Leaving your gun in your locked car -- no job for you

[aikoaiko]

Showdown Over Guns At Work

VALLIANT, Okla., Feb. 7, 2005
Culture Crossfire

Jimmy Wyatt was fired for having a gun inside his locked car.
"I do not believe in my heart that I did anything wrong to be fired."
Jimmy Wyatt


(CBS) When gun and corporate cultures clashed in southeast Oklahoma, Jimmy Wyatt got caught in the crossfire.

"I've had it for over 20 years ... They're very much a part of life," says Wyatt of his guns. "We all carry them."

But in 2002, as CBS News Correspondent Bill Whitaker reports, a surprise sweep of the parking lot found Wyatt and 11 other employees of paper giant Weyerhauser had guns locked in their vehicles, a violation of a new corporate policy. They all said they didn't know the policy had changed. They were fired almost on the spot.

<snip>

for me see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/07/eveningnews/main672240.shtml

[aikoaiko]

1. I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I would like to have the opporunity to protect myself to and from work, but on the other hand, I respect a property owner's request to not have a gun on the premises. I need to thinkt his through.

Seems like keeping it in a car is reasonable compromise, but who wants to compromise. ;-)

(one ofthe creepy parts of the article was the employer doing 'sweeps' of the parking lot for guns).

[madinmaryland]

2. How the hell can they search the cars of employees?

They could pick any item (besides a gun), like a bottle of wine, say its illegal and fire the person?

:wtf:

Aren't there laws that protect from search and seizure?

[JeebusB]

113. Don't confuse legality with policy

Many companies have policies that say that they can searh your vehicle. It's a condition of employment. The vehicle owner is under no legal obligation to grant the request but the denial alone is probably cause for termination, according to the company policy.

I'm a big believer in property rights but I think such actions on the part of the company are unjust. Obviously, if they had to conduct a "sweep of the parking lot" then they were on a witch hunt to begin with. I worked for a company at one time that had a similar policy. It said in the employee manual that they had the right to search employee's vehicles. I carried anyway. If push came to shove, I would not have granted them permission to search my vehicle or my person. Fuck 'em. They can fire me if they want to.

[Wickerman]

3. I find this a real invasion of personal property

and if the policy was not well delivered these folks should be reinstated.

But, isn't it bad form to leave a weapon in a car? I know I got into a heated deate with one of the regular RKBAers about leaving the gun in the parking lot while attending church. They argued it was unsafe gun handling. I tend to agree after thinking about it.

[madinmaryland]

5. If the gun is secured and out of site

I don't see a problem with it.

Also, as the artical says, that the company wants to prevent workers from going postal. If they go postal, most workers have gone home after being let go and then come back with their weapons and ammo.

BTW, I have never owned a gun.

[brainshrub]

9. One way to keep workers from going postal:

Treat people with dignity and respect.

I think this company is planning some major out-sourcing, so they are trying to round up the guns first.

[Wickerman]

10. If they think they might have "postal" problems in their future

then this is just silly. They need to work on their culture and really soon.

[alwynsw]

8. A compromise.

Get a gun box that bolts to your trunk.
Not the most secure thing in the world, cars do get stolen, but it beats nothing.

[Wickerman]

15. check out steve with the big brain

good compromise

:thumbsup:

[aikoaiko]

16. Electronic gunbox is on my list of things to get...

...when I get enough money.

[Wickerman]

21. fingerprint safe

does that mean that it does scan recognition? :wow:

cool.

[-..__...]

25. "BioSaf"?

Sounds like something a person would keep petri dishes of bacteria or virus' in.

[aikoaiko]

38. In theory, this is the answer to my access vs saftey dilemma

Of coure, I will probably have another gun nearby with a mechanical lock in case the batteries go bad or there is a malfunction.

There are other handgun safes with finger print recognition, but this one I like. I think it stores ten different finger prints.

[aikoaiko]

12. this is why I think I should be allowed to carry my weapon concealed ...

... almost no exception. IN GA we have a lot of exceptions and it bugs the hell out of me (like bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, public gatherings, schools, etc).

Leaving it in the car is more useful to me than leaving it at home albeit not as secure. It is legal in my state to leave a loaded weapon in a car and I don't think it has to be locked.

[iverglas]

17. hmm

Do you think maybe you're free not to park in your employer's parking lot if you don't wish to comply with the employer's parking lot policies?

Hell, you're even free not to work for the employer if you don't wish to comply with the employer's parking lot policies.

So many reasonable compromises available ...

[T Town Jake]

26. hmm...

...why stop there?

"Hell, you're even free not to work for the employer if you don't wish to comply with the employer's parking lot policies"

Why not just allow an employer to search your frig to make sure you're eating right and living clean? Examine your medical records for evidence of deviation from "healthy" lifestyle behavior/choices? Ring up your friends for a little chat about your preferred leisure activities after hours?

"So many reasonable compromises available ..."

Indeed.

[iverglas]

27. gee ...

Why not just allow an employer to search your frig to make sure you're eating right and living clean?

I wonder ... could that be because your fridge is not on the employer's property?

Examine your medical records for evidence of deviation from "healthy" lifestyle behavior/choices?

