I was almost troubled enough by Marion's op/ed to respond to her and the publishing paper. She misplaced the philosophic issues of property control, and the distorted Florida policy.
As with gun control itself, the issue is (and has always been) when the use of property infringes on the rights of another person (the corollary being the old adage "Your right to throw a punch stops at my nose"). Zoning laws, fire code laws, etc are in place so that use of said property does not intentionally or negligently harm other people. You can't establish a pig farm next to my McMansion because I have a preexisting reasonable expectation of the use of my property, which includes the view and lack of porcine aroma. A place of business (being the collective property of the shareholders) must be afforded the same rights. In the absence of intentional or negligent harm of other people, companies should be able to control their property as they see fit. The abstraction that an employee (who has entered into a voluntary contract with the employer, and likely has agreed to abide by whatever arbitrary and capricious rules the company sets) might potentially be negligently harmed (by a third party on the route to/from the place of work) is stretching doctrine beyond reason. If challenged, I don't expect the law to stand. Guy Smith Author, Gun Facts - Debunking Gun Control Myths www.GunFacts.info _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Jacobs Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 2:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Not absolute At 02:00 PM 4/27/2008, From Prof Olson's notes about Marion Hammer's comments: "The right to control one's property is not absolute." I can't thank the Professor enough for that piece, which I had not read previously. In summary it says more about what i was suggesting in my last message than I think I was prepared to say myself at the moment I wrote it. The right to control one's property is not absolute. Excellent. Neither is the right to speak freely about anything, anyone, any time, in any way absolute. Neither is the right to keep and bear arms absolute. Therein lies the framework for the future discourse, to use the Professor's word! Excellent! ***GRJ***
_______________________________________________ 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.
