Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gun Ban Ban Boycott
The National Rifle Association is urging a boycott of ConocoPhillips to protest the energy company's participation in a federal lawsuit challenging an Oklahoma statute that prohibits companies from banning guns in vehicles parked on their property. The Oklahoma law was passed in response to the firing of 12 employees at a Weyerhaeuser paper mill after guns were discovered in their cars during a sweep with drug-sniffing dogs. "The end result if they win this case," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, "is every factory, food outlet, and mall will be posted 'No firearms,' so if you take a ride with your rifle or shotgun, you can't park anywhere."
That scenario does not seem very likely to me, especially in areas where retailers and restaurants depend on the business of people who keep guns in their cars for hunting or self-defense. But if the NRA were simply objecting to ConocoPhillips' policy of barring guns from its parking lots, I would have no problem with the boycott. Instead, the NRA is objecting to the company's defense of its right to determine the gun policy on its own property. Oklahoma's law is analagous to a law that forces bars and restaurants to allow smoking, regardless of what the owners want to do.
|8.3.05 @ 12:57PM|#
I would be behind the NRA if they would just shoot somebody once
in a while instead of making asses of themselves.
/"it's made out of people!"
|8.3.05 @ 12:57PM|#
Jacob, well said. Infringing on a company or individual's
property rights isn't right.
That said, I have to wonder if, in the event of an act of workplace
violence that the company/establishment could be held liable for
denying its employees/patrons the ability to defend themselves.
|8.3.05 @ 12:59PM|#
mediageek-
More likely a company would be held liable if something bad
happened and there wasn't a "No guns allowed" sign.
|8.3.05 @ 1:04PM|#
True. Typical legal CYA would certainly mandate this. But the precedent seems to be that mass shootings take place in such "gun-free" zones.
|8.3.05 @ 1:07PM|#
The NRA is just proving that they are as statist as any other
interest group.
In the article I read about this the other day I read an NRA
spokesman statement which implied that the corporation was
infringing on Second Amendment rights. Its this sort of reasoning
that keeps me from materially or otherwise supporting the NRA.
|8.3.05 @ 1:10PM|#
The NRA is just proving that they are as statist as any
other interest group.
*sigh*
Yeah...
|8.3.05 @ 1:13PM|#
Mr. LaPierre said that "nobody is proposing you be allowed
to walk into a nuclear plant with a gun," but that workers had a
constitutional right to keep legal weapons secured in their cars
when they went to work.
What the fuck is wrong with these people?
|8.3.05 @ 1:14PM|#
ConocoPhillips has the right to say whether or not guns may be on theirr property. I can't stand big government conservatives who say they want a smaller goverment, but at the sametime want people to abide by their beleifs and lifestyle. Its ConocoPhillips' property and they can decide (within reason) want is aloud. If the employees don't like it then they can work somewhere else.
|8.3.05 @ 1:17PM|#
I'm finally convinced that the NRA is nothing but just another sleezy lobby group.
|8.3.05 @ 1:18PM|#
Hakluyt-
It's a response to a couple of incidents where employees who had
planned to head to a shooting range after work were fired for
having their guns stowed in their vehicles.
Once management found out about, they were fired.
Conoco is the target the NRA has picked, but AOL has done this as
well.
It's an idiotic company policy that the NRA has chosen to fight
with an idiotic plan and rhetoric.
|8.3.05 @ 1:21PM|#
I should start a "Boycott the NRA" campaign. :)
In this case, I have to agree with you. Overall, though, I think
they tend to do more good than bad, especially with regard to
teaching gun safety and organizing competitions.
|8.3.05 @ 1:27PM|#
mediageek,
Get a load of this statement:
"Across the country, we're going to make ConocoPhillips the
example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second
Amendment rights," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
said.
You don't have a Second Amendment right to store your gun on
someone else's private property.
|8.3.05 @ 1:29PM|#
mediageek,
Well, in all honesty, I have no use for the NRA; its chock full of
bigots and other nuts who I'd rather not fund.
Give to the Pink Pistols instead. :)
|8.3.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Why can't they leave their firearms secured in their locked trunk (their own private property)? How is the NRA advocating that statist?
|8.3.05 @ 1:33PM|#
Sean,
If I drive my car on your lawn am I on your property or in mine?
I'm in my car (my property), it's my car that's on your lawn (your
property). If yu have a beef with me being on your lawn, tough, I'm
in my property.
See how silly that sounds?
|8.3.05 @ 1:37PM|#
Sean: You can't be serious. An employer can't set the conditions for employment if they aren't "reasonable" in your view, or in the view of any other potential employee?
|8.3.05 @ 1:37PM|#
Well, in all honesty, I have no use for the NRA; its chock
full of bigots and other nuts who I'd rather not fund.
I've found it to be populated by generally paleo-conservative
types, but I would hardly describe them as bigots or nuts.
Give to the Pink Pistols instead. :)
And Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Second
Amendment Sisters, etc, etc. :)
|8.3.05 @ 1:37PM|#
Sean, "How is the NRA advocating that statist?" Because they're
not just "advocating" it. They're going to court in hopes of
getting the state to enforce that rule upon the business.
mike, "I'm finally convinced that the NRA is nothing but just
another sleezy lobby group."
The "Enforce the Laws on the Books" (the ones we denounced as
unconstitutional when they passed) argument didn't tip you off?
They're a front put out there by the gun manufacturers' trade
group.
|8.3.05 @ 1:41PM|#
They're a front put out there by the gun manufacturers'
trade group.
