in a free country, those employees are not forced to work for that employer.  They can always seek employment somewhere else. 

The thing everyone seems to forget, is that where these searches are conducted, the employee has agreed to the searches as a condition of employment.  No one was coerced or forced to enter into that agreement at (ironically) gunpoint.  Friends of mine in defense agreed to those conditions as well.  Years ago, when I was working with sensitive materials, I also agreed to those conditions.  I didn't have to.  No one forced me to agree to them.  With (at the time) 4.5 % unemployment, I could've worked about anywhere I wanted. 

And as for the youtube comment, I fail to see how acting like a smartass brings any value to the discussion.

[gemurdock]

I was attempting to illlustrate the absurd by being absurd.  But try this:  Can you search for a crucifix worn concealed?  Why not? How about trying to bar a woman wearing a burka from your place of employment? Why is the second ammendment less than the first?  Why can you discriminate against me on the basis that I am exercising my inalienable second amendment rights, when you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
I am an absolute believer in private property, but that right begins with my person, and extends to my car and other personal property.  If you want to make the case that a property owner can set standards for access to their property, I completely support you.  But I expect it to be an equally enforced right.  I have also worked in defense environments where you were subject to search for weapons, and I now refuse to do any more work for the government for just exactly that reason.

[Hazcat]

Keithm,

Why should it be OK to force me to choose between my basic right of self defense or employment?

[jaybet]

Cry me a river, fellers. I can't carry a gun in my car unless it's in a box with the ammo in a separate part of the car and I have to be on the way or coming from a licensed range or FFL. Keep fighting though...maybe you'll eventually make it better for everyone.

[Sponsor]

[keithm]

Keithm,

Why should it be OK to force me to choose between my basic right of self defense or employment?

Oh, I'm not saying it's "ok" to do that.  Far from it.  The delineation you're missing though would require me to rephrase your question.  "Why should it be ok to force me to choose between my basic right of self defense at the company you own." 

Are you legally prohibited from working elsewhere?  Are you legally required to work for our hypothetical employer?

Keep in mind  that I'm playing devil's advocate here.  I don't condone businesses posting their property nor disarming their employees.  Though, I support their RIGHT to do so.  It's like free speech.  I consider some free speech deplorable.  But I support the right to speak it.  Likewise, I believe in property rights.  I believe that it is my right to control what happens on my property.  Anyone who disagrees with my policies is free to be somewhere else.

[ismram]

Cry me a river, fellers. I can't carry a gun in my car unless it's in a box with the ammo in a separate part of the car and I have to be on the way or coming from a licensed range or FFL. Keep fighting though...maybe you'll eventually make it better for everyone.

Jay, We are only talking about gun rights in this country! ( You live in New Jersey!) 

[Hazcat]

Kiethm,

I realized the 'devils advocate' stance from the beginning.  It makes for lively and thought provoking discussions.

OK, you say your property.  I will (for the moment) concede the point if you are strictly a private business (no public contact on premises).  But how about a public venues such as a mall or other business with a parking lot used by both the public and the employees.  A grocery store would be another example.  Or how about I am using my conveyance to deliver your product for which I receive no specific remuneration?

 Are you in these cases allowed to state that I cannot have a gun locked in my car on your property or while delivering your product?

[keithm]

I was attempting to illlustrate the absurd by being absurd.  But try this:  Can you search for a crucifix worn concealed?  Why not? How about trying to bar a woman wearing a burka from your place of employment?

Indeed, why not?  You advocate the state reaching into private property.  So would you advocate laws prohibiting the wearing or display of crucifixes because it might offend a muslim, a jew, a bhuddist?  You're opening that can of worms.  This is my point.  You're just failing to see the other edge of the blade.  I think intentionally.

Why is the second ammendment less than the first?  Why can you discriminate against me on the basis that I am exercising my inalienable second amendment rights, when you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

At no point have I claimed that one is better than the other.  I feel, that on my property, I should be able to discriminate for whatever reason I see fit.  No blue shirts allowed.  No purple hair allowed.  No <whatever arbitrary qualifier here> allowed.  Why?  Because it's MY property.  Not the governments.  It is a socialist government and society where the government owns and controls all private property.  You advocate such governmental control in this instance because you agree with it.  I feel it is shortsighted.  You may not agree so much with the next law the legislature passes concerning what you can, cannot, or must allow on your property.

I am an absolute believer in private property...

All evidence to the contrary....

but that right begins with my person, and extends to my car and other personal property.  If you want to make the case that a property owner can set standards for access to their property, I completely support you.  But I expect it to be an equally enforced right.

And this is where I must concede that I feel it is a "gray" area.  Yes, your car is indeed your property.  But it, and it's contents would (hypothetically, of course) be parked on my property.  Thus, the government is forcing someone, somewhere, to allow firearms on their property against their will. 

I have also worked in defense environments where you were subject to search for weapons, and I now refuse to do any more work for the government for just exactly that reason.

Then we have at least this in common.  Why wouldn't the choices we both made here be available to the residents of Florida?

[keithm]

Hazcat,

Very interesting hypotheticals.  I'm going to split your question and inject responses where appropriate.

OK, you say your property.  I will (for the moment) concede the point if you are strictly a private business (no public contact on premises).  But how about a public venues such as a mall or other business with a parking lot used by both the public and the employees.  A grocery store would be another example.

In these cases, I feel it is the property owner's right to set the policies about what is and is not acceptable on the property they own.  Likewise, I feel it is my (and your) right to choose employment and patronage (as a member of the public) elsewhere.  Isn't this the very reason we would complain about a ban?  States with bans on restaurants with ABC licenses for example.  Is that not private property?  Shouldn't the restaurant itself be able to set their own policies (as property owners) for their customers and employees?  And if we disagree, could we not eat somewhere else? 

Or how about I am using my conveyance to deliver your product for which I no specific remuneration?

This is a pretty interesting question in light of the Pizza Hut delivery guy who was recently fired for defending himself.  A decision by Pizza Hut that I vehemently disagree with.  However, it is my suspicion that the driver signed an agreement to not carry during the commission of his duties as a driver.  He could've chosen to work somewhere else.

As you and I can.