Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 68ZooM on April 09, 2008, 05:25:06 PM
-
Man o man i can see problems with this new law, heres the link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc)
-
oh boy, good thing I work at home. :rofl
-
The prison I work at tried to prevent us from being able to keep our personal weapons in our cars. Our Attorney General at the time told them they better not touch our guns.
-
I just read this and what a bunch of Hypocrisy....
"This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments," said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.
so where were these angry voices when ordinances were being passed outlawing smoking in bars and Restaurants and other retail establishments.
WTG Florida... Now just ban those pesky hurricaines...
-
Man o man i can see problems with this new law, heres the link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc)
In Louisiana its legal to keep your gun in your car and you don't have to have a license. So you are worrying about nothing.
-
If a business prevents you from being able to keep a gun in your car then they should be held responsible for anything that happens to you on your way to and from work.
-
If a business prevents you from being able to keep a gun in your car then they should be held responsible for anything that happens to you on your way to and from work.
Agreed.
It should be up to the property owners, but the accept full criminal and civil liability by denying you your ability to carry.
-
" Oh no, woe is me, the gubernment is givin folks the right to protect themselves in more places. Oh no everybody quick go hide, its going to be an all out shoot out, every man fer himself...run fer yer lives."
Hmmmpppffffff
friggin chicken little syndrome
Kudos to Florida :rock
Wolfy
-
A few officers had their guns confiscated in searches. And when the Attorney General told the prison they better be returned, the prison couldn't because they lost them. Needless to say a few officers got new guns. :lol
-
I don't get it. I used to take my gun to work every day...... :huh
-
I've mixed feelings about this. OK so you get to carry while on the way to and from work. But if guns then have to be kept in cars, I predict an increase in car break ins and rise in crimes like store hold ups.
Nice sig. Maverick! I'm glad that check did not get cashed.
-
Airscrew...I want my Avatar back please......Or I'm calling the cops!!!
-
I've mixed feelings about this. OK so you get to carry while on the way to and from work. But if guns then have to be kept in cars, I predict an increase in car break ins and rise in crimes like store hold ups.
Nice sig. Maverick! I'm glad that check did not get cashed.
Don't see that happening so much here in Louisiana.
-
Airscrew...I want my Avatar back please......Or I'm calling the cops!!!
Just as soon as I figure out who's I'm stealing next... :devil
-
Well yipee! I can finally take the ole sniper rifle out of the closet and take it to work and no one will look twice. Of course when the gangbangers smash my window and use it to commit a crime i will be heartbroken. Seems to me this is a good idea gone bad. If they can take them then they should also be required to make sure they are secure while out of there sight, I.E. trigger lock, small gun safe, ect. I'd be looking into how this law is worded a little more before i gave it a thumbs up vote.
-
Less time to go get the gun as you don't have to go home when someone pisses you off at work. :eek:
-
Well yipee! I can finally take the ole sniper rifle out of the closet and take it to work and no one will look twice. Of course when the gangbangers smash my window and use it to commit a crime i will be heartbroken. Seems to me this is a good idea gone bad. If they can take them then they should also be required to make sure they are secure while out of there sight, I.E. trigger lock, small gun safe, ect. I'd be looking into how this law is worded a little more before i gave it a thumbs up vote.
I doubt anyone will be taking a rifle, unless they were planning on doing some hunting after work. Most will be keeping handguns and more than likely they will be in the glove box or under the seat out of sight.
-
Most will be keeping handguns and more than likely they will be in the glove box or under the seat out of sight.
good idea, no one would think to look there ;)
-
Gun rack in the back window of my pickup most of my life! not sure i see a problem here :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
good idea, no one would think to look there ;)
Vulcan, I live in Louisiana where it IS legal to keep your gun in your car WITHOUT a license. Where do you think we keep them? I have never heard of anyone having thier car broken into just to steal a gun that the criminal doesn't know for sure is in there in the first place.
-
good idea, no one would think to look there ;)
:rofl
:aok
-
Man o man i can see problems with this new law, heres the link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc)
What problem??
The person cannot actually take their gun out of their car under this new law. It has to remain inside their vehicle.
Why should an employer have a right to force an employee to be disarmed when commuting to and from work???
A criminal could still come into a business and start shooting employees, and everyone inside the facility would be disarmed. They would have to run out to their car to retrieve their weapon.
.
-
A few officers had their guns confiscated in searches. And when the Attorney General told the prison they better be returned, the prison couldn't because they lost them. Needless to say a few officers got new guns. :lol
How on earth do handguns manage to get lost at a prison?
That is really scary when you think about it.
.
-
good idea, no one would think to look there ;)
Here where I live the police report that the leading cause of car break-ins is now people leaving their iPod in plain view inside the car.
Apparently thieves cannot pass up a free iPod.
Criminals rarely burglarize cars unless they can actually see something out in the open worth stealing.
.
-
Not sure why they had to pass a law to allow you to take your gun to work in your car. I don't see how employers ever had any right to tell you what you could or could not have in your car. It's different if you wanted to bring your M16 into the office, (when you ask for a raise :lol)
When I worked for IBM here, my friend brought in his rifle to show me in the car park one night. We were a bit discreet because we didn't want to scare anyone but there is no law, state or company that stopped us from having it there. In truth the idea probably never occurred to the bosses. Although there is such a rule in the US IBM facilities.
