Employer outlaws all firearms on property

[JByer323]

My father works as a white collar health and safety professional for a large company that makes cars. As I recall, there is nothing about him not having a gun in his personal vehicle, as long as he doesn't have it in the plants/office. But he drives a company vehicle, which is a major no no that is stated when you sign for the car.

Whoops.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

It is a shame that we usually only think of the United States Constitution and tend to overlook that itty bitty thing of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, while being subservient to the Federal Constitution is then the highest law in the State of Indiana.

So with that said let us look upon what the Indiana Constitution says. Section 32 of our Constitution says "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

I bring this up to point out the purpose of bearing arms in the great State of Indiana, "for the defense of themselves".

I think that if I wanted to push the issue a little with the employer I would write them a letter expressing your gratitude for their concern for your safety. However, you are "concerned" that since they are depriving you of your constitutional right to defend yourself you will have less stress if they help you understand what measures they have taken to completely guarantee your safety. Also, you are "concerned" that you have not received any training on what to do if a madman goes berserk on company property.

You may also point out that they are assuming FULL LIABILITY for every single employee that may be injured in the event that an employee is unable to defend themselves enroute to and from work.

I wonder how companies would respond if they faced liability suits from the families of deceased employee's who were unable to defend themselves.

I fully understand a companies fear of problems, but until we gun owners begin showing them that they face potential losses by lawsuit for rendering us defenseless they will have little incentive to change.

Respectfully,

Doug

 

[FordMan08]

Who is going to know that you have a piece in your glove compartment other than you? Noboby unless you tell them. I would keep it in my vehicle out of sight.

Can they search your car? I think not.

 

[antsi]

Can they search your car? I think not.

They can't force you to allow a search.

However, they can say "let us search your car, or you're fired."

 

[henktermaat]

They can't force you to allow a search.

However, they can say "let us search your car, or you're fired."

That won't happen without probable cause. No employer would purposefully upset their good employees in this manner. Can you imagine the fallout.... everyone there would update their resumes the next day.


Businesses are in it for the money. Hiring new employees is hard and expensive. Good workers are usually treasured.

 

[jeremy]

They can't force you to allow a search.

However, they can say "let us search your car, or you're fired."

I think they would need a better reason that that to release a person. And if that is all it takes to be fired from that establishment, you are probally better off not working for that asshat.

 

[Coach]

To All,

It is a shame that we usually only think of the United States Constitution and tend to overlook that itty bitty thing of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, while being subservient to the Federal Constitution is then the highest law in the State of Indiana.

So with that said let us look upon what the Indiana Constitution says. Section 32 of our Constitution says "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

I bring this up to point out the purpose of bearing arms in the great State of Indiana, "for the defense of themselves".

I think that if I wanted to push the issue a little with the employer I would write them a letter expressing your gratitude for their concern for your safety. However, you are "concerned" that since they are depriving you of your constitutional right to defend yourself you will have less stress if they help you understand what measures they have taken to completely guarantee your safety. Also, you are "concerned" that you have not received any training on what to do if a madman goes berserk on company property.

You may also point out that they are assuming FULL LIABILITY for every single employee that may be injured in the event that an employee is unable to defend themselves enroute to and from work.

I wonder how companies would respond if they faced liability suits from the families of deceased employee's who were unable to defend themselves.

I fully understand a companies fear of problems, but until we gun owners begin showing them that they face potential losses by lawsuit for rendering us defenseless they will have little incentive to change.

Respectfully,

Doug

Great post. Great attitude. Great points.

 

[jsgolfman]

What you need is a governor with the fortitude to nullify unconstitutional federal laws.

 

[Coach]

What you need is a governor with the fortitude to nullify unconstitutional federal laws.

I do not necessarily disagree with you, but that whole Nullify thing did not work out so well the last few times it was tried.

 

[jsgolfman]

In todays' environment, I would have to agree. I think the idea of nullification took a significant blow with the sedition act, despite Jefferson's wonderful kentucky resolution. Lincoln, however, served it and secession the harshest blow.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Out of sight... is out of mind.