Indiana: NRA seeks to protect worker privacy

[SemperFiUSMC]

Hmmm, an absolute! I get it.

So, what you are really saying is that you value an employer's wishes over my property rights?

I will ask again, at what point in my travels to work do the contents of MY personal locked car become the property or concern of the land owner? And, if my firearms are suddenly the property of the land owner, what other personal items in my locked car are likewise under his control? My music collection? My reading collection? My GHB? My spare clothing (there might be JEANS!!!!)?

Where would you have this corporate collectivism end? Since you've made it clear that you place the corporations' rights as superior to the individual's, would you grant the company unfettered access to your locked car so that they may enforce their policies? If you don't support that, then your claims that their rights are superior are nothing but hot air, because logically a right does not exist without a means to implement or enforce it.

No, what I am saying is I value the absolute right of a real property owner to set the conditions by which you enter thier property over your right to enter it, especially given you have no requirement to do so. Whether it is an employer or a neighbor is irrelevent.

You have no right to enter someone else's real property. You have no right to a job. You are not required to enter the real property. If you do you should do so in conformance with the rules established by the property owner. If you can't accept their restrictions don't enter. It's pretty binary.

Everything else you said is strawman.

 

[level.eleven]

Surprised no one has brought up the obvious example of smoking bans as an already existing curtailment of property owners rights...


Fenway, can we get a "pot stirring" smilie?

I don't understand the point of your post. Since property rights have already been disrespected by Republicans and Democrats any future usurpations are justified?

 

[rockhopper46038]

"I don't understand the point of your post. Since property rights have already been disrespected by Republicans and Democrats any future usurpations are justified?"

You apparently didn't get the "pot stirrer" reference.

 

[88GT]

Well, if we are talking "rights," then I would say that my right to live trumps an employer's right to be hoplophobic.

Your argument is only valid if your presence on someone's property is by force. Your voluntary choice to step onto someone's property is implicit agreement to subordinate your rights to their wishes. You are free to refuse if you feel your rights hold a higher practical priority.

You've also incorrectly applied the "right to life" card here. Your "right to life" is only applicable if the property owner attempt to take it by force without due process or just cause. You still have every right to protect yourself, but your means of doing so may be limited by the property owner. If you don't like those limitations, you are free to reject the invite.

Either way, I still firmly believe that I, as an employee, have the right to keep my private property (either a firearm or a pair of jeans) in my private property (car) for me to wear or carry after I clock out. I would still respect the company policy to not wear jeans, or carry a firearm, while on the clock.

Sure, just don't park on your employer's PRIVATE PROPERTY and it's all good.

Hmmm, an absolute! I get it.

So, what you are really saying is that you value an employer's wishes over my property rights?

No, a property owner's rights. Employer or not is irrelevant. The minute you start arguing that your personal rights trump the property owner's rights on said owner's property, you've opened the door for every other fundamental right that can be exercised to be done so without the consent of the property owner. I hope you like cross-burnings on your front yard. Cuz your neighbor's right to exercise her religion trumps your private property rights.

I will ask again, at what point in my travels to work do the contents of MY personal locked car become the property or concern of the land owner?

They never become his property. BUt they become his concern the minute you step onto his property.

And, if my firearms are suddenly the property of the land owner, what other personal items in my locked car are likewise under his control? My music collection? My reading collection? My GHB? My spare clothing (there might be JEANS!!!!)?

They don't become his property (stop introducing fallacious arguments!). They become subject to his control and regulation.

Where would you have this corporate collectivism end? Since you've made it clear that you place the corporations' rights as superior to the individual's, would you grant the company unfettered access to your locked car so that they may enforce their policies? If you don't support that, then your claims that their rights are superior are nothing but hot air, because logically a right does not exist without a means to implement or enforce it.

Just for once, see the big picture here. The current discussion centers around the very limited aspect of business property owners. Do you not see that your argument necessarily negates the property rights of non-businesses as well? Business private property is not fundamentally different than residential private property when it comes to the exercise of property rights. (The fact that the state differentiates them at all is a factor of the taxing structure rather than the type of property it actually is. There are only two types of property: private and "public" which is a euphemism for government-owned. Do not be distracted from the use of "business" in the discussion.) The fact that they allow public access for the purpose of conducting business transactions is irrelevant.

But to answer your question: yes, I believe every property owner has unlimited authority to determine who and what is on his property. I also believe every property owner has unlimited authority to conduct searches of visitor's person and vehicle to confirm compliance with any restrictions he's attached to permission to be on said property. If you don't feel you want to be searched, you have the option of removing yourself from the property. However, if you stay, your presence is an implicit acceptance of the regulations the owner has made.

 

[thompal]

Your argument is only valid if your presence on someone's property is by force. Your voluntary choice to step onto someone's property is implicit agreement to subordinate your rights to their wishes.