-
How on earth do handguns manage to get lost at a prison?
That is really scary when you think about it.
.
I doubt they were lost, I think some administrators got new toys. Us officers get searched more then the inmates, yet there are still more drugs in prison then the street. I once had my dictionary confiscated, which was used for writing reports. I was charged with bringing in reading material, guess they thought I'd be reading it instead of doing my job. Seems they lost that too when I won the appeal.
-
Why should an employer have a right to force an employee to be disarmed when commuting to and from work???
Well an employee has the right not to work for that employer if its a problem for them
Tronsky
-
when i worked at a florida car dealership half of us brought our guns into the business. Nobody thought it was a big deal. Some of you people worry way too much.
-
every single one of my employees is armed, even the cats have claws :aok
-
Out of curiousity, how is it in most states?
Don't think it's forbidden where I live, but that's another country. Although we have a ban on handguns and automatic rifles (bigger than .22), we have guns, and in the hunting season those are in cars, on the move, and all over the place.
Do they have to be locked in the trunk? And how do you move a gun from A to B anyway????
-
I carry mine in my pocket and when I'm in my truck it's on the center console
-
sheesh.. some of you guys are saying that an employer should have the right to tell you what you can have in your car? what about your home? I mean.. what is the difference?
The employer has the right in my opinion to tell you that on his property you can't be armed. Your car is not his property.
The insurance companies were behind this as a back door effort by democrats and gun grabbers. It was to the point that employers were telling hunters that they had no right to have a gun in their car during work hours even if it was parked on a public street.
If it is legal to have a gun in your car then the employer has no right to say otherwise. As was pointed out.. you do have the right to work elsewhere but.. you have the right to work elsewhere if he requires you to not wear clothes at work too or drive only one type of car. Or.. have a knife or tire iron in the car.
It is simply none of his business what is in your car so long as it is legal.
lazs
-
But if guns then have to be kept in cars, I predict an increase in car break ins and rise in crimes like store hold ups.
The law does not make it mandatory for you to leave a sign in the window stating you have a gun inside.
-
The law does not make it mandatory for you to leave a sign in the window stating you have a gun inside.
True, but criminals are going to know that there's a much higher chance of finding a gun inside a car, once the law is passed. It doesn't need a freaking sign. :rolleyes:
-
True, but criminals are going to know that there's a much higher chance of finding a gun inside a car, once the law is passed. It doesn't need a freaking sign. :rolleyes:
You mean like Louisiana has all the breakins since we can carry them around in our cars WITHOUT a license. :rolleyes:
Just say you are anti-gun and be done with it.
-
Bottom line: No person/business/property owner has the right to strip you of your constitutional rights.
Think just because you own a business you can strip a citizen of a basic constitutional right? Break amendment 13 and see just how tough you are. See you on CNN.
-
Parking on your employer's lot is a privilege. They don't HAVE to provide you with parking. If they're going to allow people to park on their property, seems reasonable that they can stipulate the conditions. It's the same deal with any public parking lot.
-
Anything in your car is your property, not that of the business.
What you're saying is since you're on their property, they can do anything they want. Including beating you if you don't do your job right, since they are kind enough to give you a job.
-
Nope.
The gun is in your car, the car is on their property, therefore the gun is on their property. And they have the right to say that you can't park on their lot with a gun in the car.
What you're saying is like saying, for example, that you are free to walk into a shopping mall gun free zone with a gun in your pocket because what's in your pocket is yours and does not belong to the shopping mall.
Can you imagine taking a gun on board a plane? "Yes, your honor. I admit to taking a gun on board the airliner, but the gun was in my pocket and it's none of the airline's business what I have in my pocket"
Big :rolleyes: to that.
-
We won a lawsuit against the State when they tried to prevent us from being able to keep a gun in our cars at the prison I work at. I'd like to see a business owner try to prevent me from keeping one in my car.
P.S. It really wasn't a lawsuit we won, so to speak. We filed the paperwork but dropped it once the State Attorney General saw it. He sided with us because he knew we would win if it went to trial. We saw no need to push it beyond not having our guns taken every time they searched our cars for drugs.
-
He may not be able to stop you keeping a gun in your car, but he sure as hell can pick and choose who he allows to park on his property.
-
Not in my State. If he tried that, I'd be the new owner.
-
The difference, Lazs, is that to stay on my property, you must obey my rules. If the employer owns the parking lot, he should be able to set the rules at his own discretion AND accept all the consequences of such.
-
bingo to laser ^
-
Nope.
The gun is in your car, the car is on their property, therefore the gun is on their property. And they have the right to say that you can't park on their lot with a gun in the car.
What you're saying is like saying, for example, that you are free to walk into a shopping mall gun free zone with a gun in your pocket because what's in your pocket is yours and does not belong to the shopping mall.
Can you imagine taking a gun on board a plane? "Yes, your honor. I admit to taking a gun on board the airliner, but the gun was in my pocket and it's none of the airline's business what I have in my pocket"
Big :rolleyes: to that.