Perhaps because the healthfulness of your lifestyle (or cleanliness of your possessions) is not the employer's business -- and is not remotely analogous to the subject matter of this thread?

Ring up your friends for a little chat about your preferred leisure activities after hours?

Is there some common thread there? I'm not seeing one, I'm afraid.

Find the one that doesn't fit:

- firearms in cars on employer's property
- crud in fridge on employee's property
- bad choices in behaviour in employee's private life
- disapproved activities in employee's private life

I'm not having much difficulty. How you doing?

[Retired AF Dem]

29. T Town is not to far off

There are employers that forbid the use of tobacco products, does not matter if on company time or private time. Get caught and you are fired. You have told me in the past "you speed, you know you do" Well I don't speed, if I get a ticket (in my pov, cops dont mess with armored trucks) I have to drive two hours down to the state headquarters for our company and retake the Smith's driving training. If I get another ticket within six months I can be fired.

[iverglas]

31. what is, and what oughta be

There are employers that forbid the use of tobacco products, does not matter if on company time or private time. Get caught and you are fired.

And where I'm at, that would be 100%, no question, absolutely illegal. And the reasons would be apparent and unquestionable, under the laws where I'm at, which prohibit discrimination based on disability (tobacco addiction being a disability) except where there is a bona fide occupational requirement for a certain ability. And, depending on what jurisdiction the employer fell under and whether there was a union, the employee could be ordered reinstated or obtain a nice settlement for unjust dismissal and/or an award from the local human rights tribunal.

That's what it's like to live in a country where individual rights and freedoms are protected (and workers have rights), you see.

Well I don't speed, if I get a ticket (in my pov, cops dont mess with armored trucks) I have to drive two hours down to the state headquarters for our company and retake the Smith's driving training. If I get another ticket within six months I can be fired.

Uh huh. And this is wrong/bad because? Your duties for the employer consist in large part of driving. So your driving record is not a legitimate matter of concern for the employer?? I really can't imagine that you consider it to be in the same class as your off-duty tobacco consumption or the state of your home refrigerator. Really.

[T Town Jake]

41. Just a teensy-weensy clarification, solely in the interest...

...of adding to your already well-stocked repertoire of cultural idioms. When I say "living clean" I don't mean it in the literal, hygienic sense. It's hereabouts-talk that translates roughly to "don't drink, smoke, or chew, or run with the boys and girls that do."
As one interested in the precise, exacting definition of words, sentences, and phrases in their proper cultural context, I know you'll appreciate my clearing that up.

[iverglas]

48. sadly

It was merely my aging brain cells (or lack of sufficient interest) that led me astray.

"Frig" and "clean" combined in my mind to produce an image of moulding cheese and gummy shelves ...

[iverglas]

49. oh, and

Didya find the odd one out yet?

I'll amend it for the literalist in you:


- firearms in cars on employer's property
- crud twinkies in fridge on employee's property
- bad choices in behaviour in employee's private life
- disapproved activities in employee's private life

[aikoaiko]

40. Wow, the if -you-don't-like-it-then-leave response

is usually the response of a conservative...

Your alternatives are not unreasonable in my humble opinion, but i think allowing gun owners to leave guns in cars is more reasonable than parking off property or quitting your job.

[DBoon]

14. Maybe they are going hunting right after work

or to the firing range.

I'd hate to be fired for having a crowbar in my car or something else that could be considered a weapon. Think of what all that gasoline could do.

The employer may have a legal right to do this, but I still think it sucks to be fired when you have been responsibly handling ("locked up in the car") a legal item.

[T Town Jake]

22. It's created a firestorm down at my local state capitol...

...the legislature--Democrats, Repukes, everyone--promptly rushed a bill through that explicitly permitted residents to do just that, and our Democratic governor signed it into law. The law is currently on hold in court as a judge reviews it's constitutionality.

[aikoaiko]

39. Sweet.

That (i.e.,the new law allowing gun owners to keep gun in their cars) is encouraging news.

[alwynsw]

4. Nannies.

I agree that in cases of company policy barring firearms from company property that the company has the right to enforce the policy as it sees fit. Unfortunately, Weyerhauser has chosen to go over the top on this one. What happened to counselling, write-ups, or temporary suspensions?

O.K., so the policy change was likely posted on the bulletin board. Many folks don't read the bulletin board. Notices often disappear from bulletin boards before the entire workforce has a chance to read them. That nakes a strong argument for enclosing policy changes in paycheck or DD advice envelopes or for mailing them to the employees.

Weyerhauser evidently decided to search every vehicle on the lot - or nearly every one. I don't have the words to say how strongly I disagree with such tactics. Reasonable cause for a search of one or several vehicles is one thing. "Let's search 'em all and see what we find", is another.

If I continue, I'll just rant. I'm buying other brands of paper for the forseeable future.

[madinmaryland]

7. I still want to know if it is legal to search the private

property of citizens without due cause?

[alwynsw]

11. It may vary by state

Private roperty owners here have the right to search any vehicle while it is on their property. For places of business, local courts have held that the policy must be posted on signs at all entrances tothe property.

