SUPPORT LB 335

[CitizenClark]

.

[CitizenClark]

So you are saying it is OK in your world for employers to discriminate based on sex, race, ethnicity or religious beliefs as well as firearm ownership?

Sure. Anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of contract. That doesn't mean that I think people who discriminate on the basis of race or other such characteristics are nice, moral people. I think it is mean-spirited, immoral, and imprudent to run a business is such a manner, and I hope such folks go out of business. I don't think we need government punishing people for using their own stuff in stupid, mean ways.

[NENick]

My place of employment does not condone weapons, drugs or any illicit contraband on their property. We are subject to vehicle searches and disciplinary action/termination if any of the above is found in a vehicle upon a search. I'm OK with that. Abiding by the regulations set by my employer makes me a better employee and a better citizen. Work and my personal life are divided in the sense that to and from work (while able to CC) I am unarmed. This is directly related to work regulations. I will continue to follow these regulations because I am a good citizen and employee. We protect the community every day, but the second we're off duty in the community we're no longer assets, we're liabilities.

Are you a local LEO? The only reason I ask is because I don't think I've met one on here yet! It'd be nice to have the opinion of law enforcement available.

[Husker_Fan]

I think the question of whether or not a proprietor or employer should be on the hook for the injury or death of someone who, but for following the proprietor's policy, could have defended them-self or others, is an interesting one. Infringing on the proprietor's property right, is not the way to do it.

[NENick]

Sure. Anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of contract. That doesn't mean that I think people who discriminate on the basis of race or other such characteristics are nice, moral people. I think it is mean-spirited, immoral, and imprudent to run a business is such a manner, and I hope such folks go out of business. I don't think we need government punishing people for using their own stuff in stupid, mean ways.

I couldn't agree more.

[Husker_Fan]

Technically, the rule letting us store a gun locked in our cars at a prohibited place limits property rights as well. However, I see the parking lot rule for CHP holders, other than employees, as one of economy and efficiency. If I carry in my car, into the parking lot, then up to the door where I see a sign, I can go back to my car and lock up the gun without worrying about breaking the law. I can't necessarily know if a shop bans concealed carry unless I go up to the entrance. The rule allowing us to store a gun in the parked car on the property avoids an unknowing criminal violation (something usually avoided).

Employees, on the other hand, have full knowledge (or at least can be expected to know) of the their employer's policies.

[Husker_Fan]

Sure. Anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of contract. That doesn't mean that I think people who discriminate on the basis of race or other such characteristics are nice, moral people. I think it is mean-spirited, immoral, and imprudent to run a business is such a manner, and I hope such folks go out of business. I don't think we need government punishing people for using their own stuff in stupid, mean ways.

That's where we part ways. I'm all for allowing the market to work various injustices out, but there comes a time when markets fail and regulation is needed. Like I said above, I see a big difference between immutable characteristics and those that we choose.

Of course, that's getting off topic for this thread, but I thought it might give a little insight into my thinking.

[greg58]

So you are saying it is OK in your world for employers to discriminate based on sex, race, ethnicity or religious beliefs as well as firearm ownership?

My employer goes so far as to prohibit empty alcohol containers and empty shell casings from employee vehicles.
So if you are an enviromentally friendly sort, and pick up beer cans and brass casings and throw them in back of your vehicle, you could be subject to disiplinary action.
We are subject to search coming and going. I do not have a problem with this policy and I am always cooperative with the security people as they are just doing their jobs.
What I object to is the decision by my employer to disarm me during the hour of drive time I spend every shift, plus I tend to run errands before and after work.
I wish they had a secure locker area where employees could secure their weapons before work.
Greg58

[bullit]

Ain't it nice there are no laws prohibiting those of you who do not agree with your employers rights from going and getting another job?  Just sayin.....

[SHEP]

I have no problem disclosing my job. Although, I don't want say something i might regret in a future post and somehow associate myself in negative light to my work. Not disclosing specifics is considered, covering my ass. I'm a Corrections Corporal in the Omaha area. I personally do not consider myself LEO.  Although I do work within the justice/law enforcement system. I do NOT have the powers to arrest.

[unfy]

Lets try to back this up a little to get some ... common ground.

2A = a right.  We seem to agree.