Apples and oranges. There are federal laws against guns on planes, courthouses, banks, etc. These are places where there is a high likelyhood of a gun crime to occur. There are also trained/armed individuals present to protect the public in these situations. Even then, you can still have a gun waiting for you in your car when you leave the protection provided at these places.
Who is going to protect you from some thug on side of the road when you have a flat tire on your way home from work? You left your gun at home because some schmuck says "no guns on my property". Just hope you leave work before I do, because I don't care what any property owner says, I'm well armed. If I see you in trouble, I will gladly help out a fellow citizen.
-
Roundeye
We're not talking about at the side of the road or on the way home from work. We're talking about an employer's parking lot, or indeed any parking lot. And the owner of that lot is free to set the conditions upon which people use his property and park on his land, including banning the carriage of firearms in vehicles to be stored on his property.
Don't like it? Fine - park somewhere else. It really is that simple.
-
And the owner needs to be held responsible for the safety of the employee to and from work. If the employee is carjacked and killed going to work, then the family should be paid by the business owner for their loss since the owner prevented the employee from being able to defend himself.
And if the employee is not killed, then the business owner needs to pay for a new car, not the employees car insurance company.
-
Roundeye
We're not talking about at the side of the road or on the way home from work. We're talking about an employer's parking lot, or indeed any parking lot. And the owner of that lot is free to set the conditions upon which people use his property and park on his land, including banning the carriage of firearms in vehicles to be stored on his property.
Don't like it? Fine - park somewhere else. It really is that simple.
Most of the time, you do not have a choice. If you park in another lot, that property owner can have your car towed (legaly) and usually will if it is a small business which you are taking a space up and walking to another business. Or, it may be a mile or more to the next lot. Which leaves you to park on the road (getting towed also), or make an afternoon hike out of it.
So, your options are this: Leave your protection at home and throw yourself at the mercy of every thug out there, Park in another lot and possibly get your car towed, leave an hour early to allow hike time, or exercise your right (at least in my state) and go to just about anywhere armed. If you conceal properly, they won't know anyway.
You can chose to be another victim if you want, I don't.
-
True, but criminals are going to know that there's a much higher chance of finding a gun inside a car, once the law is passed. It doesn't need a freaking sign. :rolleyes:
The criminals for car break ins are also devout cowards for the most part also. Otherwise they would nut up and find a more lucrative form of crime.
This will mean for some and already is my state that Joe Crackhead going after the cellphone, music player or stereo for some quick rock exchange is going to question whether the guy pulling into the parking space next to his target or down the row also might have a gun. Bad news for Joe. The armed criminal will always have and has always had guns to ply their trade. This just allows the average citizen the opportunity to have an even break and the tools to defend against the ones who , up until this point, has had an easy path and been protected by laws that never applied to them. Criminals are not bound by laws.
I have never got a grip on the reasoning...or total lack of reasoning behind the fear of giving the law abiding citizen the tools to defend against the violent criminal. Why would someone wish to have the public at the mercy of gangers, dealers, robbers and so on?
The only ones who would have any need for fear of this would be the violent criminals themselves.
-
Basically, it's like this Napoleon:
I see your point, but do not agree with it as it would put me, my family and those I am obligated to protect in danger. As has been well stated, the criminals do not abide by the rules, laws and regulations set forth by any government, entity or individual. Banning citizens from being able to protect themselves places them at risk.
Take this parking lot thing for example. If I were a criminal and was wanting to score some easy loot/cash and stop at nothing to get it, I'm taking the path of least resistance.......like doing my evil deeds in a parking lot that bans firearms.
To prove my point, tell me how many people you have heard of being assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered in the parking lot of a gun store, firing range, gun club or NRA convention?
-
Basically, it's like this Napoleon:
I see your point, but do not agree with it as it would put me, my family and those I am obligated to protect in danger. As has been well stated, the criminals do not abide by the rules, laws and regulations set forth by any government, entity or individual. Banning citizens from being able to protect themselves places them at risk.
Take this parking lot thing for example. If I were a criminal and was wanting to score some easy loot/cash and stop at nothing to get it, I'm taking the path of least resistance.......like doing my evil deeds in a parking lot that bans firearms.
To prove my point, tell me how many people you have heard of being assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered in the parking lot of a gun store, firing range, gun club or NRA convention?
This is why a parking lot owner must accept all responsibilities for the rules he places on his land.
-
This is why a parking lot owner must accept all responsibilities for the rules he places on his land.
But see, here's the funny thing. They don't. Lot's of business's, including contractor's I have worked for in the past, have you sign a hold-harmless agreement in your prehire paperwork, wherein you don't hold said contractor responsible for damages to you or your vehicle whenever you are on their property (like the parking lot.) Which makes things' kind of a pain.
-
See Rule #7
-
so napolean.. If the employer had a "no cell phone" restriction.. could he tell you not to have a cell phone in your car in the parking lot? so what if you had an emergency or.. felt you might have an emergency that you needed one.. not his problem right? Don't like it? park somewhere else.
Not only that but.. in some cases the employer was saying no guns even if your car was parked on public streets..
