2nd amendment V private comapny

[Busyman]

JP, stop being an arse.

Oh, you misunderstand me, I'm more than happy with the outcome.

Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Apparently can mean "You can have a gun locked in your car, unless your boss says you can't."

Like I said, home of the free my arse. They're deluding themselves.

Riiiight, you still never answered..

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?

I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.

[JPaul]

Oh, you misunderstand me, I'm more than happy with the outcome.

Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Apparently can mean "You can have a gun locked in your car, unless your boss says you can't."

Like I said, home of the free my arse. They're deluding themselves.

Riiiight, you still never answered..

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?

I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.

Perhaps you haven't read the thread.

I was the one arguing that they (companies) shouldn't be able to do it. Other people were saying that it was OK for them to do it.

Why would I answer a question which basically said "please provide evidence to support the case you are against". That's just mad talk.

Ask whypickonhim, who reckons they have a constitutional right. I have asked that someone post such a thing for me to read / consider. So far nothing has appeared.

[vidcc]

Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.

The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.

source

[JPaul]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

So you don't have an absolute right to bear arms, like people seem to suggest. However we also need to remember the following, from the same source.

The reader can easily see from the above that there are two (2) opposing approaches to the Second Amendment at work here. These two approaches are a debate over textual interpretation.

1. a collective approach (sometimes called a states' rights or militia-centric approach)

2. an individual approach (sometimes called an individual, fundamental, or personal rights approach)

The collective approach is more consistently favored by the courts, and involves an insistence that the founding fathers clearly intended a "well-regulated militia", not a bunch of individual Americans possessing weapons that could only be used today against their neighbors.

The individual approach is that the amendment guarantees the rights of people, otherwise the founding fathers would have said the rights of states. It is further argued that well-armed individuals can defend themselves better from crime, citing an estimated 2.5 million defensive gun usages (DGU) a year. Gun ownership is a personal freedom because you can determine your own fate, and this right is near the top of the list of fundamental freedoms.

That aside, in essence if the particular State has passed laws to allow the company to make such rules, then pas de problem. He broke the rules, he got sacked.

[Busyman]

Riiiight, you still never answered..

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?

I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.

Perhaps you haven't read the thread.

I was the one arguing that they (companies) shouldn't be able to do it. Other people were saying that it was OK for them to do it.

Why would I answer a question which basically said "please provide evidence to support the case you are against". That's just mad talk.

Ask whypickonhim, who reckons they have a constitutional right. I have asked that someone post such a thing for me to read / consider. So far nothing has appeared.

Of course I have.

You think a company can't have ANY rules unless it passes legislation.

Also, with your level of thinking the gentlemen should be able bring his gun into the office and keep in his cubicle..........'cause he can bear arms. For that matter he can wear it on his hip.

Also, with your level of thinking, with the right to bear arms, there should be no gun control or guidelines...just the right.

[vidcc]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

So you don't have an absolute right to bear arms, like people seem to suggest. However we also need to remember the following, from the same source.

It is disputed as many things are with regards to liberties and the constitution.

[JPaul]

Riiiight, you still never answered..


I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.

Perhaps you haven't read the thread.

I was the one arguing that they (companies) shouldn't be able to do it. Other people were saying that it was OK for them to do it.

Why would I answer a question which basically said "please provide evidence to support the case you are against". That's just mad talk.

Ask whypickonhim, who reckons they have a constitutional right. I have asked that someone post such a thing for me to read / consider. So far nothing has appeared.

Of course I have.

You think a company can't have ANY rules unless it passes legislation.

Also, with your level of thinking the gentlemen should be able bring his gun into the office and keep in his cubicle..........'cause he can bear arms. For that matter he can wear it on his hip.

Also, with your level of thinking, with the right to bear arms, there should be no gun control or guidelines...just the right.

No.

I think companies can have rules which relate to your ability to do your job. e.g. In some cases that may mean a dress code, in others it wouldn't.

I don't think he should have a gun at all, however I was under the impression that he had an absolute constitutional right to it. I was always given that impression. Now it has been pointed out to me that is not the case.

I therefore think that, if relevant State legislation permits them to have such a rule, then they are entitled to do so. One assumes that it would be a health and safety thing. If he then breaks it, they can sack him and obviously did. I don't see his defence against this.

I was taking part in a discussion on "constitutional right" v "company rules". It transpires there was no such issue, you don't have such a constitutional right. So I re-evaluate based on the new information (which vidcc provided).

[JPaul]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

So you don't have an absolute right to bear arms, like people seem to suggest. However we also need to remember the following, from the same source.

It is disputed as many things are with regards to liberties and the constitution.

Sorry, you're confusing me now.

Didn't you post

The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.

that seems quite clear. Your "right to bear arms" is not protected by your constitution. It's a matter for States, or local Governments to decide.

[vidcc]

It is disputed as many things are with regards to liberties and the constitution.

Sorry, you're confusing me now.

Didn't you post

The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.

that seems quite clear. Your "right to bear arms" is not protected by your constitution. It's a matter for States, or local Governments to decide.

It "seems" that way to me as well however not all agree.

your quote highlighted that there was disputed interpretation. The paragraph after your quote highlights this

Individual rights advocates, like the NRA, interpret the word "people" to mean citizens as individuals. Collective right advocates, like the HCI, interpret the word "people" to mean the collective body, as in the American people. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by individual rights advocates to mean the retention of personal firearms in the home, the free carrying of them elsewhere, and learning how to handle them. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by collective right advocates in the military sense that soldiers "bear" arms, civilians "carry" them, and society doesn't need citizen-soldiers since we have arsenals and public barracks in the form of police. The word "arms" is interpreted by individual rights advocates as anything suitable for militia or military purposes (the insurrectionist argument). The word "arms" is interpreted by collective right advocates as weapons suitable for hunting or self defense only. Each side seems to pick and choose whatever interpretive approach suits their purposes, but these are the most common interpretations. Hardy (1986) presents a nice word-by-word breakdown of the Second Amendment in terms of collective v. individual approaches, and argues for a hybrid, or dual purpose, approach

However the constitution is not just about guns and this case is a question of can you have your legally owned guns on private property and can a company dismiss you for breaking company policy. A policy that employees would have to sign agreement to.

In this case it isn't about the ability to do ones job. It is about safety. Anyone that believes a gun kept in a car is "secured" in my mind is being a little naive. I think it takes longer to blow ones nose than it does to gain access to a car. And there have been a few cases where people "arm up" in the heat of the moment.

Another part is common sense. It isn't impossible to park elsewhere if you feel you must have that gun in your car.

[JPaul]

Sorry, I'm causing confusion.

If the state in question has laws which allow the company to have such a ban.

If the company has the ban in force.

If he knowingly broke the ban.

If it's a sackable matter.

Then they have every right to sack him.

Based on what the link you provided shows, it's a "no brainer".

The important issue is whether the laws of the state allow this.

If however people are arguing that he did in fact have a constitutional right to own / bear the weapon but that the company was still entitled to sack him, then they are arguing that State law / company policy is more important than your constitution.

Which is what I find to be strange, particularly as I always thought you chaps held the constitution to be sacrosanct.