[madinmaryland]

13. I see.

Now hypothetically, can the private property owner ban any type of item that might happen to be in the vehicle? Bottle of wine, Pro-Kerry Literature, etc.?

[alwynsw]

42. That gets a little sticky.

The display of political literature may be banned. zThe display of hate literature may be banned. It cannot be banned if it is not diplayed in plain sight. Alcohol and illegal drugs may be banned in any circumstance.

The free speech issuse has become a slippery slope of late, so most employers that address the issue ban all political and hate literature in order to avoid problems.

[CO Liberal]

45. At the Company Where I Work....

...you cannot have a gun or alcohol on company property, including the parking lot. As a practical measure, this makes sense because many of us need to make frequent trips to the local Air Force bases, and they're even stricter about what can be in your vehicle.

[iverglas]

19. nah ... but possibly bad employers

Labour law (well, where I'm at) does require progressive discipline for all but the most egregious offences.

There may well be an argument for unjust dismissal, based on failure to give the kind of notice that should be given of a policy instituting a dismissable offence, or failure to apply progressive discipline.

But you may have noticed that constitutions don't apply to the acts of private parties. A property owner really doesn't have to have "reasonable cause" for searching vehicles on its property, where it has given notice to their owners that the vehicles are subject to search and the owners have agreed to this by parking there with such notice. One might not like the policy, but there are many things in life that one is likely not going to like, and that doesn't make any of 'em necessarily objectionable on legal grounds (not, of course, that you said this one was).

All anybody who doesn't like it has gotta do is park someplace else.

[brainshrub]

6. What's wrong with leaving a gun in the car?

Sounds like a reasonable compromise.

And while we are on the topic, why does the this company have the right to search everyones car? If the government did this, it would be considered a major break of the personal rights.

I suppose since the drug-warriors have given this corporations to the right to look in your pee, they now have the right to do unreasonable searches.

Corporations have way to much power in this country. When your job, and thus your families well-being, is on the line it's difficult to stand up for your rights.

[demodonkey]

18. If they can break into your car and take your gun they can break into...

your car and take anything else that might be in there -- from a Bible (or Koran), to pro-Dem (or union) literature, to personal medications, to..... ???

Would seem to me that a locked car has some sort of "private property" rights of its own, to prevent it from being broken into. If it is parked on somebody else's private property and they suspect contraband in the car (or just something they don't want on their property in it), I think their remedy would be to have the car towed OFF their land. NOT breaking into it and going through the contents.

Whether it was a gun in the locked car is irrelevant, IMHO, the issue is that the car owner locked their vehicle and has the right to expect some privacy and security of the contents.

[iverglas]

30. where do some people get some of their ideas?

If they can break into your car and take your gun they can break into...
your car and take anything else that might be in there -- from a Bible (or Koran), to pro-Dem (or union) literature, to personal medications, to..... ???

Do you really think? C'mon now ... think.

If an employer prohibited the keeping of religious in a private vehicle (even if stored out of sight), the employer would pretty obviously be discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. Non-religious people and some religious people would have no desire to keep religious material in their vehicle; some religious people would feel bound by their beliefs to do so.

(I learned to drive at the hands of a driving instructor who kept a copy of the Book of Mormon on the dashboard. Pre-airbag days; maybe he figured it would keep him from going through the windshield ...)

If an employer prohibited or took away medications, the employer would be discriminating on the basis of disability.

You get my drift, I hope.

Now. Think. If an employer prohibits the keeping of firearms in a vehicle parked on its property, what prohibited ground of discrimination is its policy based on?

Can't think of one, myself.

Property owners really can regulate what is done on their property, and take steps to insure that violations are stopped, as long as the requirements they impose do not amount to something like unlawful discrimination.


... I think their remedy would be to have the car towed OFF their land. NOT breaking into it and going through the contents.

Well, unless the employer had given notice that it would do the latter. Do you imagine that this employer had not?

[demodonkey]

32. Hellloo? If such searches of locked private vehicles can legally be made,

simply by the employer claiming it is on "private property" and "notice had been given", exactly what WOULD prevent such discrimination against an employee's religion, disability, cigarette smoking, union organizing, or any other lawful, constitutionally-protected activity or affiliation??

NOTHING.

All an employer would have to do is "give notice" and say, for example, is something like, "I'm a Christian and I have a privately-owned Christian Company and I don't allow copies of the Koran on my 'private property', so if I break into your car in my parking lot and find out you had a Koran in the trunk, you can be fired."

But Freedom of Religion is protected, you say.

OK, now what if that Koran instead happened instead to be porn magazines? What if it is signs for a Democratic Party candidate in the employee's car and the employer is a Fundie Republican? What if it is liquor and the employer is a Mormon (or just a non-drinking employer who fears his health insurance premiums will rise?) What if it is a meat sandwich in the car and the employer is an animal rights activist?

Talk about a slippery slope!

Any LAWFUL, constitutionally protected item, NOT actually being used on "company time" and/or the "private property" of the employer, and being kept under an employee's personal lock and key in a private vehicle should NOT be subject to any search. If such searches of locked employee vehicles are declared legal, it very will WILL open the door to all kinds of discrimination!