Nope.. the NRA was and is right on this one. Your car and what is in it is none of your employers business. It is a very bad precident to set to allow every parking lot in the country the right to tell you what you can have in your car.
Do you feel that an employer should have the right to search your car at any time? even the police have rules on that.
lazs
-
The best I can get from it is that Nappy thinks that only the violent criminals should have firearms and that the every day guy and gal should not have the tools to defend themselves, their family, property and those around them.
We certainly wouldn`t want to give the law abiding citizens an even playing field. That would put a lot of the criminals in a bad position.
-
Probably the same number - zero - who get robbed raped or murdered in any of the (relatively) gun free countries I listed in my first post ^.
So you claim that no people get robbed raped or murdered in counrties that ban guns? I throw the BS flag on this one. Criminals will always find firearms no matter how/where you ban them. Gun crimes occur all over the planet, what changes are the people who are allowed to defend themselves, or are forced to become victims by a rule/law.
Apply your arguement to drugs......nobody has a drug problem in the US because drugs are illegal. :rolleyes:
Let me guess, you are a property owning Democrat, right?
-
Apply your arguement to drugs......nobody has a drug problem in the US because drugs are illegal. :rolleyes:
The war on drugs didn`t work? :confused:
-
If you go to nationmasters... http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
You will see that for all types of violent crime except homicide.. of which about 20% of our population (by race) commits about 60%....that the english speaking countries including england and America have about the same number.
That being said.. I think I would just as soon have a gun to defend myself in any of those countries. It is foolish to think that you are safe from violent crime in any country. You are fooling yourself. thumb up your butt and big stupid grin on your face.
If you look at the robberies per person you will see less in the US.. "manslaughters" the US is not even listed it is so low.. it is not safer to live in other countries.. even rapes is about the same even tho... again.. most rapes are commited by one small percent of the US population.. by race.
Burgalaries.. 3 times more likely in oz and twice as likely in england..
How safe do you guys feel now?
lazs
-
so napolean.. If the employer had a "no cell phone" restriction.. could he tell you not to have a cell phone in your car in the parking lot? so what if you had an emergency or.. felt you might have an emergency that you needed one.. not his problem right? Don't like it? park somewhere else.
Stretching the point a little lazs, but technically, yes - on the grounds that an employer is not compelled to offer parking facilities to his employees, and therefore can set the terms and conditions under which anyone parks on his land. He could refuse access to his parking facilities without giving any reason at all, come to that. It would be a different matter if employers had a legal obligation to provide parking for employees, or employees had a legal right to expect parking facilities to be provided by their employer. I do not know of the existence of any such laws. If you know different, post a link.
But going back to your cell phone example, airlines stipulate that you must turn off your cell phone when on board the aircraft. Do you think they would allow you to keep yours turned on, provided it was in your pocket, on the basis that what's in your pocket is none of their business? Good luck with that! :aok
Roundeye So you claim that no people get robbed raped or murdered in counrties that ban guns? I throw the BS flag on this one. Criminals will always find firearms no matter how/where you ban them. Gun crimes occur all over the planet, what changes are the people who are allowed to defend themselves, or are forced to become victims by a rule/law.
OK, my example was not perfect, but I'll bet a week's wages that gangbangery and all the evils that go with it (robberies, assaults, drugs, murders, gun crime, rapes) are much, MUCH worse in poor urban ghettos than in rural areas or small townships. I would also suggest that these problems are negligible in countries like Japan, where there are only about 20 homicides a year. Crime is also pretty much negligible in countries like Switzerland. Ah - I hear you say - that's because there are lots of guns in Switzerland. Possibly true, but that's not the reason for their low crime. If crime levels were inversely proportional to the number of guns in circulation, the US would be virtually crime free. It isn't. Go figure.
-
Roundeye OK, my example was not perfect, but I'll bet a week's wages that gangbangery and all the evils that go with it (robberies, assaults, drugs, murders, gun crime, rapes) are much, MUCH worse in poor urban ghettos than in rural areas or small townships. I would also suggest that these problems are negligible in countries like Japan, where there are only about 20 homicides a year. Crime is also pretty much negligible in countries like Switzerland. Ah - I hear you say - that's because there are lots of guns in Switzerland. Possibly true, but that's not the reason for their low crime. If crime levels were inversely proportional to the number of guns in circulation, the US would be virtually crime free. It isn't. Go figure.
The reason some countries have low crime rate is NOT because of guns being allowed or dis-allowed. It is the poeples mindset. This country has alot of criminals, therefore the people can choose to be victims, or defend themselves. I choose to defend myself. period.
As for an individual wishing me not to have a firearm in MY VEHICLE on his property...too bad. What he doesn't know won't hurt him and he has no legal right to find out. All he can do is suspect. Whats he going to do, break in and search it? At that point he would become a criminal himself. He can call the police, but they can do nothing, as (in my state) carrying a firearm in a vehicle with a permit is legal and they would not have probable cause to search it anyway as no CRIME has been commited or suspected to have. A gun-banner's rule about his property is not a law.
The ironic thing is this: If a workplace shooting erupted at his gun-banned business, the owner and everyone there would be hiding under a desk praying for it to end. An armed citizen could be the one to stop it. It's happened before.