I don't equate their "wishes" to my "rights," nor would I ever consider subordinating my RIGHTS to their WISHES. That is one area where we differ. And my choice to store private legal property in my locked car does not affect any of their rights, whereas their "wishes" DIRECTLY affect my rights.

No, a property owner's rights. Employer or not is irrelevant. The minute you start arguing that your personal rights trump the property owner's rights on said owner's property, you've opened the door for every other fundamental right that can be exercised to be done so without the consent of the property owner. I hope you like cross-burnings on your front yard. Cuz your neighbor's right to exercise her religion trumps your private property rights.

I do believe that there is a legal distinction between private residential property, and property where the public is invited to enter for the purpose of business.

Are you really equating cross-burning to storing a firearm out of sight in your locked car???

Really?

They never become his property. BUt they become his concern the minute you step onto his property.
They don't become his property (stop introducing fallacious arguments!). They become subject to his control and regulation.

Hmmm, I think there could be an argument there that by his exercising control over your property he is depriving you of your property rights.

Just for once, see the big picture here. The current discussion centers around the very limited aspect of business property owners. Do you not see that your argument necessarily negates the property rights of non-businesses as well?

No, two different things. If, however, I ever would open a business in my house, advertise for business, and invite people in, then there would be little difference. As a business owner, I am much more limited in how I treat people, and who I can and can't allow to enter.

Business private property is not fundamentally different than residential private property when it comes to the exercise of property rights.

Sure it is. If you think it isn't, just try running a business and only "inviting" people of a certain race.

But to answer your question: yes, I believe every property owner has unlimited authority to determine who and what is on his property.

OK, let him exercise this unlimited authority to refuse entry to blacks and Baptists. We'll see how long this unlimited authority lasts.

I also believe every property owner has unlimited authority to conduct searches of visitor's person and vehicle to confirm compliance with any restrictions he's attached to permission to be on said property.

We'll have to disagree on this one, because I can't even grasp the concept.

 

[MTC]

The minute you start arguing that your personal rights trump the property owner's rights on said owner's property, you've opened the door for every other fundamental right that can be exercised to be done so without the consent of the property owner.

They never become his property. BUt they become his concern the minute you step onto his property.
They don't become his property (stop introducing fallacious arguments!). They become subject to his control and regulation.

This reminds me of the solid arguments made here and elsewhere during discussions leading to the passage of HB1065 last year. Since it did not affect my situation, and I wish not to attack the concept of private property (mine or anyone else's), I probably shouldn't comment. I wanted to share with you a viewpoint, not as an argument for or against pending legislation, but possibly to shed some light on why people say or think the way they do, since you hit on some key points.

Just for once, see the big picture here. The current discussion centers around the very limited aspect of business property owners. Do you not see that your argument necessarily negates the property rights of non-businesses as well? Business private property is not fundamentally different than residential private property when it comes to the exercise of property rights. (The fact that the state differentiates them at all is a factor of the taxing structure rather than the type of property it actually is. There are only two types of property: private and "public" which is a euphemism for government-owned. Do not be distracted from the use of "business" in the discussion.) The fact that they allow public access for the purpose of conducting business transactions is irrelevant.

The question highlighted in blue was, as I understood it, the crux of the argument against ideas, and implications, of legislation like 1065. This is a valid concern. Few people I've talked to like the idea of government on any level telling people what they can or cannot do or allow on their own property. It would be best not to have, or have to resort to, legislation in this area. Yet here we are.

On the two types of property - the terms are familiar. Consider this aspect: there are two types of property: personal (to include your physical body and effects you might have on or with you) and real (as in real estate, e.g. "real property located at ____").
No distractions, as you mentioned. The "big picture" (or a huge part of it) as I see it is this...

Mission: How to get the American peoples' guns away from them or, failing that, how to get them to stop carrying the guns they own, using their own system of property rights against them.

Step 1: Acquire real property, or the controlling interest in said property. The bigger the better.

Step 2: Declare it to be a "gun-free zone" (by statute/ordinance/company or corporate policy, etc.) and have the means to enforce it (threat of fines, imprisonment and/or termination of employment, where applicable).

Step 3: Keep expanding the "gun-free zones".

Sooner or later, people will run out of places to go to (that is, while bearing their arms on their person or stowed in their effects), and it won't matter if they have permission slips/authorization papers stacked to the ceiling.

But to answer your question: yes, I believe every property owner has unlimited authority to determine who and what is on his property. I also believe every property owner has unlimited authority to conduct searches of visitor's person and vehicle to confirm compliance with any restrictions he's attached to permission to be on said property. If you don't feel you want to be searched, you have the option of removing yourself from the property. However, if you stay, your presence is an implicit acceptance of the regulations the owner has made.

If this ever happens to you one or more times (outside of military service) you might look at it differently, or consider that there's something ... just not right about that.
And if/when the government, or unit thereof, becomes that property owner or controller? To press the idea in that paragraph to its end would mean, among other things, that no one has a leg to stand on to argue or even protest against, for example, what TSA is doing to everyone at airports.