Joe, that's patently a load of crap. There's no way the gun
manufacturers' trade group has anywhere near 4 million employees,
members, CEO's, etc.
|8.3.05 @ 1:44PM|#
Mo, if I pour concrete around your car while it's on my land, then it's my real property and I'll toss your ass out for trepassing.
|8.3.05 @ 1:46PM|#
mediageek,
I've met way too many NRA types talking about "killing faggots." Of
course they were speaking to me without realizing that I am a mole.
:)
Sean,
Because its not their property. Duh! If you drive onto someone's
property, and they tell you that they don't allow firearms on their
property, then I suggest you leave and return without your
firearms.
|8.3.05 @ 1:50PM|#
The Oklahoma law was passed in response to the firing of 12
employees at a Weyerhaeuser paper mill after guns were discovered
in their cars during a sweep with drug-sniffing dogs.
My problem with the NRA in this case is that they have
absolutely no problem with a sweep with
drug-sniffing dogs.
When will the NRA get a clue? Rights are not exclusive and
divisable.
Now I suppose that Weyerhaeuser and anyone else has a right to
sweep cars parked on their property and likewise prohibit
firearms on their property, or for that matter drug-test
their employees to their heart's content. But I think it is also
reasonable to protest those things as being unreasonable and
intrusive. If the NRA were limiting itself to that, no problem (as
Jacob points out).
I belong to the NRA for one reason only: to belong to a gun club
that has a decent shooting range.
|8.3.05 @ 1:51PM|#
Hak- perhaps it's a matter of location. I've not heard anything
like that from the members I know.
However, I will admit that several years ago, I got some rather,
um, interesting looks from the old geezers running a match when I
showed up with my hair dyed a wonderfully bright shade of blue.
|8.3.05 @ 1:51PM|#
I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Those who believe in the 2nd Amendment should support the NRA, warts and all. Otherwise, we are looking at a nation of disarmed subjects.
|8.3.05 @ 1:52PM|#
If we're talking about locked cars, can't the case be made that the car in question is private property? I consider my car to be private property at least, and not an extension of my employer when I'm parked on their property.
|8.3.05 @ 1:58PM|#
Mo sez:
The difference is that the employees were parking there with
permission.
|8.3.05 @ 1:59PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy: Your comment reminds of labor union rank and file who, when told that their leaders were involved in organized crime and related murders, said: "Well, they always took good care of me, and that's all that matters."
|8.3.05 @ 2:05PM|#
KMW, for that matter, I could carry a gun in MY pocket on
someone else's property. My pants are private property.
And, the employers permission had a condition.
|8.3.05 @ 2:07PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
There are other, less noxious, gun rights groups out there. I
wouldn't give the NRA a dime.
kmw,
They were also aware of the "no firearms" policy as well. The
employees were nailed because they were dumb enough to ignore the
company's policy. If they don't like the policy, they can move
right along to another job.
|8.3.05 @ 2:09PM|#
This case really has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It simply doesn't apply here. You don't have an individual right to bear arms on someone else's private property.
|8.3.05 @ 2:11PM|#
Hak,
You're one hundred percent right. The second amendment thing is
just a distraction. What do you call that fallacy, anyway?
|8.3.05 @ 2:12PM|#
"The difference is that the employees were parking there with
permission."
So, if I drive to a local shopping plaza and park my car in the lot
designated for the shop I'm in, does the shop have the right to
look in my trunk?
Or to put it another way, is this permission explicit or implicit,
and does permission to park on private property also carry with it
rights to search and/or seize?
If another shopper or a store employee, or the lot owner for that
matter, were to break into my car, wouldn't they have committed a
crime?
|8.3.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Hakluyt,
I agree that this isn't about the 2nd amendment, but I'd like to
think that the fourth amendment applies to private parties
too.
If my employer searches my car and finds a porn DVD I forgot about,
if they fire me I'm going to sue their ass for breaking into my car
without my permission.
|8.3.05 @ 2:14PM|#
What if the employee is a stock holder of a public held corp. (401k,etc.) is he not a partial owner of that property?
|8.3.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Hak:
I brought up the 2nd Amendment when someone insinuated that I was a
mindless NRA drone.
Seriously, I believe that someone can be a reluctant member, like
the good Isacc Bartram, maybe even be a voice of reason.
However, to say "Aw, fuck the NRA" is a bit ignorant, in my
opinion. The NRA is the single most powerful gun lobby. You get rid
of them, and the Brady bunch will most certainly win.
|8.3.05 @ 2:15PM|#
We need an employment laywer here - there are standards for
privacy when it comes to cars in the lot, the purse at your desk,
the pile of high-heeled shoes under your desk, lunch sacks in the
break room fridge, bills and netflix DVDs that you prepared at home
but put in your office outbox, etc. etc.
Workers haven't just wandered on to someone's property, there are
there on a contract. Even in this crazy mixed-up word, employers do
have some limits by that contract.
|8.3.05 @ 2:15PM|#
The NRA is not, and does not claim to be, a civil rights
organization. It has never claimed to be perfectly libertarian
either. It represents the interests of gun owners. In this case,
their interests do not coincide with pure libertarianism.
When there's a 100% pure libertarian organization with the strength
of the NRA protecting the 2nd ammendment, I'll support them. Till
then, I'm NRA.
|8.3.05 @ 2:20PM|#
The gun is still in the company's private property. The company
may prevent anybody parking in their parking lots no matter what
the circumstances are.
"I have a gun in my coat pocket, my coat is private property,
therefore the owner of the property can't deny me entry." This does
not make any sense. Remember the company gave them permission to
park on their property, so the company can take away that
privilege.
|8.3.05 @ 2:24PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Its called the right to associate with whom I wish to associate
with. And I will not associate with bigots.
Pistol Packin' Mama,
Its likely spelled out very clearly in their employment contract
that they are not allowed to bring guns onto the property
(including the parking lot) of their employer. The employees aren't
"victims" here, they're just downright stupid.
kmw,
Why should the Fourth Amendment apply to a private party's action?