You can choose to hide under a desk......I'm returning fire. I usually have one on me, but even if I had to escape and go to my car, I would return to put a stop to it. Vigalate, you say? No. It's basic human decency. There is no way I would run away knowing my friends and co-workers were being slaughtered like sheep when I have the means to stop it.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
napolean.. you are not making sense.. of course the example of the cell phone is a valid one and does not stretch the point at all.. you stretched it when you tried to make turning them off in a building the same as having one in your car.
The employer does not have to provide parking. ooops.. wait a minute.. in most cases he most certainly does. You need to look at his building permit. I doubt that they would have let him build without off street parking.
the law in question tho.. it covered employees even when parked on the street. I would be fine with a law that asked employees to keep their firearms secure and locked in their car. Or.. whatever the state they are in requires.. simple stuff really.
As for the crime rates.. You need to get your head out and go to the link I provided.. the countries you admire.. you are 2 to three times more likely to get burglarized in.. and when you do.. you are twice as likely to be home hiding, shivering under your bet with nothing but a cricket paddle for defense.. here.. it is rare to break into a mans home when it is occupied.. crooks fear guns in the hands of citizens.. study after study has shown that. you are just as likely to be raped in your "safe" countries and more likely to be assaulted.
I know it goes against what you "feel" should be the facts but.. the facts are the facts.
I know that you would not want employers to have the right to search your car at any time now would you?
the NRA was right on this one.. the ACLU was shivering under the bed on this one. There are some rights they don't want to protect.
Read the links.. think a little.. think it through.. and get back to me.
lazs
-
you are just as likely to be raped in your "safe" countries and more likely to be assaulted.
No mate, you are completely wrong there.
Read the links.. think a little.. think it through.. and get back to me.
Well post the links and I will.
-
Why is it starting to smell like yet another resurection of beetle? Getting real rank now.
-
Well post the links and I will.
Scroll up, he did. :)
-
True, but criminals are going to know that there's a much higher chance of finding a gun inside a car, once the law is passed. It doesn't need a freaking sign. :rolleyes:
As I have already pointed out, criminals just don't randomly break into cars.
Why would a criminal risk breaking a law and going to jail, without any indication that they are going to get any payoff??
Your argument makes no sense at all. The criminal would have to break into so many cars in order to find a gun, that they would be caught much more quickly.
.
-
The difference, Lazs, is that to stay on my property, you must obey my rules. If the employer owns the parking lot, he should be able to set the rules at his own discretion AND accept all the consequences of such.
Yes, but if the rules are unreasonable, that is another matter.
How else could such a rule be enforced, without violating a person's right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures??
For example, If they require you to be drug free, should they not then also have the right to search your home for drugs too?? At what point to you draw the line??
.
-
Roundeye
We're not talking about at the side of the road or on the way home from work. We're talking about an employer's parking lot, or indeed any parking lot. And the owner of that lot is free to set the conditions upon which people use his property and park on his land, including banning the carriage of firearms in vehicles to be stored on his property.
Don't like it? Fine - park somewhere else. It really is that simple.
That is not at all practical with a great many employers. So your position here is clearly untenable.
.
-
Yes, but if the rules are unreasonable, that is another matter.
How else could such a rule be enforced, without violating a person's right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures??
For example, If they require you to be drug free, should they not then also have the right to search your home for drugs too?? At what point to you draw the line??
.
When I worked in the oilfields, they would call us every once in a while to a meeting at the lease Admin. building after work. The admin building was an old school, and alot of the rooms' had only one door out. While we were in having some sort of safety seminar, they had security guards' searching cars' out in the parking lot with dogs, looking for some kind of narcotics.
This came to an abrupt end, when someone had to duck out of the class to do something. He saw someone going through his car. He came back into the room and told the rest of us about it. The guy running the class told us what it was-a drug search. We all went out, watched them finish, then left and went home.
We simply never went to another seminar, ever again(while I worked there.)
As I mentioned before, the employer had a hold-harmless agreement, and it extended to searches. When we went on the oil lease, we had signed a waiver automatically consenting to random searches. I had heard from a fellow worker, that the one guy who tried to win a case in court(They had found something in his car when searched) lost, because this waiver was the first thing given to the judge and jury.
The thing is, if employers' make random searches, with firearms' on the forbidden list, what will the court do? Even if it's law, what happens' if the employee's have to sign waivers' as a condition of employment? Will the law override any such signed document? Or will the Contract/Waiver prevail?
Kinda like,what comes first, the chicken, or the egg?
-
Even if it's law, what happens' if the employee's have to sign waivers' as a condition of employment? Will the law override any such signed document? Or will the Contract/Waiver prevail?
Invariably, I think that the gun owners will always lose in such scenarios.
A few years back there was a spate of rapes on the campus of the University of Oregon. There were some female students who had concealed carry permits, and they asked the school administration if they could carry their guns while on campus.
However, the University refused to bend their rules at all, and warned all students that any of them caught on campus with a gun would immediately be expelled from the University.
