In response to the questions I will Start in order and at the end of addressing each question, iI will conclude with a summary of my arguments.
I do believe that based on my interpretation of rights of citizens in the united states, that a company does have the legal and moral right to prohibit guns from being stored in cars on company property. A person does not have a legal right to park their car in the company parking lot unless the company permission a person or employe to do so. If a company does allow guns in cars on company property, then if employees got into an argument and proceeded to have a shootout in the parking lot and an employee was injured on company property then the company could possibly be held liable for not being able to protect the injured employee.
I do agree with the NRA’s statement that prohibition of a gun on company property would be a wrecking ball to the second amendment. I do believe that a person has a right to be able to defend them selfs, in all capacities nessicary to ensure their safety, even in the workplace. There is no easy answer to this problem of respecting the wishes of those that do not want to have guns on their property but also allowing for personal protection from threats that may arise on private property. I have no idea how to fix this legal conundrum.
Guns in the workplace does not mean at all that the workplace is not safe at all. If all employees respect local and federal laws and act in a respectful and courteous manner I cannot see a reason why guns would be a problem in the work environment. But I know that all employees will not act lawfully and will no act in a morally and socially responsible manner. There are definitely places that having guns at work for protection makes sense. I would use gas stations as an example, time and time again gas station convenience stores are robbed at gunpoint in this country and I feel that the employees have a right to be able to defend them selfs personally from this threat on there lives.
There is no magic solution that will satisfy the rights b of a property owner to regulate what is or isn’t on their property and to also allow for the permission of employees to arm themselves in the workplace. I ultimately reason that the rights of an individual to ensure there own safety take precedence over the rights of the property owner.
2 Comments for “M8 Who’s rights are more right.”
I appreciate that you give a clear conclusion within your post. There are a ton of grey areas that make these issues difficult to solve. I also appreciate your candor with question 2. I would say these issues are best dealt between the employers and employees— same goes for School Boards and teachers. If the company or school district allows it, then the employees and teachers should feel free to exercise that allowance. I don’t think the Federal Government should be involved– there are so many different aspects based on population, geographical region, culture, ect. that just does not fit everyone’s needs in a satisfactory way. Growing up in California, the culture and idea of carrying guns publicly, concealed or not, is very negative. Here, in Alaska, it is much more open and accepted. Why should Alaskans have to follow federal laws and regulations about such a subject based on another more populated state that has many more social issues to deal with.
The right to limit or prohibit by companies is there, but is it best for business? Employees is one thing, customers are another. For instance, does Fred Meyer have the right to tell customers they can’t open carry in their stores….for sure. But doing so is not something they would want to do because of those who do carry in the store. While life is way more important that profit, these stores have not been pushed to take one side or the other. Only the future will determine what will happen.