I have sort of a hate-love relationship with the National Rifle Association. I hate to love the group, sometimes
For the most part, I support its agenda. I believe in the Second Amendment, and I support every law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense — not just for sport.
Every so often, though, the NRA just has to go that one extra step and get unreasonable. This is one of those times … a move to forbid employers from banning weapons on their property. The question here, of course, is whether business owners should be allowed to regulate for themselves the presence of firearms on ther property. Wayne LaPierre, not surprisingly, charges that such regulations are a back-door way to abolish the Second Amendment rights of workers.
To be honest, LaPierre has no legs on which to stand, here. Of course employers have the right to regulate what employees do on their property. If I work for Bank of America, I’m not allowed to answer the phone, “Good morning, you should check out your local Credit Union for the best loan and savings rates. Can I look up their number for you?” Nor should I be.
It’s not a free speech issue, it’s the use of Bank of America’s equipment, payroll, and name. Even though you should check out your local Credit Union, an employer has every right to tell its employees not to say so.
This is the employer’s property. If the employer chooses to ban firearms, that is the employer’s business. The fact that you have the right to keep and bear arms off the employer’s property is not his/her problem. If it’s that important to you to have your weapon on the way to and from work, have someone drop you off. Ultimately, this is something that I’ve discussed with many people before, when I’ve been a manager — ultimately, what you’re doing outside of work doesn’t concern me, my rules apply while you’re here. I’m not responsible for getting you to work, changing your work schedule to fit the bus schedule, or the like. (Of course, I tended to be flexible anyway, because that’s just who I am.)
What you do with your weapons isn’t the employer’s concern, so long as you comply with the rule. For the government to interfere in this is plainly overstepping boundaries.
This brings up an interesting contrast to issues regarding smoking, for both sides.
On the Right, we have here the NRA arguing that government intrusion into the property rights of employers is warranted in order to protect the Second Amendment rights of employees. On the other hand, if LaPierre is correct, it is gun control advocates on the Left who are encouraging employers to restrict gun possession on their property.
On the other hand, let us look at issues regarding workplace smoking. In this case, it is those on the Left (most often) who would use government control to make the decision of whether employers can allow or restrict smoking. In this case, it is the Right, typically, which opposes such imposed control.
In this kind of a case, though, it’s worth noting that workplace safety conditions might well be appropriate grounds for regulation. The health hazard to non-smokers of smoking well-established by medical science. It is not immediately obvious that the absence of firearms constitutes the same kind of peril.
Though I find my own position to be intellectually consistent, I find other positions puzzling. I can certainly see opposing government action in both cases. Only the strongest proponent of intrusive government could support action in both — but such a person probably already opposes private gun ownership, so that position seems peculiar. I can’t particularly rationalize the position against smoking regulations but in favor of legislation regarding guns.
This proposed legislation is not, ultimately, going to help LaPierre. He has taken, unwisely, toward trying to impose his view on employers. This helps to make the NRA look unreasonable, but does offer amateur philosophers the opportunity to compare and contrast views of government coercion.
January 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm
It should be of no suprise to you that I oppose government action in both cases – I think that in both, the rights of the property owner trumps the other rights. Just as I have the right to say no guns on my property, so does the business owner have the right to say so (and just as I have the right to allow smoking on my property, I think business owner does to – and if someone doesn’t like it, don’t go there).
Where I think there may be an issue with the employers banning guns is if they ban it for everyone on their property, or just their employees. Since having a gun in a truck in the parking lot has no bearing on a persons work or interaction with customers, I do think there may be issues if this ban is not extended to everyone using that parking lot.
I too find it hard to rationalize being against government restrictions with regards to the smoking issue, yet for the regulations on the gun issue when one looks at it from a property rights angle… but I do know the most common one (I just don’t agree with it). It is being against bans supported by the government.
Here is the basis of the arguement I have heard used quite often (they also use it to complain when employers restrict their employees from saying “Merry Christmas”) – and it actually has nothing to do with property rights. It is all against “banning”.
They believe the government can’t force employers to ban activity that is legal (for the most part); thus fight government imposed smoking bans (while supporting a business owner imposing their own). However, they also believe that the employer can not infringe on basic rights by banning things (free speech, right to bear arms) and expect the government to step in to protect those rights…
Again, I don’t agree with the logic on it… but that is the basic rationalization of it I have heard.
January 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I would postulate that it is unreasonable for an employer to say, “If it means that much to you, have someone drop you off.” A business should not make it an excessive burden for a citizen to take advantage of his constitutional (and God-given) rights. The travel, to and from work, and the stops that occur to and from work account for a large percentage of the time when a person really needs the protection of a firearm. In the name of business freedom, do you really think a business should be allowed to say, “If you want a gun on the way to work, have someone drop you off; if you want a gun on the way home, have someone pick you up”?