Mind you, this was a case of even a state owned institution telling someone that they did not recognize the rights of the students under state law to carry a gun. And the University prevailed, even though there is absolutely no law that forbids the carrying of guns on campus to people with concealed carry permits.
.
-
I remember a few years ago getting pulled over for speeding [late for work], the first thing I did was tell the deputy that I had a gun in my car. He asked me where it was and I told him. He had me get out and he took it out of my car. He simply called in the serial number and did a check on it. Few minutes later he gave me back the gun and my speeding ticket while telling me to slow it down. A law abiding citizen is not a threat to anyone.
We even have a "Shoot the carjacker " law, making it legal to shoot anyone attempting to take your car or hold you up. Right along with shooting anyone that breaks into your house. I've yet to hear of thieves breaking into cars just to look for and steal guns. Its far easier to buy them illegally.
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0818.html
-
As for the crime rates.. You need to get your head out and go to the link I provided.. the countries you admire.. you are 2 to three times more likely to get burglarized in.. and when you do.. you are twice as likely to be home hiding, shivering under your bet with nothing but a cricket paddle for defense.. here.. it is rare to break into a mans home when it is occupied.. crooks fear guns in the hands of citizens.. study after study has shown that. you are just as likely to be raped in your "safe" countries and more likely to be assaulted.
I know it goes against what you "feel" should be the facts but.. the facts are the facts.
Well, the countries that you said I "admired" (I assume you mean the ones in my initial post) were Australia, Japan and Europe. In those countries, no-one carries a gun to go to work, nor indeed at any other time. And yet, when I turn on my TV in the mornings, I don't hear of any mass outcry by the folks over there to be allowed to carry guns. I don't open my newspaper and read case after case of people who have been raped/mugged/assaulted/murdered while driving to work. I'm not saying those countries are crime free, but someone has already said ^ (and it wasn't me) that America has a far higher number of gangbangers - in urban areas at least.
But even though folks in Australia/Japan/Europe go about their daily business, unarmed, and think nothing of it, there are many in the US, including quite a few in this thread, who are afraid even to make the daily commute unarmed for fear of something bad happening. You will see that for all types of violent crime except homicide.. of which about 20% of our population (by race) commits about 60%....that the english speaking countries including england and America have about the same number.
I went to the first page - assaults. I counted at least 18 European countries in that list whose proportion of assaults is less than half that of the US. Not sure what the first language of English has to do with it, as even in Ireland (English speaking) the number of assaults is less than one third of the US number.
-
I went to the first page - assaults. I counted at least 18 European countries in that list whose proportion of assaults is less than half that of the US. Not sure what the first language of English has to do with it, as even in Ireland (English speaking) the number of assaults is less than one third of the US number.
And I for one am glad I live in this country where I can and have the right to carry a gun to defend myself. I'm sure those that are assualted over there wish they had the right as well.
-
napoleon I think more people reside in the six counties that comprise south florida than do in all of the united kingdom. to compare the numbers you would need to compare all of the EU
-
napoleon I think more people reside in the six counties that comprise south florida than do in all of the united kingdom. to compare the numbers you would need to compare all of the EU
No, that's taken into account by Lazs's chart, which gives the number per 1000 people.
-
Why is it starting to smell like yet another resurection of beetle? Getting real rank now.
The smell of BS travels a long ways. :)
-
napolean.. for assault.. the rates for england US and australia etc are all about the same... guns or no. I don't care about japan.. do you want to live like them?
For burglaries... england and oz are 2 and three times higher respectively.. that make you feel safe hiding in the closet with your cricket paddle?
For rape.. twice as likely in oz as the US.. even tho a small percent of our racial base commits almost all the rapes.
for manslaughter... well.. the US doesn't even come up.. it is not in the top 25 I have heard this before that their are a whole lot of "accidental" deaths in other countries.. either you guys are really really clumsy or backward or.. you rate murders differently..either way.. I don't want to live in a country with so many "accidents".
We have more gun crime but I can live with that so long as I can shoot back. We kill a lot more bad guys than anyone else too.
lazs
-
The thing about it is..and I guess you could call it selfish if you wish, is that I am not concerned about other countries laws concerning personal gun ownership. That is a problem that they could either solve or let slide.
I am concerned with the laws of this country. The U.S. , where I call home.
If other countries citizens wish to be totally at the mercy of others, with no chance of self defense.then so be it.
I believe we are on the right track with recent changes made to the laws in states such as Florida, Texas and others. We should have never let it get to that point in the beginning. A lot of other states will follow I believe.
You just simply can`t fight a problem ........or an enemy without the tools to do so.
-
The thing about it is..and I guess you could call it selfish if you wish, is that I am not concerned about other countries laws concerning personal gun ownership. That is a problem that they could either solve or let slide.
I am concerned with the laws of this country. The U.S. , where I call home.
If other countries citizens wish to be totally at the mercy of others, with no chance of self defense.then so be it.
I believe we are on the right track with recent changes made to the laws in states such as Florida, Texas and others. We should have never let it get to that point in the beginning. A lot of other states will follow I believe.
You just simply can`t fight a problem ........or an enemy without the tools to do so.
