TFS Magnum on guns at work
TFS Magnum believes that employers have their private property decisions made for them, by the government:
The most obvious answer to me is, don't park at work. Park and walk. Figure something out.
The next option is to find somewhere else to work. That's how a free market works. You vote with your loyalty. If an employer wants to diminish your ability to defend yourself, go work for someone who doesn't.
The whole point is that if you want to be able to protect yourself on your way to and from work, don't expect the government to force your employer to give up his right to dictate the terms of entrance to his property. Find a way that suits your needs and doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
If you're not willing to look for a different job or walk from a different parking location, then I guess it's not really that important to you. If you're more willing to take away your employer's rights than to do something like that...
Then I guess you think that you're just "more equal than others".
Update: Bobg, in comments, thinks that employers should be responsible for the protection of their employees if they insist on disarming them. To that, I would reply:
You are (or at least, should be) a free person. You are free to ask to enter my property, and I am free to either admit or refuse you. I may conditionally admit you, and you may choose to accept or refuse my conditions. If you accept, you have done so of your own choice, and I will not be held responsible for the choice YOU made.
So it goes with this issue. If you choose to work where you are required to relenquish your arms, you have put yourself at risk, and must be ready to bear the consequenses.
If it's about being able to defend yourself on your drive "to and from work", then there are options available that don't encroach on an employer's right to dictate the terms of those who wish to enter its property.It isn't about having a gun in your car at work. It is about being able to defend yourself on the drive to-and-from work. People being stalked are most vulnerable when they are on a fixed schedule at a known location: to-and-from work, picking-up and dropping-off kids at school and daycare, to-and-from religious services. All are known locations, and known schedules. All are places that society loves to disarm people.
The most obvious answer to me is, don't park at work. Park and walk. Figure something out.
The next option is to find somewhere else to work. That's how a free market works. You vote with your loyalty. If an employer wants to diminish your ability to defend yourself, go work for someone who doesn't.
The whole point is that if you want to be able to protect yourself on your way to and from work, don't expect the government to force your employer to give up his right to dictate the terms of entrance to his property. Find a way that suits your needs and doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
If you're not willing to look for a different job or walk from a different parking location, then I guess it's not really that important to you. If you're more willing to take away your employer's rights than to do something like that...
Then I guess you think that you're just "more equal than others".
Update: Bobg, in comments, thinks that employers should be responsible for the protection of their employees if they insist on disarming them. To that, I would reply:
You are (or at least, should be) a free person. You are free to ask to enter my property, and I am free to either admit or refuse you. I may conditionally admit you, and you may choose to accept or refuse my conditions. If you accept, you have done so of your own choice, and I will not be held responsible for the choice YOU made.
So it goes with this issue. If you choose to work where you are required to relenquish your arms, you have put yourself at risk, and must be ready to bear the consequenses.
3 Comments:
I agree that you should not be able to force an employer to allow firearms on their property, but if that is their stand, then I think that they should become legally responsible for the employees safety from violence while on that property, whether they are on the clock or not. How many employers would be willing to put that in writing, I wonder?
I'm of two minds on this... yes, it's the employer's property, etc., etc. But also, the inside of the car is the driver's, property, right? Or, if the driver can't keep his own (legal) stuff in his car because it's on his employer's parking lot, does that mean that the employer can search all the cars for any reason? I would think that might cross a line into interfering with the employee's property a little. So, employer's and employee's rights (to control their property) conflict, right? Then I'd think as a result we've got a situation where reasonable people can disagree about where the line should be drawn. Does driving your car onto someone else's lot give the lot owner permission to search your car? If so, then well, guns shouldn't be allowed over employer objection. If your car is something of a moving "my property zone" or some such, then the employer shouldn't. I'm not quite sure what I think of this one, so, feel free to convince me. One way or the other.
Um, I don't think that it makes a whole lot of sense to use a bunch of things that are already wrong to justify doing _more_ wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home