Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on August 17, 2005, 11:20:48 AM
-
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/2/94436.shtml
Maybe it's just me, but I think the NRA is out of line.
I don't see it has being any different than HTC's position that we have no 1st Amendment right to free speech here on this BBS.
Thoughts?
-
I thought it was pretty common for companies to do this.
Prolly just way to get in the news by the NRA.
-
Seems to me it is a very wise move by the NRA to get their point across.
I don`t see how it would be out of line.
A proposed boycott by the many NRA members is a sure fire way to get the point across.
-
I probably phrased that incorrectly. While I agree that it is completely within the NRA's right to boycott Conoco because they disagree with the policy, I also don't see this as being a 2nd Amendment issue.
-
It's a private company. You dont like the rules dont work there. Same thing with the companies that fire people for smoking. You dont like it dont work there. That is whats great about america.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
It's a private company. You dont like the rules dont work there. Same thing with the companies that fire people for smoking. You dont like it dont work there. That is whats great about america.
Yea....that and the fact we have the freedom to voice opinions and challenge issues put forth by wannabe tyrants trying to rule our lives. :)
-
The NRA is seeing the big picture. They feel that any law that outlaws firearms, their ownership, their transport, that it will open precedence to more restrictive laws where the end result is the ban of all firearms. Basically they feel it will lead to the demise of the Second Ammendment.
Kind of like the ACLU and its zeal in going after the seemingly littlest cases. They don't want to open the door to our civil rights being taken away.
Apples and oranges groups, but kind of how I see it.
-
Since you asked nicely, I'll fire a quick short burst.
The policy forces employees who LEGALLY carry a firearm to leave it at home when they leave for work. Since most people do other things and go other places on the way to work or on the way from work, it prevents them from carrying a weapon they are legally allowed to carry, not just inside the gates at work, but everywhere they go while going to or from work.
And of course, it is the stated position of the NRA, and shared by a lot of people who may or may not be members of the NRA, that laws and policies like this only prevent those obedient to such laws and policies from carrying weapons. They do not prevent those who already made a decision NOT to obey such laws and policies from doing anything.
Regardless of the intent of the originator of this thread, it will surely turn into 'just another gun thread".
-
LOL, we just need to wait for Beetle and Laz2 to show up.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, we just need to wait for Beetle and Laz2 to show up.
Beet is probably still awaiting the chopper to lift his auto down from the elevated villa. :)
-
I'm not sure what company regulations banning employees from having legal firearms in their cars in the parking lot does to keep anyone in the company safe. An angry employee will just drive home, retreive their tool of choice, come back, shoot/hack/slash/blow up the gate guards, then proceed to kill anyone they choose in the buildings. You gotta bet Al Queda is aware of how nul brained we in the west are to such things and like bending over for any butcher with a grudge while at work.
What I have not seen yet, or it's quickly setteled behind closed doors with a gag order, is the employees suing the corporation for disarming them and not being able to keep anyone alive when one determined person decides to kill everyone. Gag orders and money zips lips so efficiently in the U.S., and media knowledge of the actual settelment details.
Do any of you ever ask yourselves and your employer can you the company keep me alive if my co-worker suddenly decides to use the fire ax on me, or slip a pair of sissors between my ribs, or bash me over the head with a computer chair, or smuggle a firearm past the gate and shoot me? By the level of internet obnoxiousness some of our members communicate, I gotta wonder if they don't have co-workers with morbid fantasies.
The real reason companies/corporations do this is at the demand of their insurance underwriters and lawyers. We the People don't count on the bottom line. It raises the insurance costs of doing business in any state that passes a protection of the right to keep firearms laws in your car, anywhere, anytime.
Insurance companies can afford the numbers of wrongful deaths their statistics say will happen each year if companies ban wheapons and follow insurer requirments on their properties. They don't want to get into the complicated mess of suits that can result from employees defending themselves or from employees with hoplophobia.
Bottom lines are not compatible with constitutional rights or the right to defend your life while on company property.
-
How this started was long time employees were fired for having legal firearms in their cars. Not on the job. They were never warned and the new policy was a whim... No one was told they couldn't have.
firearms are not drugs or even cigs... the former are illegal and the later... well... there is no law against you having em in your car and no company so far as I know prohibits this.
Firearms are legal and they are a constitutional right and forcing someone to disarm is going way beyond a companies rights.
A boycot is simply an NRA ploy to hurt the company financially into relenting just as the insurance scam was the anti gun scam to get the company to change their policy because of financial considerations.
Just a showdown to see who can hurt the company the worst financialy and get their way...
lazs
-
Firearms are legal and they are a constitutional right and forcing someone to disarm is going way beyond a companies rights.
Well said!