C'mon now ... think.

[Retired AF Dem]

33. Some states

consider your automobile an extension of your home. Tricky stuff.

[iverglas]

37. not really tricky at all

"Some states consider your automobile an extension of your home."

In the context of the rules governing search by agents of the state, that may be relevant.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that if an employer is entitled to search property on its property, it will somehow become entitled to search the home of the owner of that property ...

[iverglas]

36. does nobody 'round here know nuttin' at all?

Hellloo? If such searches of locked private vehicles can legally be made,
simply by the employer claiming it is on "private property" and "notice had been given", exactly what WOULD prevent such discrimination against an employee's religion, disability, cigarette smoking, union organizing, or any other lawful, constitutionally-protected activity or affiliation??

NOTHING.

Sezzzzz ... YOU!

You'll forgive me if I don't just toss all these years of studying and practising and researching the law, and specifically human rights law, out the window and swallow what you're offering instead.

What WOULD prevent discrimination against employees on the basis of religion, disability, and what have you is THE LAW THAT PROHIBITS SUCH DISCRIMINATION.

I know of no law whatsoever that prohibits discrimination against firearms toters. An employer could refuse to hire such a person with utter and total impunity.

However, an employer could not FIRE such a person WITHOUT JUST CAUSE (in a union shop, or in jurisdictions which require just cause for dismissal, which I gather a whole lot of US jurisdictions don't). Owning a firearm is NOT just cause for dismissal. Disobeying an order from the employer regarding the use of the employer's property, where the order is not DISCRIMINATORY on PROHIBITED GROUNDS, CAN BE just cause for dismissal.

They're dreadfully complex concepts. I know.

OK, now what if that Koran instead happened instead to be porn magazines?

Well, I guess it would depend on whether the employee was working in a union shop, or in a jurisdiction that required just cause for dismissal.

If not -- sorry, eh? Job all gone.

What if it is signs for a Democratic Party candidate in the employee's car and the employer is a Fundie Republican?

Ditto. Unless there is a human rights code that prohibits discrimination on the ground of political opinion. Sadly, not even the fine codes up my way do that, I think.

What if it is liquor and the employer is a Mormon (or just a non-drinking employer who fears his health insurance premiums will rise?)

Well, I can't speak to that insurance-premium stuff, because that's all just furrin and weird to me. Mind you, up here large employers commonly have supplemental group insurance plans, to cover the stuff that the public health plans don't (like dental and prescription and eyeglasses, and provide long-term disability and life insurance coverage). I'd be pretty sure that both refusing employment and terminating employment for such a consideration would be unlawful here, though. Your experience may indeed vary.

What if it is a meat sandwich in the car and the employer is an animal rights activist?

Well, I can see a religious discrimination argument against refusal to hire, and a "no just cause" argument against dismissal. I'd think it unlikely that a court/tribunal would regard keeping a sandwich in one's car as dismissable misconduct, even if it violated an employer's orders. And somehow, I just can't picture a court/tribunal that would be stupid enough to equate a firearm in a car on the property of someone who doesn't want it there with a sandwich in a car on the property of someone who doesn't want it there, either.

Any LAWFUL, constitutionally protected item, NOT actually being used on "company time" and/or the "private property" of the employer, and being kept under an employee's personal lock and key in a private vehicle should NOT be subject to any search.

And that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it! It may not make any sense, and it may be contrary to all sorts of established legal principles, but wot the hell, eh?

[CO Liberal]

20. I Work for a Major Defense Contractor

Because I work in a secure facility, guns are prohibited in the building and in the parking lot. All employees were notified both verbally and in writing of the gun policy before anyone moved into this building. I don't see how any of these employees could be unaware of the company's policy. All the company has to do is produce memos or e-mails dated before Feb 7th notifying people of the policy in order to beat this. And because of the potential for lawsuits, most large companies are very aware of the need for informing employees of their policies and procedures.

I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Especially if Oklahoma is a so-called "right to work" state.

[-..__...]

24. Poor communication.

"I don't see how any of these employees could be unaware of the company's policy."

So, what you're suggesting is that the 11 employees were/had to be aware of the policy, but willfully chose to ignore it? Even at the risk of termination?


"All the company has to do is produce memos or e-mails dated before Feb 7th notifying people of the policy in order to beat this."

Which proves... what, exactly? :shrug:

There's nothing in the article that even mentions how the policy change was announced...

A little yellow Post-It-Note near the water cooler?

A managers casual mention to a lower-level supervisor?.. "BTW, Vern, you might want to mention to your guys that they can't bring their guns to work any more"

A printed memo tacked-up on the bulletin board amongst the clutter of
bowling league announcements, "used car" for sale postings, "congratulations to Marge on the birth of her new son", etc..

We're constantly getting work related memos. I know for a fact that not all of them reach my station.

"And because of the potential for lawsuits, most large companies are very aware of the need for informing employees of their policies and procedures."

And if that was of any concern they would have had their employees read and sign any notification of policy change and/or procedure. At the very least, a gathering or meeting on the "shop floor" between the immediate supervisor announcing the change in policy with those present signing an attendance sheet.