You can sue someone in a civil trial if they have trespassed on
your property, and of course there are criminal penalties too that
you can lobby the state to go after them on. The Fourth Amendment
protects citizens from the actions of the government, not from the
actions of private individuals. There are other remedies for the
latter.
|8.3.05 @ 2:31PM|#
When my friends were put in the Disney jail (way back in the day), they didn't have a right to a swift and speedy trial. Of couse, they were free to go after a couple hours.
|8.3.05 @ 2:34PM|#
It's like Planned Parenthood. I can support their antiseptically
killing babies. I object to their wanting to lower world
population.
(I'm a disciple of Julian Simon.)
|8.3.05 @ 2:37PM|#
Its called the right to associate with whom I wish to
associate with. And I will not associate with bigots.
Painting with a rather broad brush, aren't you?
Its likely spelled out very clearly in their employment
contract that they are not allowed to bring guns onto the property
(including the parking lot) of their employer.
Just because it's spelled out in the employee handbook doesn't mean
it isn't an idiotic policy.
Andrew McGuinness|8.3.05 @ 2:38PM|#
This piece is criticising the opposition to a challenge to a
prohibition of a ban on guns on private property. I think.
My head hurts.
|8.3.05 @ 2:42PM|#
Hakluyt,
I appreciate your contributions here more that you could know, I'm
just concerned about the logical consequences of telling an
employer they can do anything to anybody on their property. Does my
boss have the "private property" right to fuck me in the ass
without my permission, on company property?
For me, this has nothing to do with firearms, but about what the
limits of privacy are. Companies are always trying to push to see
what they can get away with. My employer says that porn isn't
allowed, but if they fire me because they find out I download stuff
on my own time, with my own equipment, in my own home, I'm going to
sue for false termination.
|8.3.05 @ 2:44PM|#
crimethink:
Maybe we can get Jennifer to design a cyber-rock..
I'll give it a try:
-- **
-- ****
**
Consider yourself stoned!
|8.3.05 @ 2:46PM|#
Hak, were they "NRA types" (whatever that means, and I smell a
bigoted stereotype in that terminology, my friend) or "NRA
members."
And if you won't associate with bigots, you must not belong to any
groups of more than a dozen or so. The biggest racists I know are
party-line old skewl Democrats (and I'm not just talkin' Robert
Byrd here, either). More than a few capital "L" Libertarians have a
Jewish problem, if you know what I mean.
|8.3.05 @ 3:00PM|#
I think the issue here is a publiclly acessable parking lot as opposed to one inside a security fence. I work at a very large chemical plant that has secure and non-secure parking. I park in the non-secure lot because I go to the pistol range after work a lot and therefore take my pistol with me to work. It is locked in a case in the trunk. Can the company I work for tell me that as long as I work for them I can't have my pistol in my car? By the way, I am a member of the NRA (20 years) and ;1 I am not a bigot or nutjob, and 2: I have never heard an NRA member advocate killing anyone except in self defense. The vast majority of us are regular, law abiding citizens. If CONOCO wnats to prohibit firearm possesion inside their secure areas they have that right and I have no problem with it. Prohibiting firearms from publiclly acessable parking lots I do have a problem with.
|8.3.05 @ 3:11PM|#
mediageek,
Idiotic policy or not, its not something I'm concerned about.
ConocoPhillips isn't in this instance advocating an assault on my
private property rights.
R.C. Dean,
They are NRA members (some of them are in my family even). You
forget something, I'm from the rural South. Have you ever been to a
NRA convention? Or one of the state meetings?
kmw,
No, that would be sexual assault (well, rape). The employer can
demand that you leave the property however.
...I'm just concerned about the logical consequences of telling
an employer they can do anything to anybody on their
property.
I don't believe I've stated that. There is a big difference between
stating that one can be fired at will and stating that they can do
anything they want to you.
|8.3.05 @ 3:11PM|#
companies from banning guns in vehicles parked on their
property.
Not only is the company banning gun in vehicles parked on their
property, but they are effectively banning guns in vehicles
travelling to and from their property.
And if private property owners (including employers) have the right
to control what's on their property, what's wrong with a "No
Negroes Allowed" sign?
|8.3.05 @ 3:17PM|#
Its private property. End of story. Nothing else to discuss. If
you don't accept that then you should become a Republican or a
Democrat.
Devil's Advocate,
Well, as loathesome as racism is, most libertarians would argue
that such laws regulating the freedom of association should be
overturned.
|8.3.05 @ 3:24PM|#
Avocatus Diaboli,
As Hakluyt correctly points out, the people here (including myself)
would argue that such a sign should not be illegal. A company that
discriminates against a sizeable group hurts itself by reducing its
supply of potential labor, thus driving up the price thereof.
The same logic applies here; if enough potential employees refuse
to work for this company if they can't have guns in their parked
cars, the company will have to pay its employees more or change its
policy.
|8.3.05 @ 3:24PM|#
Next thing you know, one of these cyber-rocks a-flyin' will put
out somebody's cyber-eye!
So cut it out! Renounce violence!
t r a n q u i l i t y
NOW!!
|8.3.05 @ 3:31PM|#
crimethink,
Also, let's keep in mind that historically much of the
discrimination along these lines was state mandated.
|8.3.05 @ 3:53PM|#
Hakluyt sez:
Indeed, you didn't say that. I'm just making up strawmen to bitch
about, since the opportunity sort of presented itself. And if
there's one thing I love to do, it's bitching about my employer.
Sorry to include you in that.
|8.3.05 @ 3:54PM|#
What other legal products should employers be
allowed to ban from their employees' vehicles?
