I suggest that ignoring discrimination ignores too much as premise.
Even at-will employment does not allow for firing in violation of a strong
public policy---because you are a woman, because you are not the right
color. Is not a right to keep and bear firearms subject to inclusion in such
rarified company? Shouldn't it be? Last I looked it had it's own place in
the Bill of Rights.
As Senator Biden was informed by Chief Justice Roberts, the correct
application of levels of constitutional scrutiny have ramifications.
Is passive exercise of a right equivalent to "behavior"? Is there
equivalency in bathing and the
firearms' right?
Regarding XYZ corporation, taking that tact, how long before each letter of
the alphabet (A thru Z corporation)results in total right preclusion?
That having been said, insofar as corporate psychology, and the bottom line,
are concerned, immunity
legislation is but one necessary element. It does not eliminate the exposure
under Workers' Compensation
law. Unfortunate incidents, though rare, do occur, but they do not therefore
justify the wholesale elimination of the right. Society has, and does, in
the absence of utopia, absorb the failings of humanity.
This is why the right must be addressed vel non; and the State to act, not
to create a right (any more than the Bill of Rights creates rights), but in
its given role in the social contract to enable the exercise of an
individual right, one which is suggested to have primacy over the right of a
creature of legislation, the corporation.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:01 PM
Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 26, Issue 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:32:47 -0500
From: "rufx2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 guns at workplace
To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Unfortunately for the writer below, operating a business involves the
opening of property, at the least the access to it. it involves more
restrictions than going about one's business at one's home. there is a
permit to operate the business, there are requirements as to how to
operate
the business, how to use and accomodate access by others to the property,
etc. these restrictions on the business the writer calls illegitimate.
this is anarchism, not libertarianism. it is the individual's motor
vehicle that enjoys implicit or explicit invitation to the business'
parking
lot, and is not thereby a trespasser. "coercion" is all around us, from
having to stay to one side of the highway while travelling to not
fornicating in public. merely allowing carry anywhere outside one's home
coerces acquiescence by those who are not enamored of firearms. wishing
away
any and all coercion grasps at a concept of property which never has
existed
outside of the state of nature. a business certainly does not have the
right
to base it's employment decision on any condition it wants. one must
always
be cognizant of overreaching restrictions; many have already taken place.
but not all signal the death knell of all rights by their imposition. at
bottom, the writer fails in his attempt to make property the root of all
rights; and as i have previously written, fails to recognize the right to
bear arms as uniquely fundamental and as such to require strict scrutiny
in
the face of any attempt to coerce it's giving way to another proffered
right. the constitution speaks of right to life AND property, not to life
BECAUSE of property.
NRA Reloaded
by Manuel Lora
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/m.lora5.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/m.lora4.html
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:02:51 -0800
From: "Guy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 guns at workplace
To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
a business certainly does not have the right to base
it's employment decision on any condition it wants.
Is this (functionally) true? Ignoring discrimination against individuals
over things for which they have no control (race, sex, etc.) are business
relatively free to discriminate based on behavior? I'm not aware of any
overriding principle to the contrary.
Though I'm not in favor of keep guns out of employee cars, I believe a
business owner (be they individual or an amalgamation) still retain the
right of regulating employee behavior as it effects their participation in
said employment. You can decline to hire a smoker, or a person with past
employment performance issues, or one whose bathing habits are obviously
neglected. Is then having a policy against firearms on corporate property
(including the parking lot) not an extension of the general right to
regulate who your employees are based on perceived behavioral inequities?
and as i have previously written, fails to recognize the right to bear
arms
as uniquely fundamental and as such to require strict
scrutiny in the face of any attempt to coerce it's giving way
to another proffered right.
But is the right to bear arms being surrendered? I don't think so. If it
is part of an employment agreement/contract, then there is a voluntary
release of one's right to bring a firearm onto business property. These
agreements are exercises of both the right of association, and the right
from association (you don't have to work for XYZ Corp.).
Our society may have to develop new protocols and services to deal with
the
situation (such as gun check-in/out lockers just off corporate property).
-----------------
Guy Smith
Author, Gun Facts
www.GunFacts.info
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Firearmsregprof mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
End of Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 26, Issue 7
**********************************************
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