With my job; once a year all town employees have to sign and return an acknowledgment that they have read and understand the rules, policies and conditions of employment.

[CO Liberal]

28. I Think They Chose to Ignore It

To see if the company would enforce the new rule. And they lost.

A few people where I work talked about bring guns anyway and keeping them in their cars. They all thought better of it. It's been a year that we've been in the new facility, and no one has violated the no-gun policy.

[RoeBear]

34. Do you think that your employer

should have the right to search your car, anytime they want?

[CO Liberal]

43. In My Case, Yes

As a defense contractor, the company I work for has an obligation to the Defense Department to keep the facility as secure as possible, to keep the classified information in that facility secure. This includes random drug testing of all employees, monitoring of e-mails, and car searches - they are all conditions of employment.

We all knew this going in - it's part of working with sensitive material and having a SECRET security clearance. Anyone who didn't like these conditions could look elsewhere for work.

[RoeBear]

47. And have you ever had

your car searched?

[CO Liberal]

53. Yes

For access to both Schriever and Peterson Air Force Bases. Since I have nothing to hide, I had no objection to the searches.

I haven't had my truck searched at work yet - probably because you can see in to it and the Security guys know I don't have a gun.

[RoeBear]

56. "Since I have nothing to hide"

You know how bad that sounds?

Do you have anything to hide in your home? I'm sure you don't but since you " have nothing to hide" let me just take a quick look around, it won't take long.

[CO Liberal]

57. And Do You Know How Paranoid YOU Sound?????

?????

[RoeBear]

58. Explain...

...I honestly don't know how what I said sounded paranoid?

[CO Liberal]

59. Why Are You So Afraid of Searches?

:shrug:

[aikoaiko]

60. my two cents

For me its a privacy issue.

I could have lots of things in my car (e.g., in the glove box) that I wouldn't want my employer to know about. My car is an extension of my home (i.e., my property). Lets say you printed out a few pages of your favorite DU forums to read later and you employer goes looking for big bad guns, sees the printouts and now knows your a lefty. As a conservative, he might hold that against you come promotion time or a certain project. Politics sometimes enters into those situations.

I want to protect my privacy from government intrusion as well as corporate/employer intrusion.

[CO Liberal]

61. As Long as You Didn't Print Them Out on a Company Printer....

...you have nothing to worry about.

It seems to me that being pro-gun and being paranoid go hand-in-hand.....

[aikoaiko]

85. paranoia will destroy ya....

hmmm, seems like anti gunners and the company in question are a little paranoid about guns.

[CO Liberal]

92. I'm Not Anti-Gun Per Se...

...I'm anti-assholes with guns.

[MrSandman]

93. And who makes the determination of ....

Asshole?

And who sets the criteria?

How objective should it be?

What are the reasonable controls? I posted mine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x99131#99195

[-..__...]

94. Define assholes with guns?

Define non-assholes with guns?

See the problem? It's not the implement or availability now is it?

It's the "assholes" whom misuse it.

Go after the "assholes" whom create the problem. Not the majority whom behave responsibly.

[MrSandman]

95. Isn't it already illegal....

To do anything criminal with a gun?

[CO Liberal]

98. It's Also Illegal to Rob Banks

But they still get robbed. Laws don't prevent crimes - reasonable gun control does.

[MrSandman]

102. Ergo the low violent crime rate in...

Illinois and California as contrasted to, say Texas and WV.

Gotcha.:eyes:

On edit: The reasonable gun control laws of the latter two explain the lower violent crime rate. I stand corrected.

[CO Liberal]

108. It's Becoming Increasingly Obvious.....

...that although the name of this board has changed, the bullshit level has remained the same.

I'm taking this board off my list of groups. You people can live in your little fantasy world, where a gun solves every problem. I prefer to live in the real world, thank you.

[MrSandman]

109. Don't take my word...

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

[benEzra]

110. The real fantasy...

is thinking gun owners believe "a gun solves every problem." No, we don't.

What I want is to be free to make my own choices about whether or not to keep a gun or guns for defensive purposes, as opposed to being forced to live by the choices you would make if you were in my shoes. Live and let live, and all that.

[aikoaiko]

121. And the level of discussion on this board just went up a notch.

;-)

[Fescue4u]

131. you forgot the sarcasm tag

"Laws don't prevent crimes - reasonable gun control does."

Of course that statement is so ridiculous, I suppose its obviously sarcasm so no tag is needed.

[CO Liberal]

96. Simple

If you're an asshole and you own a gun, then you're an asshole with a gun.

See?

[aikoaiko]

105. thou protest too much CO Liberal.....

hahaha, I never said you were anti gun...

You're true colors show so easily.

I take it by your above statement that you don't have a gun. ;-)

[RoeBear]

62. "Why Are You So Afraid of Searches?"

Could you show me where I said that I was "afraid of searches"?

I just don't think that law enforcement officers should be able to do searches of my home, car or person without probable cause. With that said I sure as heck don't think that employers should be able to do searches of employees cars. For goodness sake even the ACLU thinks that school personel shouldn't be able to search students lockers.
If a locker is sancro sanct then a private car should be too.