Now I ask..... what if the employee has a second job as a volunteer sheriff's deputy, local part time law enforcement or armed guard and they are required to carry a duty weapon at all times? My neighbor is a Swat Team member for the local police dept. and is required to carry his m4a1 in his personal vehicle and a duty weapon on his person at all times. I say boycott the company.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Firearms are legal and they are a constitutional right and forcing someone to disarm is going way beyond a companies rights.
Do you believe it within the rights of HTC to withold our right to free speech?
-
This board is not a company we work at. Nor do we enter into the realm of property rights and self preservation.
HTC would be looked at as a private service provided at the expence of a private company to which you are a guest of the private company persuiant to it's rules of conduct while using it's private service.
If any of the rules or requirments for conduct on this board are not compatable with your sensabilities, stop visiting the board or readin its content.
Your hound can't hunt nor swim there sandman.
-
ROFL.
Saburo - I couldn't disappoint you, so...
Originally posted by lazs2
Firearms are legal and they are a constitutional right and forcing someone to disarm is going way beyond a companies rights.
I read the link, and it says that the company wants to stop people leaving guns in cars on the company's lots. It's their land, their property, and it seems reasonable that they can stipulate how that land is used.
So Lazs, don't get your knickers in a knot over this. I don't hear anyone squealing about "being disarmed" when they're not allowed to take a gun (or even a pen knife) on a passenger air service. Why should the Conoco parking lot be any different?
But I do have a question: WHY has the company taken this decision? Don't they know that more guns = less crime? Tsk-tsk Lazs, you really should try to promulgate your message more forcefully!
-
sandie and beet... I say that it is the right of the company to ask that yoiu not bring fireams to work on your person... It is a whole new matter to have them locked in the trunk of your car. even tho the parking lot is the companies.,.. the car is private property.
the insurance thing is a scam. you could park ten feet over and be legal and beyond the jurisdiction of the company and... if danger was the problem then there would be no difference.
Where I work we were told no firearms in our cars no matter what while we were working. even on the public streets parked.. they lost that one.
What is going on is that it is a matter of convienience for people... they take the guns to the range during hunting season and don't want to drive what might be hours out of the way simply because of a company policy and... if it is legal for them to have a gun in their possesion... the company is effectively disarming them going to and from work.
I would love to see the NRA sponsor some lawsuits against cities and states and now companies who had gun bans or restrictions..
The suit would be.. If someone who had or wanted a gun was denied that gun and was injured by a criminal and it could be proven that he wouldn't have been if he had been armed.... get the idea? pain and suffering and civil rights and all that crap the left uses....
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What is going on is that it is a matter of convienience for people... they take the guns to the range during hunting season and don't want to drive what might be hours out of the way simply because of a company policy and... if it is legal for them to have a gun in their possesion... the company is effectively disarming them going to and from work.
Perhaps the company takes the view that if people want to carry guns in their cars, they can still drive to work, but may not park on the company's property once they get there. I wouldn't have thought the company stipulates parking in a particular parking lot (theirs) as a condition of employment.
-
Beet,
You are splitting hairs about the private property.
In most states in the U.S. private property is constantly being argued in these terms due to police stops and searches of vehicals. The court in Oklahoma will have to decide the issue of a car as private property vs. a company demanding the greater right to dictate to it's employees what they can or cannot store in thier private property.
In Oklahoma firearms are legal tools. The interior of the employees cars are thier private property. It may even be private at the level of the castel doctrine. In the end, the private company may have to stop providing parking on their property for everyone. After all there becomes an opening for a class action suit of discrimination if they say car owners who store one class of legal tool in their car, cannot park on company property. But all other citizens can.
After all, in the U.S., because of our legal system, to discriminate against a group of law abiding citizens by a specific item or charateristic that is constiutionaly protected, can be argued legaly as discrimination against a civil right.
The ability to protect ones life is the most fundimental of all civil rights. Remember, a corporation is not a citizen with civil rights. One thing american corporations really don't like getting into court over is civil rights. When they loose, all american corporations loose with them. Class action suits sprout out of the walls.......................
This will drag on, especially since Oklahoma is a state that strongly beleives in the 2nd amendment and the fundimental right of protecting ones life and property.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Beet,
You are splitting hairs about the private property.
Bustr
What I said was quite simple. Conoco is entitled to stipulate conditions for how its land is used. If the gun carrying employees want to leave their guns in the vehicle, they can do it - provided they don't park on Conoco property. At least that's how I read it. As a matter of fact, I don't think that being granted a parking space in the parking lot of one's employer is mentioned in the US constitution as a constitutional right, so Conoco doesn't have to grant its employees a parking space at all, as well as being free to stipulate the T&C when it does.
As to WHY they did it - maybe they feel that their parking lot(s) is/are in a high risk location, and don't want to become implicated in a negligence suit.
-
I guess they have the right to say no guns on their property but do they have the right to search your car?
As for me... I will be glad to boycott their product and I will call/email/write them as to why I am.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess they have the right to say no guns on their property but do they have the right to search your car?
lazs
The military does it all the time and not just to service members, but anyone that enters or exits the base.
