I wonder if some people are starting to understand the 2nd amendment now?

[Tim01]

The supreme court ruling should have made a big impression.

[sharesunited]

1. I thought of that too. And the thought was, Well That Seems Consistent.

Not progressive or wholesome. Just consistent.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. consistent

yes. with democracy.

[sharesunited]

4. Consistent with the conservative Court's idea of democracy.

And the ever problematic Anthony Kennedy.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Don't forget about the ACLU's idea of democracy.

[rrneck]

10. If you don't mind my asking, how so? nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. Are you asking: How is the 2nd Ammendment consistent with Deomcracy?

Is that your question?

[rrneck]

14. Sorry, no. I was wondering

if you felt that the recent SCOTUS decision was consistent. I better get some more coffee.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. Unfortunately, it goes back to when corporations were basically

declared individuals and as such they were given individual rights. This latest ruling is just a natural progression of that. It could be argued that Corporations should never have been given individual rights to begin this slippery slope. I think this started as far back as the late 1800's.

[rrneck]

16. Yep.

It was a great day for corporate personhood. For everybody else, not so much.

(I replied once but it got lost. I really need more coffee. :hangover:

[rrneck]

17. Why not progressive or wholesome? nt

[lazer47]

3. Most anti's are never going to get it until, it is to late to get it

[Glassunion]

6. Sad but true.

P.S. Thank you for your service. Not enough, but thanks is all I have to give here.

[gorfle]

7. Here's the relation I see to the second amendment.

I assume you are talking about the recent ruling about campaign contributions by corporations?

The only upside I see is that corporations like the NRA will have a freer hand in influencing legislation.

But I am totally against this campaign contribution maneuver. The NRA was plenty powerful enough without taking away all pretenses that money speaks louder than votes in our country.

[Katya Mullethov]

27. Corporations can still buy machineguns

meh .

[rrneck]

8. I recall a few threads

concerning the possession of firearms in peoples cars parked on company property. I kind of like the idea of a CEO looking out the window of his corner office at a sea of employees cars and wondering how many of them contain guns.

And it's a damn shame that I think that way.

[Glassunion]

9. Keeps em on their toes.

[armueller2001]

11. That's assuming if guns in cars

are not allowed, then that policy will prevent there from being guns in cars. People break rules.

[rrneck]

12. If people can't

get justice from the government or through the courts, they will find it in the street. And that's always against the rules.

The recent SCOTUS decision was a great leap forward for corporate personhood. Some day it may be remembered as one of the contributing factors in a round of anarchy not seen since the nineteenth century. We aren't even remotely close to that point yet, and with a lot of work and luck we will never see it. I hope not.

[spin]

25. The company I worked for before I retired had a no-gun in parking lot policy...

I had carried a firearm in my car for years. Carrying a firearm in your vehicle was NOT illegal in Florida, (as long as it was securely encased).

Under the new policy, if the company discovered that an employee did have a firearm in their vehicle while at work, they could be fired.

Since I never had hid that I did carry a weapon to and from work, the management was well aware of that fact. My normal car gun was a stainless .357 magnum that I had bought from the Sergeant of the Guard. The guard force was supposed to be unarmed and the Sergeant used to joke with me that if the shit hit the fan, he might ask to borrow his old weapon. Occasionally I would leave work and drive to a nearby range to do some shooting with co-workers.

At the company meetings on the new policy, I mentioned that I had personally talked to Marion Hammer who is the Executive Director of the The Unified Sportsmen of Florida and also a past President of the NRA. She had agreed with me that companies were exceeding their legal authority and had stated that she was working on a law to guarantee the right of employees to have a firearm in their on company property. She had been largely responsible for the passage of "shall issue" concealed carry in Florida and felt that the fact that Florida residents could carry a weapon in their vehicle contributed to a decrease in crime.

A significant number of my co-workers also carried firearms in their car. During company meetings we protested the new ruling. Our arguments were (1) we had to travel to and from work and might need a firearm for self defense, (2) Our vehicles were our personal property and while parked on the employer's property should not be subject to search unless there was a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contained illegal items. (3) We had a constitutional and statutory right to have firearms in our vehicles.

Had the company asked to search my vehicle, I planned to refuse the search. Had they contacted the police, I would have informed the officer that I had nothing illegal in my car and he would have to obtain a search warrant. If fired, I would have sued the company for infringing my rights. I also told management that if I did follow their policy and was injured in an incident in which I could have legally used my firearm for self defense on the way to or from work, I would also sue. My daughter would sue if I were killed in the incident.

The company stood firm. What developed was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Many employees continued to have firearms in their cars, but the company never launched a parking lot search. The company probably feared the publicity that would result, but wanted to have a no-gun policy on the books for legal liability.

I retired before the new "take your gun to work" law passed in Florida. The new law requires the employee to have a concealed carry permit if he does leave his weapon in his locked vehicle. I see no problem with this and in fact believe the requirement is an improvement on the old law. The majority of my co-workers who had firearms in their car at work did have a carry permit.

So as you suggest, people do indeed break rules. I was in compliance with state law but did violate company policy.

Currently Florida is having a hard time keeping up with the sudden surge in applications for concealed carry permits. I'm sure that many Floridians are applying for the permits to be able to legally carry firearms to and from work and leave the weapons locked in their car while at work.