One could make the case that, if a firearm is left in an employee’s car, in the parking lot of the establishment, the gun is first and foremost “on the property” (the vehicle) of the employee–not the property of the employer (the parking lot). The weapon is only on the property of the employer transitively (through the tires of the employee’s vehicle).
Should an employer be allowed to dictate other items which you are and are not permitted to have in your car while it is in the employer’s parking lot? Should he/she able to prohibit a pack of cigarettes from being in your glovebox? A caffeinated drink from being in your cupholder? A conservative magazine from resting on your passenger seat?
Now, I am focusing on the idea of leaving a firearm in your vehicle, because I believe that is a bigger issue than whether or not businesses should be allowed to regulate guns within their buildings.
I see the logic in your argument, but this is one complex and convoluted issue.
January 14, 2008 at 1:11 pm
To show you an example of the convolution of this issue, think about this:
A disgruntled drunk walks out of a football stadium after his team just lost to their biggest rival. He has a gun in his car, pulls it out, and shoots a rowdy fan of the opposing team as that fan is walking to his car.
That is a completely feasible, and tragic, possibility. But do we really want football organizations to have the power to search every car, if they want to, for firearms before allowing fans to enter a team parking lot and see a game?
January 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Kingdom,
I have a serious problem with the idea of saying that the one is “foremost on the property of the employee (the vehicle”. Yes, it is in the vehicle (which is the property of the employee), yet the vehicle is on the owners property.
A purse, laptop case, brief case, etc are also the property of an employee which, when they bring it to work, is on the property of the owner. So, using your logic on the car, the employee should then be able to have a gun in their purse… since it is in their property which happens to be on the owners property.
January 14, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I actually thought about that. The logic is not perfect. But I think the difference is found in what employee’s property you are referring to. I think there is a common sense differentiation to be made between a car in a parking lot and a purse in a building, if for no other reason than the fact that, for all practical purposes, the employer is denying the right to carry a gun to and from work (Wickle’s suggestion of “having someone drop you off”–and also pick you up–is altogether impractical).
To stick with your mentions of a purse, laptop case, brief case, etc., do you think that an employer should be able to tell you what you are allowed to leave in your car?
Really, a business which requires a significant amount of walking from where one parked would do well to provide a gun check-in at the door, where an employee could drop off his firearm when he/she gets to work, and pick it up when he/she leaves.
January 14, 2008 at 11:49 pm
No, tam, your position doesn’t surprise me at all. I would think that most conservatives and libertarians should be right there.
And while I see where you’re going with the counter-argument, Kingdom Advancer, I have to stick to my position that the employer has the right to regulate activities in its parking lot. It’s not immediately obvious to me why it is impractical for someone to make alternate transportation arrangements, but reasonable to expect employers to offer gun-check services.
January 15, 2008 at 12:35 am
Thanks Wickle… didn’t think I would suprise you.
Kingdom.. first, yes, I think they have the right to then ban anything they want from their property (regardless if it is the car or not). However, I think that they only can if it is a general ban (meaning anyone on their property) and not just for the employee… and of course, I have very right to also say that they are nuts for doing so (while respecting their right).
The one issue I do see causing a problem with a gun on the property ban by the owner is this: it must be consistant and apply to everyone (well, other then the owner). Since what you leave in your car has no actual bearing on your work, then I think for it to hold up it would have to be a ban for everyone on the property, not just the employees.
A couple of other points… By saying that they have the right to have the ban inside buildings, but not outside (such as their property rights), would imply that one has less rights to any of their property unless it happens to be a building. As someone who has a lot of land… I completely disagree with that. I have as much right to say what goes on/is allowed on the land as I do in any of the buildings. They are all my property… and I should have less right on my land outside then I do inside my buildings.
And finally, for the arguement that by banning it on their parking lot, they are effectively saying that they can’t have the gun travelling to and from work… there is a simple answer to that. Park somewhere else then on their property.
January 15, 2008 at 5:56 pm
From a strictly lawful standpoint, I guess I can see your all’s points. I am looking at it from more of a practical perspective.
1.) “Park somewhere else.”
Now, you have an indefinite amount of walking time (when you are more vulnerable than when you are in your car) in who-knows-what kind of area. In this instance, an employer is essentially saying, “Either you can’t have protection for your entire travel time, or you have to walk a given distance with no protection.” In either case, the boss is making his/her employees more vulnerable. Unless, of course, he/she expects his employees to stash their guns in some bushes or something right before they come onto the business’ property.
2.) Here’s the difference between a parking lot and a building:
While a gun is in a car parked in a lot, it is, for the most part, non-usable for the vast majority of the time that an employee is at work. The only instance in which it would be used is if there were to be a confrontation in a parking lot, which, I would think, would be less likely than in the heat of a stressful work day (not to mention the potential for accidental firings).
3.) Wickle, you may have a point, but I think that employers that want to ban guns from their property should at least be required to have adequate security checks. Otherwise, the one intending to break the law can break the private gun rules anyway (which is the argument against government gun restrictions).