:aok
-
I don't see how it can be made any clearer than this:
Other countries may have lower violent crime rates and they may or may not allow citizens to own guns. Fine. That's great for them. If the violent crime rate was extremely low in this country, then the citizens would not have a NEED to defend themselves.
The harsh reality is that there are alot of criminals in this country and alot of ILLEGAL firearms as well. Nobody (unless suicidal) is going to commit a crime with a self-registered gun. It's always some thug with a stolen or altered firearm.
This is exactly the reason citizens NEED to protect themselves with a firearm (unless you want to fend off a pistol-carrying thug with a stick :rolleyes:). A sad reality is that the police cannot be everywhere all the time.....it's up to YOU to defend yourself.
Any laws made to restrict/limit gun ownership only applies to citizens who are attempting to defend themselves. This at the same time benefits the criminals as they do not play by the rules.
Guns are not the problem. Its the people. This country is not tough enough on criminals. Even if guns magically vanished, there would be more people stabbed, strangled, sliced with swords, blown up with bombs, burned to death, run over with cars, etc.
These are the facts and they are undisputed :D
-
Bottom line: No person/business/property owner has the right to strip you of your constitutional rights.
Think just because you own a business you can strip a citizen of a basic constitutional right? Break amendment 13 and see just how tough you are. See you on CNN.
Someone doesnt know what the Constitution protects us against. The Bill of Rights doesnt provide protection from business owners, it provides protection from the government.
Back to the OP.
A business owner most certainly has the right to tell his employees "Do not bring guns, alcohol or drugs onto company property". Its their property they can do with it what they want. Same as Wal-Mart can put up a sign saying "NO Firearms allowed". Its their property, they can do with it what they want.
Or are there people here saying the property owner doesnt have the right to limit who and/or what comes on his property?
What is more worrysome than Wal-Mart telling its employees they cant have guns on the property is the government telling us we cant carry in court houses, schools, DMVs, Welfare Offices, Federal Buildings, Libraries, etc.
"... shall not be infringed ..." my ass.
-
Someone doesnt know what the Constitution protects us against. The Bill of Rights doesnt provide protection from business owners, it provides protection from the government.
Please do not read INTO a post for your own enjoyment. Read what it says.
No person can strip your constitutional rights. Such as gun ownership: As a US citizen, you have the right to bear arms. A person (property owner) can ask you not to have them on his/her property. Thats all they can do is ask. You still have a right to bear arms.
The fact that your constitutional right cannot be stripped by a private individual is supported by the Fla lawmakers. Click the link in the first post of this thread and read it. It's what started this whole thread.
My position is: Unless they are providing armed and competent security, then I'm packing. What they don't know won't hurt them, but it could very well protect me from a violent offender.
-
I don't see how it can be made any clearer than this:
Other countries may have lower violent crime rates
What country of similar make up has a significantly lower crime rate?
-
for manslaughter... well.. the US doesn't even come up.. it is not in the top 25 I have heard this before that their are a whole lot of "accidental" deaths in other countries.. either you guys are really really clumsy or backward or.. you rate murders differently..either way.. I don't want to live in a country with so many "accidents".
lazs, manslaughter is unintentional death. Recent examples here are: a guy punched his uncle at a party, the uncle fell, hit his head and died instantly ; two owners of a helicopter repair business were charged with manslaughter for negligence in checks on servicing a chopper that later crashed. The charge more reflects that the people did not intend to kill someone but a death occured as a result of their actions.
And the homicide stats I've seen put the USA 4x ahead of Oz and UK, about 8x ahead than NZ.
Burglary rates are a difficult stat, as in many countries high crime rates see lower rated crimes not reported (eg muggings, burglaries).
-
Recent examples here are: a guy punched his uncle at a party, the uncle fell, hit his head and died instantly
I think in many cases here in the USA that would be called murder. Prosecutors here in the USA have a tendency (imo) to go with the worse case scenario concerning charges, then plea bargain them down a bit.
-
vulcan.. I understand that.. we have accidents here too.. some even involve guns but... we have a much lower manslaughter rate than any of you... now.. I don't know about you but.. dead is dead.. if you think a country is dangerous.. then maybe you shouldn't care how someone dies so much as how many?
It is also difficult to seperate out law abiding citizens and illegals and minorities from our stats but.. who cares? we have plenty of both.. far more than any other country on the list. you people don't even know the meaning of "cultural/racial diversity" in any real way.
I am not asking you to clean up your act tho.. I am saying too bad about all the violent crime in your countries but.. you can ignore it if you like and you can feel safe unarmed if you like.. I say "you".. I don't mean you particularly since NZ isn't quite as bad as other british dependents.. And "you" in particular seem to have a pretty fair minded idea of freedom so far as firearms are concerned.
I am just saying.. firearms or no.. the world is full of bad people who will harm you if they think they are in a position of strength... they become reasonable and polite only after a gun is pulled on em.. often.. only after they are shot a few times.
To ignore this fact while thinking you are being a safe person by wearing seatbelts seems pretty dumb to me so far as effort expended and logical thinking applied.
lazs
-
If you go to nationmasters... http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
You will see that for all types of violent crime except homicide.. of which about 20% of our population (by race) commits about 60%....that the english speaking countries including england and America have about the same number.