[CO Liberal]

63. That Would Probably Be The Case...

...if it weren't for the fact that so many of your gun-owner bretheren have gotten pissed off at work, gone out to their vehicles, gotten their gun, come back into the building, and blown away their co-workers.

If companies didn't take what you condider to be draconian steps, they would leave themselves open to liability lawsuits. Remmeber, it only takes a split second to change a law-abiding gun owner into a cold-blooded murderer.

[RoeBear]

64. Obviously you have no intention of

playing nice. So I won't bother to ask you any more questions.

[CO Liberal]

65. Obviously....

...stating facts is your definition of "not playing nice". If you want to read lies, go to the NRA site.

[RoeBear]

66. Take a peek at what other DU members think about

reasonable searches:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3081415

[CO Liberal]

78. I Don't Need to Read What Other People Think....

...in order to form an opinion. Do you?

[RoeBear]

82. Afraid to see how

out of step you are with the rest of DU?

[-..__...]

81. You forgot to include body cavity searches.

Damn... now how do I smuggle out the boxes of pens and paper clips?
:+

[RoeBear]

84. If I'm your boss and I see

you stuffing office supplies 'up there' do I have probable cause to do a cavity search on you?

[-..__...]

88. I have nothing to hide.

Search all you want... or so we've been told.

It's your word aginst mine.

[RoeBear]

91. I just want to see if we agree on this...

...if I see you stuffing things 'up there' then I have probable cause to give you a cavity search. If not then <ahem> I should probably keep my nose out of there.

[benEzra]

71. Name five...

...if it weren't for the fact that so many of your gun-owner bretheren have gotten pissed off at work, gone out to their vehicles, gotten their gun, come back into the building, and blown away their co-workers.

"So many?" Name five. Five that had a bad day at work, and on the spur of the moment retrieved a gun from their car and carried out a workplace shooting that they hadn't already planned before they left home.

I personally can't think of any incidents in the last ten or twenty years that fit this description. Jog my memory.

(I can think of a few "disgruntled employee" shootings, in which a person had planned the incident for a long time and finally showed up with a weapon in his hands. But no one who fits your scenario of someone who retrieves a gun from their car on the spur of the moment and shoots up the place.)

If companies didn't take what you condider to be draconian steps, they would leave themselves open to liability lawsuits. Remmeber, it only takes a split second to change a law-abiding gun owner into a cold-blooded murderer.

You seem to have quite a warped view of law-abiding gun owners...and a rather dim view of the right to privacy as well...

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

79. So Since I Don't Agree With You, I'm Warped and Dim

Is THIS how we're supposed to be more inclusive? You're sounding like a dittohead.

[benEzra]

97. No, your're not warped. But your picture of law-abiding gun owners

as unstable people on the brink of a shooting spree is warped. The fact that I disagree with you on the issue of gun ownership does not automatically make me a "nut."

[CO Liberal]

99. You Cannot Assume...

...that each and every "law-abiding gun owner" is totally incapable of killing someone else. I say we should err on the side of caution.

[Billy Ruffian]

103. So where is the line you draw?

Every gun owner is a raving lunatic, ready to snap at a moments provocation?

You said you're 'against assholes with guns'

How do you propose to make that determination via the legislative process?

What restrictions do you want to place on me as a firearms owner? What restrictions to you want to place on me if I want to buy another firearm? What restrictions do you want to place on what I can buy? I don't deny that there are some that misuse firearms. There are millions, however, that do not.

What actions or behaviors do you want to make illegal, even though there is no harm done to anyone through those actions?

[RoeBear]

124. Your questions will go unanswered...

...that is his pattern.

Like when I asked him: "Afraid to see how out of step you are with the rest of DU?"

All i heard was crickets chirping.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99225&mesg_id=99329

[jody]

125. When you hear crickets chirping, catch a few and go fishing.

:hi:

[iverglas]

129. how does one hear crickets chirping

when he's got earmuffs on?

[MrSandman]

133. Didn't you see the pre-AWB documentary...

Falling Down?

[-..__...]

72. Ohh, puh-leeze!

:eyes:

"...if it weren't for the fact that so many of your gun-owner bretheren have gotten pissed off at work, gone out to their vehicles, gotten their gun, come back into the building, and blown away their co-workers.

And you have the audacity to call us paranoid?

When, where and how has this happened? (careful... it's a trick question). Hint: details are important.

Another hint: Can you say "pre-meditated"?



If companies didn't take what you condider to be draconian steps, they would leave themselves open to liability lawsuits.

Ummm, well... we could change the law to grant companies immunity from those kind of bogus lawsuits. But... you wouldn't like that either, would you?

"Remmeber, it only takes a split second to change a law-abiding gun owner into a cold-blooded murderer."

Lord... spare me!

[RoeBear]

75. That is a pretty ridiculous comment

"Remmeber, it only takes a split second to change a law-abiding gun owner into a cold-blooded murderer."

...isn't it.

I'm walking down the street minding my own business, singing a little song and then all of a sudden I pull my gun and start shooting innocent people. Yeah right.

[-..__...]

77. Happened to me just yesterday.

I "double-tapped" some co-worker because he had the nerve to ask me "what time is it".