-
The police do it all the time too... that is not wallmart searching your car now is it?
So why can't they do that in the safeway parking lot? you are in their lot buying groceries... do they have the right to search your car for guns?
lazs
-
I'm not sure they can't if they choose to, but it would be a really bad business decision.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm not sure they can't if they choose to, but it would be a really bad business decision.
Bingo!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie and beet... I say that it is the right of the company to ask that yoiu not bring fireams to work on your person... It is a whole new matter to have them locked in the trunk of your car. even tho the parking lot is the companies.,.. the car is private property.
lazs
I couldnt agree more! :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess they have the right to say no guns on their property but do they have the right to search your car?
I suppose it depends on the justification for the search, and whether the grounds for "unusual" requests as a condition for entering the parking lot can be deemed reasonable. Obviously, if the company said that female drivers had to flash their b**bs as a condition of entering the parking lot, this would be deemed unreasonable! But a vehicle search as a security precaution does not seem unreasonable in this day and age, and Conoco would not even have to declare that it was guns they were looking for.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/2/94436.shtml
Maybe it's just me, but I think the NRA is out of line.
I don't see it has being any different than HTC's position that we have no 1st Amendment right to free speech here on this BBS.
Thoughts?
My shooting buddy (who introduced me to the sport) was involved in a shootout while working at a gas station in 1980. The perp, popped three rounds through the bottom of the BR glass (tray), one rounds grazed the side of his temple, leaving a permanent scar. My buddy drew the Nickel Plated Model 15, the perp was DOA. When the cops showed up my buddy was so shaken up, he was still squeezing the trigger repeatedly.
I know my buddy would agree with this boycott, having first hand "experience" of this type of event.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's their land, their property, and it seems reasonable that they can stipulate how that land is used.
I own a company. It is my land. I refuse to hire people based on their racial background.
Would you defend my right to dictate who I hire based on their race?
Two different rights granted by the Constitution of my country. The possesion of a firearm in their building is one thing. That firearm locked in your car is another.
I appreciate the fact that you are against gun ownership by the senseless masses, but you are not bound by the Constitution of the United States, as we are. Other wrongs (illegal searches, etc.) do not make this wrong OK.
-
Lazerus,
I assume your employment laws are along the lines of ours here - since about 1965, it has been illegal to discriminate against a job applicant on the grounds of race. I believe it's gone further than that in the US, with discrimination on the basis of gender and age also being unlawful.
But none of this has anything to do with the topic being discussed. Originally posted by Lazerus
Two different rights granted by the Constitution of my country. The possesion of a firearm in their building is one thing. That firearm locked in your car is another.
...and as I said before, I may not have read the US Constitution, but I'll bet you $10 that there's nothing in it which grants an employee the constitutional right to a parking space on his employer's property. That parking space is a privilege, not a right. And as a privilege, the owners of the land have the right to stipulate the terms and conditions under which that privilege will be granted. Don't like it? Park somewhere else. against gun ownership by the senseless masses
Indeed. Refer to Masherbrum's story. ^ I am of course referring to the perp, not Masherbrum's buddy.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
but I'll bet you $10 that there's nothing in it which grants an employee the constitutional right to a parking space on his employer's property. That parking space is a privilege, not a right. And as a privilege, the owners of the land have the right to stipulate the terms and conditions under which that privilege will be granted. Don't like it? Park somewhere else.
I don't like people of certain ethnic backgrounds that are employed by me parking in my company parking lot.
It's my property, I should be able to dictate which employees are able to park there.
-
A friend of mine who lives in the US is anti-gun. He realises that it's the right of some of his friends to own guns, but he has the right to choose who he invites to his home, and is within his rights to say you can't come in with a gun.
-
The difference is that he is not a company employing people.
I agree with what you are saying when it relates to the private sector.
Can you answer my scenario in my previous post?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
and is within his rights to say you can't come in with a gun.
As is the company's rights. Is your friend able to restrict friends from leaving guns in thier car when they park on his property to participate in the festivities?
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I don't like people of certain ethnic backgrounds that are employed by me parking in my company parking lot.
It's my property, I should be able to dictate which employees are able to park there.
Interesting point. And I think you'd have the law on your side if only because your employees' parking privileges are just that - privileges, not rights. But it's a whole different scenario from the topic being discussed. Is your friend able to restrict friends from leaving guns in thier car when they park on his property to participate in the festivities?
Sure he is - or would be. It's his house, his property, and he can invite who he likes. He can even choose not to invite someone purely because of how they look or how they dress. Someone who is not invited has no right to park on his property, and neither do those invited - but they might be allowed to as a courtesy.
A few years ago, I was working for a company that didn't have as many parking spaces available as the number of people who brought cars to work. They reserved the garage parking for female employees because the route to the public car park was down a dark lane - fear of muggings/molestations. No-one complained.