Property rights = right of individual to do with their property as they see fit (within reason etc), we seem to agree.

Someone refusing armed persons on their own property.  This was the action of the owner of the property and had nothing to do with the gov't.  Gov't isn't involved until the property owner exercises their rights.... just as you would with any property rights complaint (trespassing, destruction of property, theft, etc).

LB 335 would now force property owners to give up some of their rights.


Now, lets approach this from a slightly different stand point.

Your vehicle is your property.  The contents there-in are your property.  Since NE doesn't have 'vehicle is extension of your home' law currently.... you might as well make the vehicle akin to a suitcase.

I take my vehicle/suitcase on to someone else's property.  Do they have the right to refuse me to enter their property because they don't like the suitcase ? Yes.

Take this a step further.  They are fine with me taking my vehicle/suitcase on to their property.  After all, what's wrong with a suitcase ?  There are other things that they don't like, and do NOT want on their property.

Do they have the right to search my vehicle/suitcase for things they don't like ? No.  Concerning others here who do let people search their vehicle: you're allowing them to (and if you didn't, I imagine you'd get fired heh... was a stipulation of employment no doubt).

If someone happens to see you have unwanted items within your vehicle/suitcase (or a camera happens to be pointed your way etc)... shouldn't they have the right to ask you to leave ?  It's their property.

Mostly outside of this discussion, I've heard people make mention that as long as it's kept locked up and out of sight, the weapon is fine and not a problem and none of the other person's business because the vehicle is your property etc.  Where this falls apart is that what if you do get caught ? Someone walks by, a camera gets pointed your direction, whatever.  You're now known to have something in your vehicle/suitcase which the property owner DOES NOT WANT on their land.  Getting caught didn't make it all of the sudden 'wrong' (nor was it 'right' as long as you weren't getting caught).



Lets take this to something a little different.  Free speech!

Let's say a 'free speech' version of 335 passed but was a bit broader in scope (just for simplicity).

How would you like for Sen. Ashford to be able to sit in your drive way for however long he wants.  You can't ask him to leave just because you have a different political view.  The Sen. has a right to free speech, you don't want him there because of his speech... but you are no longer allowed to ask him to leave.


As others have been pointing out -- your employer refusing to allow firearms on their property is their own action and have nothing to do with the gov't.

As others have been pointing out -- don't like employer conditions ? Nothing has required you to stay there in fear of punitive measures (outside of maybe breaking a contract).

So --- how is someone refusing to allow firearms on their property a violation of your own right to self defense ?  How is a church asking an atheist to leave a violation of free speech or religion ?

You don't *have* to go there.  You *can* go somewhere else.

Is it a major inconvenience to not keep the job ya want ? Darn tootin'.

[AAllen]

How would you like for Sen. Ashford to be able to sit in your drive way for however long he wants.  You can't ask him to leave just because you have a different political view.  The Sen. has a right to free speech, you don't want him there because of his speech... but you are no longer allowed to ask him to leave.


As others have been pointing out -- your employer refusing to allow firearms on their property is their own action and have nothing to do with the gov't.

As others have been pointing out -- don't like employer conditions ? Nothing has required you to stay there in fear of punitive measures (outside of maybe breaking a contract).

So --- how is someone refusing to allow firearms on their property a violation of your own right to self defense ?  How is a church asking an atheist to leave a violation of free speech or religion ?

You don't *have* to go there.  You *can* go somewhere else.

Is it a major inconvenience to not keep the job ya want ? Darn tootin'.

There is a major difference between Senator Ashford or anyone else holding a free speech session in my drive way and my having a firearm in my vehicle at work.  The free speech issue infringes upon my ability to use my driveway as I see fit, I want to park cars there play basketball etc. there, not hold political meetings.  My having a firearm in my car does not take away from my employers use of his parking lot, it is being used for his intended purpose of me his employee parking there.

Also the .gov already infringes upon my use of my driveway, by blocking the street of and allowing block parties (licensed by the city) that spills into my yard and drive, by permitting construction (running underground water etc lines) for neighbors property and many other nuisances.  An employer should be able to handle a the nuisance of me having a firearm inside the car that is parked in his parking lot by his authority.