Hmmm...."Remmeber"? Where are the grammar/spelling police when you need them? :evilgrin:

[RoeBear]

80. It was almost enough

to make me go 'postal'.

(my apologies to my union brothers in the APWU)

[-..__...]

83. You're a post office employee?

How come my Dillon Blue Press, Midway USA, Brownells, etc catalog either shows up late or is dog-eared and/or has greasy fingerprints on every page? B-)

Next time this happens, I'm gonna "bust-a-cap" in my delivery persons knee-cap.

[RoeBear]

86. No, I'm UAW but...

...all union members are my brothers.

[-..__...]

90. IAFF, myself.

International Association of Firefighters.

Have the sticker proudly displayed on my vehicle right along with my NRA sticker.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[-..__...]

35. But, that's just a guess on your part.

"I Think They Chose to Ignore It"

We still don't know if the employees fired were aware of the policy or not; more to the point... if they were given proper notice.

Could be that they were aware of it (through the rumor mill... "Hell yeah, I dun heard bout it, but weren't tol bout it by the boss"), and chose to ignore it.

My problem here is two-fold: were they given adequate and proper notification to the policy change?

Whom would you tend to believe more? Company management? Or the workers (even if they were "gun nuts")?

Yes, a company can set policy regarding what can take place and what can be brought on company property.

My second complaint: The manner in which this was conducted, and the final outcome is way over the top IMHO.

Suspension without pay, a warning, leave of absence perhaps?

Firing a guy with 20 years on the job for a simple rule infraction?

:shrug:

I don't even want to get started about the searching cars aspect.

That's BushCo Corporate America decision making.

Good for Weyerhauser... now they can ship those jobs to Guatemala for a fraction of the cost.

[CO Liberal]

44. Sometimes, Companies Make The Punishment Severe...

...as a warning to other employees that they mean business.

For example, the company I work for issues company credit cards to all salaried employees. We are to use them whenever we are traveling on company business - they cannot be used for personal purchases. At a quarterly meeting a few months ago, the Ethics Manager informed us that company-wide, 42 employees had been terminated in the past year for using their credit cards improperly.

No warning - terminated. And several of them were mid-level managers with many years of experience with the company. But because they violated the rules concerning credit card use, they're gone.

And BTW, in this case I tend to believe the Company Management over the employees, because in this day of litigation gone crazy, companies must fully document all disciplinary actions taked against an employee, especially when those actions lead to employment. I'm sure Weyerhauser has a propeer paper trail to back up their position.

[MrSandman]

46. Gotta give them CEO's the benefit of any doubt...

None of them would do anything deceptive. Ask Kenneth Lay.

[CO Liberal]

51. As Opposed to the Standard Pro-Gunner Assumption...

...that any gun owner is incapable of doing anything wrong. We've seen time and time again that this is not the case.

[Township75]

68. If that's true...

why don't you show us the post where some progunner stated that "any gun owner is incapable of doing anything wrong".

Personally, I think you are just throwing out horse shit and hoping some of it sticks...but if that line isn't horse shit, I am sure you can show us some proof.

[Township75]

69. hmmmmmm

..................

[MrSandman]

74. {tap,tap,tap}

This thing must be turned off:eyes:

[CO Liberal]

100. That's The General Impression One Gets From Reading Posts on This Board

That somehow gun ownership magically makes some reasoned, insightful, and completely logical. To which I say "Bullshit". People are people, and one person with a gun is just as capable of killing someone as the next person with a gun.

[Township75]

101. Your impressions don't equal assumptions on the part of others...

it just means that you make false conclusions. That's all, nothing else.

[CO Liberal]

106. Perhaps it is YOUR Assumptions That Are False

Ever think of that? :shrug:

[Township75]

120. Perhaps...

you could list those assumptions that are false.

[Billy Ruffian]

104. Your impression, however

seems to be that gun ownership magically makes one irrational, sociopathic and violent.

[CO Liberal]

107. No

But it DOES give someone the capability to instantly kill another person with hardly any effort, and sometimes without even thinking about it.

[Billy Ruffian]

111. But look at the numbers

there are well over 100 million firearms in the US.

Lets say there are 200,000 firearms injuries, including deaths (a number that I think is much more than actual) and lets say that none of those are accidents or justified.

Lets further make the restriction that once a firearm is used illegally, it's never used illegally again.

.5% of the firearms in the US are used illegally.

You seem to want to place more restrictions on the people that own the other 99.5 %

[CO Liberal]

112. Because No One Knows...

...when someone will move from the 99.5 category into the .5 category.

[MrSandman]

114. Just off the wires...

Over 83,000,000 gun owners did not committ a gun crime yesterday.

[CO Liberal]

115. And No One Knows...

...how many will commit a crime tomorrow. Do they?

[MrSandman]

117. Bet over 83,000,000 don't...nt

[CO Liberal]

118. And Since We Don't Know WHO Will Be Next....

...that's why sensible people like me favor reasonable gun control.

[MrSandman]

119. As do I...

At least by my definition.

Or do you want to limit the 83,000,000 who won't?

That is 30% of the Dem party IIRC. Kind of cuts into the base.