What should they not be allowed to ban?
|8.3.05 @ 3:58PM|#
What other legal products should employers be allowed to ban
from their employees' vehicles?
Salad Shooters.
|8.3.05 @ 4:03PM|#
Hakluyt,
By the bye, are you going to start your own blog one of these days?
It'd be nice to be able to read your comments somewhere more... uh,
under your direct control, shall we say.
M.J. Basial|8.3.05 @ 4:03PM|#
OK, I'm finding this issue to be intensely interesting. The way
I see it, we have an intersection of multiple inalienable rights
(inalienable as in you cannot sign them away, kind of like you
can't legally sell yourself into slavery, a contract of that sort
is automatically null and void). One is the property owner's right
to control his/her property. The other is the right to
self-defense.
(And yeah, I know that courts have upheld all kinds of things are
blatantly wrong, like firing people for smoking at home. I'm
seeking what is right, not what matches law or precedent.)
I haven't got my thoughts on it all worked out yet, but here's
where I am this minute:
An employer couldn't make voting for a particular party a condition
of employment, because your right to vote as you see fit is
inalienable. That part of your contract would be null and void.
Yes, you can go get a different job, but your other option is to
simply ignore the void portion of the contract. I would think that
depriving you of effective means for self-defense would fall into
the same category -- null and void, no matter what you signed your
name to.
To abuse the "your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my
nose" analogy, to me it seems that, well, here we are with the
tender skin of my forearm (self-defense) superglued to your nose
(property rights), and I'm pretty sure we're both going to get hurt
resolving this.
|8.3.05 @ 4:04PM|#
I drove on to a few lots of TV networks, stations, syndicators, etc. in LA for business. One place actually had me open my trunk so they could search the car (coming and going!). But guess what, it's their right. It pissed me off as an employee of an affiliated company, but I could just have not gone to visit or chosen a different line of work entirely. They set their policies for the safety of their property and employees.
|8.3.05 @ 4:06PM|#
They set their policies for the safety of their property and
employees.
Maybe, maybe not. They damn sure set their policies to cover
management's ass, though.
|8.3.05 @ 4:13PM|#
They set their policies for the safety of their property and
employees.
But blacks commit violent crime at a higher per-capita rate than
gun owners do.
If safety were the issue, the "No Negroes Allowed" sign would make
much more sense than "No Guns Allowed" sign.
|8.3.05 @ 4:15PM|#
In other news
today:
NRLB Redefines 'Your Own Time'
Posted by timothy on Wednesday August 03, @03:27PM
from the can't-possibly-pass-muster dept.
Doc Ruby writes "The U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has
ruled to ban off-duty worker 'fraternization,' at the employer's
discretion. So getting together for a beer after work can now be
prohibited by the boss. With IT workers so commonly producing some
of our best work 'after hours,' even at home or in
restaurants/bars, will this ruling come back to bite employers in
the IT industry? Can they really stop you from talking with your
cubicle neighbor on the bus home, if they can't even stop you from
reading Slashdot while on the clock?"
|8.3.05 @ 4:21PM|#
Why do so many people believe that the employer's private property rights to the parking lot trump the employee's private property rights to their vehicle? Isn't the employer attempting to enforce a restriction of the employee's private property rights that extend far beyond the boundaries of the employer's property. If my employer didn't allow a firearm in my vehicle it would not only affect me while I was parked there, but also at any point during the trip to and from work which is an unreasonable restriction of my property rights. What if the employer had banned child seats in the parking lot, should they be able to fire every parent that had one for use before and after work? Also, where is the outrage over a random search of employee vehicles by a private employer, this is the part of the story that scares me, have we really reached the point where an employer or other parking lot owner can search your vehicle at any time and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow.
M.J. Basial|8.3.05 @ 4:24PM|#
Well, I did some poking around, and found that according to a
gun-ban group (www.workplaceshootings.com, stated purpose is
eliminating private handgun ownership), "In the last decade
(1994-2003), there were 164 workplace shootings in America, with a
total of 290 people killed and 161 wounded."
That's an average of 30/year (from folks that would probably want
the number to look as high as possible). According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics(http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.pdf), there are
133M workers in the US. And only 30 got shot to death? I bet more
people die at work from strokes caused by vigorous sneezing. (Yes,
yes, all loss of life is tragic, especially if you're in that
unlucky 30, but come on, that's 2E-05 percent. That's not even a
real number, it's so small.)
Looking around (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/violence.pdf), I
get an annual average 900 homicides in the workplace. So, I'm going
to say that with the killer doing the deed with a gun less than 4%
of the time (30/900, yeah, pulling averages from different time
periods, give a guy a break), banning guns has nearly nothing to do
with worker safety. (For comparison, guns are used in a bit over
50% of all homicides - just not the ones at work, I guess.)
I'm sure opinions will differ about the real reasons, but safety is
not a *logical* reason to ban guns. Spend your safety money/effort
on something else.
|8.3.05 @ 4:36PM|#
They set their policies for the safety of their property and
employees.
But if they ban guns from their property as part of their safety
policy, does this not put the obligation for employee protection on
the shoulders of management?
If part of the employee contract is to disallow the possession of
defensive implements on company property, are they not, in effect,
stating that the company is now responsible for your safety?
|8.3.05 @ 4:37PM|#
I wonder this:
The natural thing for one, as a hypothetical big-rig/delivery
truck/armored car driver would be to pack heat. If you are making a
delivery to the company in question, do you have to toss your
firearm out into the lawn outside, make your delivery, and the
retrieve it?