"Take your gun to work" are passing in many states. Another supposedly brilliant anti-gun measure has backfired. Originally designed as an effort to get companies to pass no-gun policies because of legal liability concerns, it will eventually result in more people carrying firearms to and from work. In Florida, many more people will obtain concealed carry permits because of the new law which should drive the Brady Campaign crazy.

The right to bring a gun onto a company parking lot is gaining momentum nationwide, to the chagrin of employers who feel caught in the crossfire. In recent years, a growing number of states have passed laws that give employees the right to bring guns onto company parking lots.

Oklahoma started the trend in 2004. Since then, 10 other states have followed suit, including Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Alaska, Minnesota and Nebraska. And more than a dozen others are currently considering similar legislation, including California, Texas, Virginia and Arizona.
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202425674211

[GreenStormCloud]

26. "Legal liability". That's the catch phrase.

Lots of places have "no-guns" policies, coupled with "don't ask, don't tell". That is the way my workplace is.

[spin]

28. Some states have exempted employer liability under their "take your gun to work" laws ...

Employers who are required to allow firearms to be stored in vehicles on their property have been concerned about being held liable for injuries and damage caused by those firearms. To address these concerns, states such as Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have included civil liability waivers in their parking-lot firearm laws. Typically, these provisions immunize employers from liability arising from compliance with the law. However, these waivers at most allow employers to avoid liability arising under state law. They do not protect employers from liability under federal law such as general duty clause obligations under the OSH Act.
http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/bulletins/14169.html

edited for spelling

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. I wonder if the same people that cry about the UnRec feature

are now the very ones who are now UnRecing this thread and gladly doing it anonymously............

that is what I wonder.

[rusty_rebar]

19. If corporations are people

in the legal sense, then it was a sound ruling. You cannot abridge speech. I think it cuts both ways though. I say corporations are people, then they should pay income tax.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Corporations do pay income tax.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/index.html

[GreenStormCloud]

20. It will take incorporating the second against the states to make the impression.

And even then it will take some more lawsuits. DC makes it as hard as possible to buy a handgun there.

[depakid]

22. Yep- you got a BIG dose of Roberts court absolutism- and the absurd results that obtain

Hope everyone likes it- because it's exactly what you've been applauding.

Good luck with your elections- especially on the state end local levels. May they bring you even more of what you want!

[Tim01]

23. Here is a bunny with a pancake on its head. nt

[Tejas]

29. No, DC got a BIG dose of the US Constitution.

Feel free to blather on about where commas in the BOR are placed and their significance, the rest of us will be waiting for you to catch up.....not.


:rofl:

[taurus145]

30. Go chase a kangaroo

It will be a more apt pursuit for your talents.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. The value of money in a campaign is overrated.

A campaign badly needs money to get its message out, and for that you do need money. But there is a saturation limit. Once everybody knows you message, it doesn't really help to keep repeating it. But you still have to get people to agree with your message. I happen to hate the message of ta commercial for an alarm company. (The one where a burglar runs away from the alarm, the woman goes to a safe room and hugs the kids while the alarm company guy reassures her.) Repeating that ad over and over to me will not make me get their alarm. Once a campaign has reached its audience, extra money does little.

We who strongly believe in the RKBA have always been heavily out spent, when one considers the value of the many editorials and slanted news coverage against guns that we see in the mainstream media. On the many cops shows, guns are never shown in the hand of ordinary good-guy citizens. Guns on TV are for cops or crooks. There is a constant anti-gun drumbeat from the mainstream establishment pushing the message that guns are bad.

Yet, it is the RKBA side that has been winning the battle for the last 15 years, even though our campaigns are run on shoestrings, compared to the forces against us. The reason is that our arguments have facts behind them, and ours make sense.

Utimately, I trust the voters.

[RealityInSeattle]

32. oh yea, the CATO Institute is on shoestrings...

you don't even know what you are talking about.

blah blah blah I love my gun blah blah blah I love my gun and I am so persecuted blah blah blah.

The NRA and The CATO institute make your gun worship possible, these are multi-million dollar organizations so quit flying the grass-roots-we-the-people flag.

Its just not true.

[Euromutt]

33. If you have a few million members...

... those members only have to contribute a buck a year each to make your outfit a "multi-million dollar organization." The NRA has about 4 million members, most of whom contribute at least $35/year in dues (the rest being life or even endowment members), so we're looking at $140 million or so on membership dues alone. The amount of money does not, in and of itself, make an organization non-grassroots.

Yeah, the Cato Institute's a think tank, so they don't run on membership contributions, but then again, they don't contribute money to political campaigns, as far as I'm aware.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. And on your side, there is...

New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, Time, Newsweek, all banging away on the gun-control drum. Even AARP is anti-gun.

Have you ever seen a movie in which an ordinary modern American owns a handgun?

I love my wife. Our guns help us protect each other. The guns are just tools.

As usual, one notices that you don't attempt rational argument, but only throw out insults.

[oneshooter]

35. And they are not very good insults either. Take some time to compose them. n/t

[armueller2001]

36. I can only think of one right now...

Gran Torino. Clint Eastwood pulls a handgun on some punks that are assaulting a young girl. And he was the GOOD GUY in that movie. Imagine that.

[SteveM]

37. I appreciate recycling, but this is auto-induced gas-huffing. nt