[unfy]

Andy:

Nitpick the driveway ? easily rebutted as ok, my front yard, my porch, or willing to move around as i needed a particular space ... just like if employer asked me to move my vehicle, etc

A better retort would have been to go right-of-way stuff where the gov't can simply seize your land if someone pays enough money to have beaurocrats claim its in the best interest of the community.

The block party and construction that spills into your yard are also better arguments .  Blocking a driveway via public property is... weird though... and I'm unqualified to answer public / private property interaction.

But, two wrongs don't make a right.

Asking property owners to give up even more rights is bad.

I know I would be pissed if I couldn't insist that certain items couldn't be carried on to my land.


And just so this gets clarified - this has nothing to do with working at a bank or burger king, you're already able to store your weapon in the vehicle due to 'open to public' parking lot.

[unfy]

BTW, here's another thought.

Lets say this bill passes.

Boss finds out you concealed carry (or already knows), fires you on the spot so that he doesn't have to contend with *possibly* having a weapon on his premises.

[SHEP]

So....UNFY. I can see that make many good points and are very knowledgeable on the subject. As you play "devils advocate" so much, its difficult for me to tell whether you're for or against LB 335. I, am for the bill. U?

[unfy]

Originally, I was very for it.

Now, I'm fairly against it.

My reasons for being against it are wholly idealogical.

One person's liberty ends the moment it encroaches on another's, and as far as '2a vs property' (which i see as a red herring anyway) ... property rights must come first.

I want to like the bill.  I want people to be able to defend themselves and exercise self protection, but on fundamental grounds I can't support the bill.

I'll reiterate frustration at 'vehicle is not an extension of your home' in NE

[AAllen]

Unfy here is the bottom line; the property owner is not being denied his use of his property, in fact that is being supported.  He wants to allow his employees tha ability to park in his parking lot, nothing in the discussion/bill is taking that ability away.  At the same time as allowing the property owner to have his property used as he wishes this bill recognizes that people may have another protected item inside their vehicle and asks (ok requires) the property owner to respect that.

There are limits to all rights including property rights, and when two rights come into conflict it must be detirmed which comes to more harm than the other as well as if there is some priority give one of the rights over another.  In this instance 2A rights have legal priority, also the limit being placed upon the property owner is insignificant compared to the employee who may be placed in a life threatening situation when traveling outside of the parking lot.

Nobody has made an argument that says that the property owner in any way is being harmed by this bill.  If the propety owner is being harmed in some way what is it?

[AAllen]

Lets take a look at a similar item; Landowners have the right to say no hunting on their property, and that is legally enforceable.  But if a hunter injures an animal and pursue it onto that landowners property for the purpose of humanly killing said animal, and recovering it; the landowner must by law allow that.  Has the landowner had his rights limited, yes, but I don't hear anyone saying we should do away with fair pursuit laws.

[greg58]

Originally, I was very for it.

Now, I'm fairly against it.

My reasons for being against it are wholly idealogical.

One person's liberty ends the moment it encroaches on another's, and as far as '2a vs property' (which i see as a red herring anyway) ... property rights must come first.

I want to like the bill.  I want people to be able to defend themselves and exercise self protection, but on fundamental grounds I can't support the bill.

I'll reiterate frustration at 'vehicle is not an extension of your home' in NE

I wonder if any of you folks defending the employers property rights have any "skin in the game"?
As someone directly effected by this restriction of my CHP rights of course I am for 335.
I have considered looking elsewhere for employment, but I have decided I like the work, pay, people, and skills I am learning where I am at.
So I go along with the rules and abide by them, but that cannot change the way I think about things.
I was self employed for 20+ years and employed several people over that time, believe me I had much more to worry about than what my employee had in his car. These rules seem overreaching and silly to me, if the State has checked my background and trusts me to walk around armed, what does my employer have to worry about if I have a firearm secured in "my" vehicle?
Greg58

[AAllen]

And just so this gets clarified - this has nothing to do with working at a bank or burger king, you're already able to store your weapon in the vehicle due to 'open to public' parking lot.

But it does have to do with that; even though you or I as a member of the public with a CCP can park in those lots, leave our firearms in our cars (properly secured of course), the employees of that business can not.  No they will not face criminal charges but they could and if caught would face termination, this is an attempt to give them some protection from that (very week protections with how Nebraska employment laws work).