And I have to be honest, banning guns in cars? Stupid, but their
right to do it. Seems to me that it's akin to "gun-free school
zones" and the like. Yeah, some half-crazed Cononco worker is going
to look at the sign and say "ohhh, yeahhhhh, I can't bring a gun
HERE, can I?". Good Lord.
|8.3.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Yeah, some half-crazed Cononco worker is going to look at
the sign and say "ohhh, yeahhhhh, I can't bring a gun HERE, can
I?". Good Lord.
It really seems to be something of an irony that most mass
shootings take place in locations where concealed carry is
prohibited.
|8.3.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Have you ever been to a NRA convention?
No, but I went to the SHOT Show last year, and certainly got no
such vibe.
|8.3.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
I imagine that the contract with the armored car company would
specify that they're exempt from the policy. Otherwise, no armored
car company will deal with them.
No matter how convoluted and far-fetched a scenario you can come up
with, the market will take care of those who make foolish policies
such as this. No need for legislation.
M.J. Basial|8.3.05 @ 5:20PM|#
Hakluyt,
No, not yet. It appears to be all the rage these days, tho, so I
should probably get to it. How's it fit in, here?
|8.3.05 @ 5:28PM|#
M.J. Basial,
Well, what you were writing about fits in with the theme of "odd,"
but important issues found in the book. An example being, why do
crack dealers live with their mothers?
|8.3.05 @ 5:32PM|#
A business that won�t let you bring a firearm on their property
is well within their rights I suppose. (I do think it is idiotic
though.) It may cause concern for a person who must drive a long
way, or through bad neighborhoods to get to work. They can�t carry
a gun for self-defense to and from work, as they will be stuck
breaking the rules when they park there.
Maybe this could be an opportunity for an entrepreneur. If there
are enough companies in a city that ban guns on their property why
not open some sort of Gun Drop Off Hut? You roll up and hand over
your iron. You get a receipt and the gun goes into a safe. When you
come back, you pay a couple of bucks and get your firearm for the
trip home.
Probably not feasible but who knows. I work at a place that will
not allow firearms in the car and I know I would be willing to use
such a Hut.
M.J. Basial|8.3.05 @ 5:34PM|#
I would think that it's tough to prove your source of all-cash
income to a landlord when you can't talk about where you get it,
and tough to get a mortgage to buy a place for the same
reason.
(Pardon if I don't reply for a bit, meeting to go to, y'all talk
amongst yourselves . . .)
|8.3.05 @ 5:37PM|#
are they not, in effect, stating that the company is now
responsible for your safety?
Indeed, by claiming a right to search the car they are also
providing a guarantee for the security of the car and it's contents
so if a car in their care is keyed the liability is on them. As far
as the employees at Weyerhaeuser are concerned, I think the burden
of proof would be on the company to ensure that all employees were
informed in writing of an alteration of their employment
contract.
If anyone questions what property rights employers are entitled to,
consider the fact that standard boilerplate in any engineering
field contract includes the loss of any and all intellectual
property conceived of while in the employ of the company. This
extends to your hobbies that you partake in on your own time that
are not related to the field you are in. So an electrical engineer
that writes a song on the weekend is obliged to turn it over to or
get a waiver from the company.
|8.3.05 @ 6:05PM|#
Under current law, can a property owner search every vehicle on their lot for any reason whatsoever? I'm not sure how this works. Is there a privacy expectation somewhere in there? Lawyers?
|8.3.05 @ 6:08PM|#
No, but I went to the SHOT Show last year, and certainly got
no such vibe.
And the SHOT show is most definitely sponsored by the
industry.
So it seems industry-sponsored firearms conventions are not racist
and bigoted. This would seem to require the anti-NRA "types" to
give up on either (a) the NRA is industry sponsored or (b) the NRA
is bigoted.
Or they could give up on both.
|8.3.05 @ 6:29PM|#
I find there is a great deal of bigotry here in New England. Most all of it aimed at NRA members rather than emanating from NRA members. Trust me, you don't want to get caught in Cambridge after dark with an NRA cap on...or daytime for that matter.
|8.3.05 @ 6:46PM|#
mediageek,
I've gotten many such anti-gay vibes from NRA members. Anti-gay
sneers have been common at NRA conventions of late.
|8.3.05 @ 7:32PM|#
The comments in this thread illustrate why everyone thinks that libertarians are wackos. Unless the employer provides some kind of storage for any banned items that might be carried in an employee's vehicle, they have effectively usurped any privacy or property rights related to the use of the vehicle by the employee even when the employee is not on the employer's property. If the employer knows that you will end your journey at their parking lot and does not provide a method of dealing with legal items that they exclude from their property, they have declared that you are unable to have any banned items in your vehicle even while it is in transit to their property. Using this same logic, employers should be able to test for drugs, search your home for stolen items and control your behavior in any way that they see fit, while you are in their employ. It is a ridiculous notion that an employer gets total control over an employee's life, up to and including what you can have in your vehicle on the ride to work. I would rather be ruled by one government than by a group of corporate despots.
|8.3.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Scott,
...they have effectively usurped any privacy or property rights
related to the use of the vehicle by the employee even when the
employee is not on the employer's property.
The employee can work elsewhere.
Using this same logic, employers should be able to test for
drugs...
Yes, if you choose to work for someone then a drug test is
fine.
...and control your behavior in any way that they see fit,
while you are in their employ.
If you choose to contract with someone in that way, that's
fine.
It is a ridiculous notion that an employer gets total control
over an employee's life...
You allow your employer no more control than you allow them. You
are free to leave that position if you so desire in other words.
Honestly, you act like there is no freedom to move from employer to
employer in this country.
|8.3.05 @ 7:48PM|#
kmw,
Its been repeated a couple of times here; Scott is merely parroting
what other's have stated (see Deacon Blues' statements).