At least that is honest rather than opposing this weapon or that weapon as too "deadly".

[Billy Ruffian]

116. So what do you propose? n/t

[MrSandman]

73. As contrasted with the response of

Of not making assumptions about motives:

I Think They Chose to Ignore It...

or

Maybe they are going hunting right after work


And not making assumptions about what was or wasn't known:

I don't see how any of these employees could be unaware of the company's policy.

BTW, Sig forum has a very even-handed discussion where the employer rights are defended more vociferously than here. It doesn't seem the "standard pro-gunner response" is so standard.

[slackmaster]

50. Abusing a credit card seems more egregious than having a gun in your car

Just my personal opinion.

IMO if the company owns the parking lot it has every right to set rules about what can be brought onto its property. If the fired employees were NOT properly notified of the new policy they were improperly terminated, and I hope they have their day in civil court.

[CO Liberal]

52. A Violation of Company Rules is a Violation of Company Rules

Period.

[slackmaster]

54. Not all rules are created equal

If I violate my company's rule against taking a personal phone call that's not in the same league as violating my company's rule against dropping my drawers in the lunch room.

<Insert matcom's animated smiley butt here>

We also have a general principle of law and decency that punishment for an offense should be in proportion to the severity of the offense.

And I as a taxpayer have a problem with getting stuck supporting some poor bastard and his family because he got fired unjustly.

[CO Liberal]

55. If He Knew The Rules and Chose to Ignore Them...

...then he has no one to blame but himself.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

126. it'll be gone ...

I used to refer to the anti-choice brigade on the internet as the giant lime green jello fungus collective. (They claimed that 5-week embryos had "brainwaves" -- the same "brainwaves" can be measured by attaching electrodes to jello; there is a fungus in Michigan that extends for miles, all part of the same organism with the same DNA; and well all know about the Borg.) They all sat at their keyboards, channelling the same crud out onto the internet.

Sarah Thompson, the author of the screed reproduced here, is a loon and a quack and not a Democrat. And CO Liberal and the rest of us have read her quacking lunatic right wingery more times that we can count, at this point. Her website has disappeared from the ether, and my random guess would be that she is in a, uh, rest home somewhere.

Not only is it the purest and most anti-democratic demagoguery to characterize one's adversaries on a matter of public policy as mentally ill, it is simple stupidity to cite, as one's authority for that characterization, a lunatic quack.


(5-week embryos aren't fetuses; my slip corrected)

[iverglas]

128. oh, btw

(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)

When you urged CO Liberal to (re-re-re-re-re-)read this tripe, which of those did you have in mind, and regarding whom? You must have had somebody in mind ...

Whatever. I think you've earned it anyhow. Another award of the week goes out to Mayday999:


http://winace.andkon.com
"This is for those med school rejects
who just can't resist explaining,
in detail on a public message board,
what they perceive to be your motivations,
secret agendas and most hidden fears."

[Retired AF Dem]

67. Remember that

the next time you complain about the Lounge posting rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

23. I like Englehards policy

The company that does the internal coating on catalytic converters. No guns inside the facility, but guns can be kept in the parking lot as long as the guns are on file with the company.

[Township75]

70. Is the company going to fire all of its employees on...

bring your gun to work day?

[jody]

122. As others have said, the danger is multinational corporations have workers

in an untenable position and can fire them for any reason. What about children out of wedlock, smoking, drug use, genetic anomalies, drinking alcohol, listening to rock music? That's what happens in a corporate state as envisioned by Mussolini and Hitler and today by Bush and his multinational corporation handlers egged on by the religious fundamentalists. How did God and Satan arrange such a conglomeration?
:shrug:

[iverglas]

127. award of the week!

To make it nice and easy:


http://winace.andkon.com/pics

the danger is multinational corporations have workers
in an untenable position and can fire them for any reason.

Yuppers -- if ya don't got any worker protection legislation, employers can do precisely whatever they want.

If ya got such legislation -- or if workers have a union -- employers need just cause for dismissal. Like how it works up here in the land of committees and suchlike dreadful things.

What about children out of wedlock, smoking, drug use,
genetic anomalies, drinking alcohol, listening to
rock music?

No legislation to protect the workers: no jobs for the workers.

Legislation and/or collective agreements: employer must prove that this was just cause for dismissal, and if it can't, the employee has a remedy.

And then somebody might have to actually put his/her thinking cap on, and ask whether disobeying an order not to leave firearms in one's vehicle when it is parked on company property might just be a little bit DIFFERENT FROM disobeying an order not to listen to rock music in one's living room.

Spread enough of that Passion Berry Gel stuff around, though, and nobody will ever have to think at all.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

135. so you say

I'll wait for more evidence of the thinking cap, I think.

So. As long as it is condition of employment, all is fair?

"So"? As in "and then, and the next step"? As in, what you are suggesting follows logically from something *I* said?

I don't think so. In fact, it is in direct contradiction to what I have said in this thread. Feel free to read up.

Gee this is great. My property, and I can do anything I please Since you are on MY property, I rule.

Apparently so. Especially if what "you" are doing is shooting somebody else in the back of the head.

C'mon, git yerself up to speed, now.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.