That being said.. I think I would just as soon have a gun to defend myself in any of those countries. It is foolish to think that you are safe from violent crime in any country. You are fooling yourself. thumb up your butt and big stupid grin on your face.
If you look at the robberies per person you will see less in the US.. "manslaughters" the US is not even listed it is so low.. it is not safer to live in other countries.. even rapes is about the same even tho... again.. most rapes are commited by one small percent of the US population.. by race.
Burgalaries.. 3 times more likely in oz and twice as likely in england..
How safe do you guys feel now?
lazs
Hi Lazs.
You’re drawing a lot of conclusions from one single list of figures. It really isn’t that simple. You are right in saying that the number of assaults per 1000 population are approximately the same in the US, Australia and the UK. But did you study the stats further than that? I did, and found that the US is rape capital of the world. On a per capita basis, the US is still way up there, with (according to your nationmaster.com sources) twice as many rapes as any other European country in that list. Interestingly, Australia is higher still! How can this be? I think it has something to do with this:
Different countries measure crime in different ways. A rape is clearly an assault of sorts – in many cases but perhaps not all. So when does that assault become a rape? The answer varies according to the jurisdiction in which it happened. In some countries, the mere fact of someone having relations with a person who has not reached the age of consent constitutes rape. The age of consent varies from country to country and even in the same country. In the US it’s 18 in many western states, 17 in others eg Texas, and 16 in some eastern states. In the UK it’s 16 and in Australia it’s 16 except South Australia and Tasmania where it’s 17. Clearly the scope for morality laws being broken increases with the age of consent because people are capable of getting up to mischief long before reaching the age of consent, especially when it’s as high as 18.
But why is Australia’s total so high? One possible reason is that like Mexico, Australia practises universal jurisdiction (also known as extraterrirorial jurisdiction) with regard to some offences, including offences of this nature. What this means is that an Australian citizen who has relations with a minor is deemed to have committed an offence against Australian law, even though the act itself occurred outside of Australia! It could have happened in London, or Dublin – or downtown San Francisco. Also it is not clear if these lists refer to criminal convictions, or merely reported crime. A great deal of crime of this nature goes unreported.
Without answers to these questions, it is not possible to judge one society being safer than another purely on one list of stats. But hey – don’t take my word for it. Your own nationmaster.com source contains a link to a criminology web page which cautions against drawing conclusions in the way that you have. Go to the nationmaster.com home page. Half way down on the left hand side is a link to “Crime Statistics”, which takes you to a collection of crime publications. The final paragraph states this:
Counting rules in categorizing a reported offense usually vary from one jurisdiction to another. A few standards do exist, and are being observed by many law enforcement jurisdictions worldwide. However, even these may vary from one country to another, and thus comparing crime statistics of one country from another often leads to inaccurate conclusions.
-
No person can strip your constitutional rights. Such as gun ownership: As a US citizen, you have the right to bear arms. A person (property owner) can ask you not to have them on his/her property. Thats all they can do is ask. You still have a right to bear arms.
The fact that your constitutional right cannot be stripped by a private individual is supported by the Fla lawmakers. Click the link in the first post of this thread and read it. It's what started this whole thread.
My position is: Unless they are providing armed and competent security, then I'm packing. What they don't know won't hurt them, but it could very well protect me from a violent offender.
Well, this is clearly an issue close to your heart. I still maintain that you may not get away with packing, if you intend to break your company's rules and leave a gun locked in your vehicle on the company premises. The only packing you're likely to be doing is packing your personal belongings and clearing your desk - if they find out. And given how vociferous you have been in this thread, it's likely that your defiant stance will not go unnoticed by your co-workers, and it only takes one of them to rat on you...
Sure, the company may not be entitled to search your car, but how are gun free zones policed, eg at shopping malls? In the most extreme case, your employer could terminate your employment. Then you'd no longer be entitled to park there at all.
Someone said earlier that the building code means that buildings can't be erected without designated parking areas, and therefore employees are entitled to parking facilities. But that pre-supposes that an entire building will be occupied by one organization only. In practice, a large office building will have a dozen or two companies within it, each of which may or may not lease parking space from the building management. When I worked in NYC (midtown Manhattan at E.55th & Madison Ave), my company had suites on two out of the 40 floors and did not lease parking - certainly not for all employees.
-
well "napolean".. I would say that you are probly right and that it is difficult to compare countries.. that has never stopped you your-0-peeeans from touting the superiority of your homicide rates tho has it?
My point it that it is a dangerous world out there no matter what country you are in.. being attacked or burglarized is the same no matter where you live tho.
I am just glad that I live in a country that allows me to take responsibility for my own safety in a meaningful way and allows me to defend my home and myself with a firearm.
I am pointing out that your country is not a safe place to live. It seems that every murder you have gets classified as a manslaughter charge.. the US doesn't even make the list on manslaughter cause we go for homicide charges
The violent crime rates are pretty much the same in all these countries.. to pretend that a gun would not be a good thing to have is much worse than to think that a seatbelt is not needed.
It would seem that anyone who thinks he doesn't need a gun but needs a seatbelt is not thinking clearly.
lazs