Apparently folks like Scott assume that people are "forced" to work
for certain employers. *rolls eyes*
|8.3.05 @ 7:54PM|#
I would rather be ruled by one government than by a group of
corporate despots.
I find it odd you make the distinction between a government despot
and a corporate one? The difference would be that it's much easier
to change the latter.
|8.3.05 @ 7:55PM|#
Let's see, my next hunch is who will use the Ad Numerum argument in comparing the NRA to libertarians. Any takers? I'd say Eric, but he doesn't hang out here anymore.
|8.3.05 @ 7:58PM|#
I meant the part about "everyone thinks that libertarians are wackos." Usually only Joe says that phrase.
|8.3.05 @ 8:08PM|#
kmw,
Ahhh, sorry for the confusion.
Good ole' boy conservatives/populists just can't stand them "evil"
corporations.
|8.3.05 @ 8:09PM|#
Hakluyt,
If you don't like the "vibes" at NRA conventions, why go? It would
be interesting to note if there is an alarming disproportion
between "vibes" from NRA members and the general population from
the same area.
|8.3.05 @ 8:27PM|#
1) I'll almost certainly be joining the NRA soon, because I know
they offer decent classes for beginners. Before somebody jumps all
over me about their politics and alleged bigotry, let me ask the
following:
-Do any pro-choicers here eat pizza from Dominos?
-Did anybody take an elective class in college from a leftist
professor?
-Does anybody buy tickets to see movies with leftist actors?
2) I think the "quit if you don't like it!" attitude is a little
too simplistic for reality. However, if we take a
closer look at reality we'll observe a few things that the "It's
not that simple!" crowd might want to consider:
-The most intrusive employer policy by far is probably drug
testing. Employers test you for drugs that are illegal, but they
almost never test for nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, or any other
legal substance. (Well, they don't want you to show up to work
drunk, but that's a matter of job performance.) Some also ask you
to not smoke in the office, but that's (a) a matter of courtesy and
(b) in many places a matter of law.
So before we blame the most intrusive corporate policy around
solely on the puritanism and bigotry of bosses, keep in mind that
the state plays a hefty role there as well.
-The gun policies in question: We all know that responsible gun
owners with guns securely stored in their cars are not a threat to
any company. However, what if an irresponsible gun owner goes
postal? We all know that the company would be sued, and we all know
that without a "no guns allowed" policy in the employee manual the
trial lawyers would eat them alive. The trial lawyers would not be
impressed by the argument that the crazy man would have ignored the
"no guns allowed" sign.
So here's another policy that can be blamed at least in part on the
legal system.
In summary, although I'm a little skeptical of the "get another
job!" argument, I see plenty of blame to lay at the feet of the
state in these matters.
|8.3.05 @ 8:51PM|#
Doesn't appear too many oil company people are posting comments
here today, so I will say my bit. I am a consultant to
ConocoPhillips, as well as 2 other major oil companies that
recently ate up 2 other major oil companies.
They all have the policy of no guns, drugs, or alcohol on their
property. You do work for them, you sign a contract saying you
won't do that and that you will allow them to inspect your
POV at any time while on their property. But it doesn't
stop there. 2 of the oil companies go much further. On your
private time you cannont have guns, drugs, or alcohol on their
property, this includes company owned and operated gas stations.
For instance, on the weekend, if I have an ice chest full of beer
on the boat and headed to the lake, I cannot stop at one
of their gas stations to fill up. If I am headed to the shooting
range, I cannot stop to fill up. If I am medical marijuana patient,
I must find a new job!
The bright side of this, the oil companies do not want to own and
operate gas stations anymore. They rather have the independents
pump their brands.
Besides that, I am drug tested annually and randomly. And you guys
are only fretting about the 2nd Amendment?
|8.3.05 @ 9:04PM|#
JSM,
Sounds like you understand the terms of your employment.
Eddy,
I don't.
thoreau,
You don't know how to shoot a gun? *heh*
Look, there are enough anti-gay bigots involved in the NRA that I
want nothing to do with the organization. If that's the sort of
people attracted to the NRA, no thanks.
In summary, although I'm a little skeptical of the "get another
job!" argument...
I'd like to see an actual argument to back up that skepticism. So
far, nothing.
|8.3.05 @ 9:39PM|#
thoreau,
BTW, you've been talking about joining the NRA for a while now.
You're starting to sound like Mona.
What do you own weapons wise? A 1911?
|8.3.05 @ 10:19PM|#
Hakluyt-
I fired a shotgun a few times when I was a kid. I've been thinking
about getting a gun for a while. I'll start with a revolver. The
main reason I put it off was moving. But now I'm settled in, and as
soon as I get my schedule to line up with a good safety class I'll
go and start shooting, probably by the end of September. I'll
probably wait on the purchase until after I've tried shooting at a
range (a range nearby rents guns as part of the safety class),
since I want to make sure that shooting is something I'm
comfortable with before I commit the cash to buy a weapon.
What kinds of weapons do you have? Any advice on handgun storage? I
want it to be easily accessible in an emergency, but there's the
trade-off that we have several young nephews who visit now and
then. I can tell myself that I'll stash it in a safe place and keep
an eye on them, but little kids are incredibly resourceful and fast
at finding things.
|8.3.05 @ 10:24PM|#
As to my rebuttal to the "get a different job" argument:
My skepticism of "find another job" is merely skepticism, nothing
more and nothing less. Not a strong conviction that the argument is
wrong, just a lack of conviction that the argument is right. I feel
no need to hold a strong opinion. And that's perfectly fine if I'm
not in the business of trying to persuade anybody.
In an earlier post I did note my skepticism, but instead of trying
to defend it I moved on to something that I thought more people
here could agree on: A lot of intrusive corporate policies are
based at least in part on intrusive government policies. I'll worry
about the intrusive government policies first, because I have much
more confidence in my opinion on those matters.
|8.3.05 @ 10:28PM|#
ooh, there's a loaded question. Some (like me) swear by
Browning, some swear by plastic, some like sixshooters.
It's probably best to start off with a small caliber, and work your
way up, so you don't develop a flinch.
|8.3.05 @ 10:33PM|#
Of course, I consider .38 to be a small caliber. There are
certain revolvers that use what's called half-moon clip. If you get
one of these in .357, you can start with .380, and work your way up
until you are comfortable with a magnum.
Again, take my opinion with a grain of salt. I think a 357 has
hardly any kick.
|8.3.05 @ 10:50PM|#
Sorry to post so many times at once, but here's a
link to a .357 that uses moon clips.
If you're going to have one gun, this one will pretty much do it
all.
|8.3.05 @ 10:53PM|#
kmw
Maybe your .357 hardly kicks but my .357 is scary.
I shoot all the time and I almost hate shooting it. I think a lot
of felt recoil has to do with the handle (duh) and the balance. My
.357 is not nice (It�s a Dakota with an 8 inch barrel). My hand
buzzes for hours after a day at the range with it.
I think .22 or .38 special are the best guns to start off with. A
large frame .38 doesn't kick much but at the same time let's you
know you are doing something dangerous. I like that.
First time gun owners should stick with revolvers for sure. Simple
to operate and there are no misfeeds/jams to clear. Bonus, easy to
clean!
|8.3.05 @ 10:55PM|#
Thoreau,
I'll second starting with a .38 and recommend using wadcutter
target loads. The other nice thing about the .38/.357 guns is that
there is an enormous variety to pick from so you should be able to
find one that fits well and won't break the bank.
|8.3.05 @ 11:33PM|#
thoreau,
If you're interested in home defense I'd suggest a shotgun (using
buckshot). It'll stop the intruder in his/her tracks and your aim
doesn't have to be all that steady. Also, its not going to endanger
friendlies as much, as the shot is not as likely to zip through
your wall and into your unsuspecting neighbors home.
M-1 Garand (last year I was in the Springfield, Ma. armory where it
was invented)
Ruger .357
.22 rifle for noxious critters
Pump-action shot gun
And a few others that I'd like not to get into.
Starting with either a .22 or a .38 should be fine.
As to storage, that's just an issue of tradeoffs I guess.
kmw,
.357 is my handgun of choice.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.3.05 @ 11:55PM|#
And they said Henry Ford was a MoFo for firing workers for driving Chevy's and smoking.
|8.4.05 @ 12:01AM|#
BTW, when I said .380, I was referring to .380 auto AKA 9x17mm.
With moon clips, you can shoot these in a .357, and they have
almost no recoil. That's what I started a few newbies on.
Some may be suprised that you can do that, but I assure you it's
quite practical. And .380 is like $6 a box around these
parts.
I have a soft spot in my heart for the 45 acp as a defense gun, but
I've recently converted to full house 10mm for carry. Sixteen
rounds of near-.41 magnum power is hard to beat, while still
retaining the familiar 1911 feel.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.4.05 @ 12:46AM|#
Yes, Jacob is 100% right.
But, in our modern looney legal system, what if Conoco said you
couldn't have Bibles in your car on company property? Or a Playboy?
Or a carton of cigarettes? Or a case of beer you bought last night
on the way home? Or a tank of Chevron Supreme?
Go ahead, substitute any other item of your choice for the word
"firearm" and see how fast it gets stupid (or not, if you sub in
dynamite).
Might be more productive for NRA to go that route rather than to
attack property rights.
OTOH, and not that there should be, but there are all kinds of
workplace related issues that are enforced by law, but because this
is about guns, somehow it is different.
|8.4.05 @ 1:05AM|#
Oh boy. I'm gonna jump on the "Let's All Give Thoreau Lots of
Gun Advice" bandwagon.
So far, what's been posted is good info. But realize that opinions
about guns are like skin pores: everyone has a million of
'em.
If possible, take an NRA basic pistol course. It shouldn't matter
if you have a gun or not. Someone will probably loan you one. Once
your familiar with the basics, try to find either of the
following:
A)A shooting range that rents pistols. Take an afternoon and rent a
few different models to get a feel for what's out there, and what
you may like.
or
B)A gun-nut with a collection who's willing to let you try a bunch
of different guns out.
Hak's advice to look into a shotgun for home defense is a good
idea, though I think he exaggerates a tad when he says your aim
doesn't have to be all that steady. At most indoor distances,
|8.4.05 @ 1:11AM|#
Oh, one other thing.
With regard to the M-1 rifle that Hak mentions, you can get one of
them through the Civilian
Marksmanship Program
All you have to do is show up at a certified local match and shoot.
(More than likely someone will have a rifle that they'd be willing
to lend you) and you'll get a certificate that lets you order an M1
through the ONDCP. For the money, they're a good value.
|8.4.05 @ 1:24AM|#
Blah.
Sorry about the multiple posts.
I just realized no one has really addressed safe storage.
For a pistol or two, you might check out one of these:
Homak Quick-Acess
Pistol Box
For another alternative, take a stroll to the sporting goods
department of your local Wal-Mart. They should sell a couple of
fairly low-cost gun lockers, including a model sized for handguns.
They will require a key, however. And if you buy one, be sure to
bolt it to the floor or the wall.
If you get bitten hard by the shooting bug, you may as well buy an
honest-to-Jebus gun safe. They're expensive, but worth it.
|8.4.05 @ 2:54AM|#
mediageek,
Mine came from Korea. It was used by my father in the Korean War
("police action") (or so goes the story).
What I meant by the shotgun remark is that you don't need to be an
uber-marksman. You're bound to wing the fucker if nothing else.
:)
|8.4.05 @ 5:21AM|#
The sound of a pump action shotgun being brought to battery will probably be enough to get the bad guy to run for it. It is a sound like no other!
|8.4.05 @ 5:37AM|#
The sound of a pump action shotgun being brought to battery
will probably be enough to get the bad guy to run for it. It is a
sound like no other!
Either that, or it'll give the bad guy a good idea where to shoot
his gun! ;)
|8.4.05 @ 7:43AM|#
shecky:
And then the next second the bad guy is a fine red mist.. if you
get the drop on someone with a shotgun you pretty much hold all the
cards.
I'm told that using a firearm to intimidate or threaten someone is
foolish (shooting in the air, for example). If the situation is
serious enough to pull out a weapon, then all warning shots should
be square in the head.
|8.4.05 @ 8:00AM|#
And just a general observation.. I don't know why some
libertarians apparently trust corporations to the level they
distrust the government. Both are collectives who seek to maximize
their power over the individual.
Think of the corporate lords a century ago who owned whole towns
and the homes within, had their own security force, and printed
their own money. Hardly a libertarian utopia.
|8.4.05 @ 8:36AM|#
you'll get a certificate that lets you order an M1 through
the ONDCP
Huh? The Office of National Drug Control Policy sells rifles?
|8.4.05 @ 8:53AM|#
thoreau:
I of course have $.02 on the new gun thing. I disagree with the
revolver as the starter pistol and I disagree with going too small
to avoid developing flinch.
Revolvers have their own manual of arms, and learning to shoot them
doesn't really help you learn to shoot a semi auto effectively, and
that is what almost everyone uses these days. Reloading them sucks
compared to a semi auto and you only get 6. Yes, there are people
who can reload extraordinarily fast with a revolver, but give me a
break. Some people can run super marathons, too.
There are three reasons I wouldn't go to 1911 style .45s as a
starter: 1) They are single action, which means they have some
safety concerns striker fired or double action pistols don't have ;
2) they almost all require fiddling with by a gunsmith before they
become as reliable as most other designs; and 3) .45 is more
expensive to train with than other rounds.
For simplicity of operation, uniformity of trigger pull, price,
weight, availability of after market goodies, ease of recoil
control, and reasonableness of reliability, I'd suggest that most
adult sized people start with a striker fired 9mm in the form of a
Glock 19 or Springfield XD. I prefer the latter. If you don't like
plastic, Kahr Arms makes some good starter 9mm options, too (they
just have fewer bullets).
I say this as a person who doesn't shoot Glocks much myself. I just
think they have certain advantages for the new shooter.
|8.4.05 @ 9:34AM|#
"I'm told that using a firearm to intimidate or threaten someone
is foolish (shooting in the air, for example). If the situation is
serious enough to pull out a weapon, then all warning shots should
be square in the head."
MNG: Yes. There is only justifiable use of deadly force and
unjustifiable use of deadly force. Middle ground gets you shot. The
modern version of the intimidating warning shot is the weapon
mounted high output light. It is very intimidating and serves
multiple purposes. 60-100 lumens right in an intruder's eyes allows
for clear identification of the target, allows you the option of
verbally challenging over a short period of time, and ultimately
makes it very unlikely that you will get hit with return fire.
|8.4.05 @ 10:28AM|#
Jason-
I see your point, and I will consider it. If I get a revolver I
will undoubtedly get a semi-auto later on anyway. So maybe I should
just cut to the chase.
Any recommendations for weapons that can mount a light easily?
|8.4.05 @ 10:30AM|#
On the original topic of this thread: The NRA is boycotting a
company that opposed a ban on bans on something. Or did they
support a ban on bans on bans?
I'll have to draw a flow chart to figure out whether I should agree
or disagree with them.
|8.4.05 @ 10:32AM|#
You folks should be supporting the NRA. Instead of whining about
the loss of freedoms and erosion of constittutional rights the NRA
has done something about it. They have pushed shall issue concealed
carry legislation and passed it in around 35 states at this time.
They have put the anti second ammendment groups on the defensive
and forced them to consistently lose ground.
This months NRA magazine had an article explaining what a disaster
the Raich decision was. This indicates to me they understand more
of the constitution then most activist groups ever will.
The ConocoPhillips actions are a push back by the anti gun groups.
I wish the NRA good luck in their campaign against policies like
ConocoPhillips and will support them as much as possible. If the
NRA wins on this front it can only help foster more freedom
friendly attitudes and policies from companies like
ConocoPhillips.
|8.4.05 @ 10:36AM|#
I guess I am old fashioned and not libertarian enough. I think
an individuals right to self defense and protection of their life
should override corporate property rights.
I am stunned at the amount of libertians posting here who think
corporate property rights are more important then the right to self
defense.
|8.4.05 @ 11:30AM|#
thoreau-
If you can operate a car safely then you can probably learn to
operate a semi-auto pistol safely.
As far as guns with rails, most any handgun maker these days offer
most of their models with rails.
Off the top of my head Glock, CZ, Springfield Armory, Sig, and
Beretta all either include rails on the pistols they make, or offer
them as an option.
|8.4.05 @ 11:42AM|#
I think an individuals right to self defense and protection
of their life should override corporate property rights.
Disagree. A company or individual has the right to set the rules on
their own private property. If you don't like it, leave.
However, while they have the right to disallow the carrying of arms
on their property, I (personally) think that doing so transfers the
responsibility for my safety to them. If I get attacked as a result
of their idiotic victim disarmament rules, then they should be held
liable.
thoreau-
Not the ONDCP, the ODCMP.
:-p
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245