Bill introduced to protect WA gun owners at work

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Dave Workman, Nov 30, 2011.

  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman
    Western Washington
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    Abiqua, Redcap, Gunner3456 and 11 others like this.
  2. DavinFelth

    DavinFelth
    Olympia
    Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    5
  3. mjbskwim

    mjbskwim
    Salmon,Idaho
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    11,763
    Likes Received:
    10,593
    This is a fence sitting issue.
    It does protect the rights of the people that are trying to protect themselves,so they can keep providing for their families

    But it does not protect the land owners rights.

    Maybe they need to section off a "gun owners" part of the parking lots.

    The restriction is mostly the fault of the insurance companies,I'm sure
     
  4. optiontrigger

    optiontrigger
    Snohomish County, WA
    Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    17
     
  5. spreck

    spreck
    bellingham
    Member

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    28
    ditto.........
     
  6. deen_ad

    deen_ad
    Vancouver, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    The Constitution protects property owners just the same as it protects gun owners.
     
    Redcap and (deleted member) like this.
  7. CharonPDX

    CharonPDX
    Portland, OR
    Active Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    214
    That's exactly the rub. Does an individual's right to keep and bear arms trump another individual's right to control the behavior of others on his or her property? (Although in this case, the second individual is actually a company.)

    I would argue that when the second individual is a corporation, the first individual's rights trump. No corporation should have more rights than an individual. But when the second is a person, they should trump. No person should be able to have THEIR property rights infringed in the name of a second person's rights. For the property of a person, if you don't like their rules, you stay off their property. For a corporation, sorry, a corporation is a legal construct and HAS NO RIGHTS. (Or, they shouldn't anyway.)
     
    DavinFelth, Buddhalux, Redcap and 3 others like this.
  8. pchewn

    pchewn
    Beaverton Oregon USA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    332
    Your right to bear arms is NOT INFRINGED if the company you CHOOSE to work for has a no-gun policy. You are allowed to CHOOSE another company for your employment.

    I am not in favor of forcing private property owners to accept firearms on their property.

    Before you know it, private companies will be REQUIRED to hire democrats. (oh, wait..... that already happened)
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  9. drew

    drew
    OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,050
    Likes Received:
    970
    The big issue correct most companies is liability. If they can't be held liable because you have a gun and park in their lot, many don't care.
     
  10. optiontrigger

    optiontrigger
    Snohomish County, WA
    Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    17

    I agree with you but you'll have to admit that most companies that have a no-firearms policy have a parking lot that is littered with "violations" since most employees don't, or won't admit to it for fear of termination because of the Catch-22 situation. If you work for one of these firms, from the hours you leave your house until the time you return, which could be after running errands or other pit stops, you're expected to be unarmed, which for me, could be around 18 hours.

    What if you're out and about on your day off and get called into work but you don't have time to drive home first due to distance or criticality of time? Under these conditions, a person whose job requires him to be on call certainly can't carry in case this happens. I don't like those odds. This bill would protect an individual from being terminated just because the firearm is locked in the car and out of sight and the employer found out about it.

    This is like the whole Starbucks issue that was in the news. People have been carrying concealed at Starbucks for as long as I can remember and the anti-2A people see some individuals open-carrying and they suddenly lose control of their bowels and feel threatened. Why do they think that no person standing next them at Starbucks, the supermarket, or bank, is carrying concealed? I see this as an advancement on our rights and not compromising, which is losing your rights to protect yourself on workdays.
     
  11. pchewn

    pchewn
    Beaverton Oregon USA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    332
    Well they can already fire you for ANY REASON or NO REASON AT ALL, so I guess the firearm policy is a moot point. (For AT WILL employment -- which is what all of the companies I have worked for operate under.)

    At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  12. hermannr

    hermannr
    Okanogan Highlands
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    873
    This bill does not infringe on private property rights, it insures them. Consider, yes, the parking lot is the business owners property...but the vehicle is your property, and you should be able to do as you please within your own property. This does not effect the Real property owners rights at all. If it is ok to bring your vehicle onto their parking lot, what business is it of theirs as to what your private proprty holds within it? Remember, your protection is only as to what is in that vehicle, I see no infringment on anyone's rights.

    Good idea IMHO.
     
  13. Grommit327

    Grommit327
    Buckley
    Active Member

    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    74
    This is my view on it...however I doubt there are enough employment positions in the US to satisfy all persons who carry on a regular basis. It's something that has me scratching my head since it was passed in Texas. Especially since I will be traveling in my personal car for work through shady areas in Tacoma in a regular basis starting in a couple months
     
  14. hermannr

    hermannr
    Okanogan Highlands
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    873
    It really doesn't matter what an employer allows, or does not allow at the work site, what matters is when you are NOT working, your private life is yours...you are not your employer's slave that you have to obey him like you would a nanny.
     
    Redcap and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page