PDA

View Full Version : Workers right to Self Defense


sfpcservice
02-19-2009, 7:05 AM
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12135

Just wondering if this has any impact on California? I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the district rulings affect each other.

Also, how would this affect a Federal Employee who parks his car on Park Service land, where the Park Service says the gun has to be disassembled (No CCW for me).

sfpcservice
02-19-2009, 3:17 PM
The silence is deafening. I showered this morning, I promise.....

CSDGuy
02-19-2009, 3:51 PM
Given that the ruling is from the 10th Circuit, it has no direct impact on California. It may provide the 9th Circuit an indication as to where things are headed, but it's not of any precedential value, but more of the "look what they did..."

Cypren
02-19-2009, 3:57 PM
This appears to merely be an appeals court decision upholding an Oklahoma state law. Moreover, it's not even in our circuit, meaning that in the highly improbable case that the anti-RKBA California state legislature all took happy pills one day and decided to pass a similar bill, it would still have to get by the Ninth Circuit. The best thing this decision does for us here in California is force a circuit split in the highly unlikely event that it was ever tried here and the Ninth ruled against it.

As a sidenote, I'm not necessarily sure that this is a good bill in the first place. My support for firearms ownership is based on my fundamental belief in the personal right to life, liberty and property and the necessity of weapons for the effective defense thereof. My general opinion is that an employer has a right to control access to his own property, and dictate contractual terms to his employees -- and he is well within those rights to tell you that you can't bring a gun onto it or he will fire you.

Where this gets more murky is the concept that your car is your property and is arguably something to the effect of mobile "sovereign territory" -- as long as it stays within the car and does not impact the world outside, one can argue that it is irrelevant to the outside and therefore beyond their domain to regulate. I'm not sure that I agree with this as a matter of principle (and it certainly is not a matter of settled law, by any stretch of the imagination), but I recognize it as a legitimate argument.

But my opinions aside, this case isn't going to impact us anytime soon, if ever.

kar6man
02-19-2009, 4:32 PM
sfpcservice, I'm in the same boat you're in. I work for the state and therefore that bars me from bringing any of my firearms to work in my truck. I do have a CCW but that doesn't help me when it comes to the state.

swhatb
02-20-2009, 11:20 AM
This appears to merely be an appeals court decision upholding an Oklahoma state law. Moreover, it's not even in our circuit, meaning that in the highly improbable case that the anti-RKBA California state legislature all took happy pills one day and decided to pass a similar bill, it would still have to get by the Ninth Circuit. The best thing this decision does for us here in California is force a circuit split in the highly unlikely event that it was ever tried here and the Ninth ruled against it.

As a sidenote, I'm not necessarily sure that this is a good bill in the first place. My support for firearms ownership is based on my fundamental belief in the personal right to life, liberty and property and the necessity of weapons for the effective defense thereof. My general opinion is that an employer has a right to control access to his own property, and dictate contractual terms to his employees -- and he is well within those rights to tell you that you can't bring a gun onto it or he will fire you.

Where this gets more murky is the concept that your car is your property and is arguably something to the effect of mobile "sovereign territory" -- as long as it stays within the car and does not impact the world outside, one can argue that it is irrelevant to the outside and therefore beyond their domain to regulate. I'm not sure that I agree with this as a matter of principle (and it certainly is not a matter of settled law, by any stretch of the imagination), but I recognize it as a legitimate argument.

But my opinions aside, this case isn't going to impact us anytime soon, if ever.

good points, however, a split in the circuit moves things closer to the supreme court, and with the current ruling, i feel we need something. ccw holders by pass most worker laws anyway for carry in car or work. the ccw holders aren't the wacky ones out there.

Kid Stanislaus
02-20-2009, 7:39 PM
My general opinion is that an employer has a right to control access to his own property, and dictate contractual terms to his employees -- and he is well within those rights to tell you that you can't bring a gun onto it or he will fire you..

Does he also have the right to dictate you can't protect yourself from criminal attack when travelling to and from work?

Cypren
02-21-2009, 2:20 PM
Does he also have the right to dictate you can't protect yourself from criminal attack when travelling to and from work?

Of course not. But he is certainly within his rights (stupid, frankly, but lots of people do stupid things and it's their right) to insist that you do not bring a gun onto his property. How you avoid doing that isn't his problem. Maybe you need to park on a public street or at a nearby mall.

My point here is that there is a very real clash between a property owner and employer's right to dictate the terms of your entry and employment on his property and your desire to carry a weapon for defense. My view is that your right to carry a weapon in whatever manner you choose ends when you set foot on someone else's private property: you're in their house, follow their rules. You do not have a right to your job; if you dislike the employer's conditions, go find another one.

DDT
02-21-2009, 11:26 PM
Well, also remember that this is just a decision that says it is legal for the state to compel a private business to allow someone to bring a firearm onto their premises if that firearm stays in their car.

This does not mean it is unconstitutional for a state to NOT compel private businesses to do the same.

Kid Stanislaus
02-22-2009, 9:15 AM
You do not have a right to your job; if you dislike the employer's conditions, go find another one.


Yeah, with the unemployment rate as low as it is anybody could do it!! Of course, you'd lose your retirement and health benefits but what the heck, the employer's rights are paramount!:confused: