Here...Here. Well Done Mr. Walden.

Great post, Jace. Glad you're back. Will you be posting regularly again?

Thanks, man. Yes, I will be posting regular. I'm settled in at work now, so I'm not nearly as busy anymore. Plus, I'm moving to Woodstock at the end of the month, so no more communting back and forth to work.

Now...if I could only get around to updating my own site...

Employer gun bans strip employees of their 2nd Amendment rights, at least for the period of time while they are commuting to and from work. That's why the NRA was pushing SB 43.

Property rights do not trump other rights and sometimes they clash. Just because I own a theatre doesn't give me the right to walk in and yell 'Fire!'. Just because I decide to employ someone on my property, I should not have the right to do anything that prevents them from providing for their security on their commute to and from my business.

Please read the constitution and get your head out of the sand. Business large and small have the same rights as individuals. Corporations are not the government...they do not have to grant your second amendment rights.

The constitution is to protect us from the Government. The NRA is dead wrong on this issue. HB6 and HB89 are the bills the NRA should be pushing.

Please read the constitution and get your head out of the sand. Business large and small have the same rights as individuals.

That is the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment. It's a very expansive view. Under our Constitution only individuals have rights.

Some would argue that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant anyone anything. As practiced in this country, it has been only marginally effective. What it does do is describe the rights of a free man. When any entity (government, individuals, corporations, whatever) is allowed to trample on those rights, freedom takes a hit.

Since you obviously aren't familiar with the 2nd Amendment, I will quote from it: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. When an employer bans firearms from his property, infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms is exactly what it is doing.

It is to protect us from Government...period. Government shall make no laws....

Only the NRA supports this bill. There affiliate organization the Georgia Sports Shooters Association opposes this bill, Georgia Chamber, Atlanta Chamber, Home Depot, Aflac, UPS, Delta, Coke, Bank of America, the Realtors Association, the Indepent Grocers Association, and Businesses large and small all oppose this bill.

I guess you and the NRA are the only ones right on this one.

No employer nor any individual has to grant you any rights on their private property. Dutch...with all due respect you are incorrect on this one as seen by the founders and the Supreme Court.

Jason...did not know you were a SB43 supporter.

Jason...I re-read your post...missed your point the first time. You and I appear to be arguing the same.

I am pro-second amendment by the way Dutch.

You said that businesses have the same rights as individuals under the Constitution. I disagree with that.

I am a proud Benefactor Member of the NRA and they are representing me beautifully.

You are arguing an indefensible opinion. First, the Supreme Court is frequently wrong on many things (anybody familiar with the Kelo decision, how about the seizure statutes in RICO, etc). Employers are inundated with a myriad of rules and regulations forced on them by the government to protect what they deem as individual rights (labor laws, sexual harassment, minimum wage, etc). As for the founders intentions, all you have to do is read their words from the Second Amendment. I re-read it just for kicks and I couldn't find anywhere in it where it said "unless you're on your way to work and your employer doesn't want guns on his property".

Jason...I understand your disagreement. While I do not agree with you or Dutch for that matter, I respect both your opinions.

Dutch, you have the ability to quit any job you wish if you do not like corporate policy. You are not forced to work for anyone. Sorry but it is the law and in this case you are still wrong as it relates to the law.

I am also a supporter of the NRA an avid hunter, and I enjoy shooting sports, skeet and sporting clay. I own 3 handguns, 6 shot guns, 3 rifles, and a bow. This is the only time I have ever disagreed with the NRA. Their tactics on this bill has caused extreme harm to their reputation in Georgia. They should have advocated their position on this bill with honor and dignity as they have done in the past.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The bottom line is that I believe in the 2nd Amendment precisely as it is written. I feel completely comfortable with being in agreement with the NRA and I hope you feel the same agreeing with the AJC Editorial staff and the Brady organization.

I don't need to get another job because I know my company has a policy it cannot enforce. My guns are in my car and out of sight. My car is locked. No judge is going to sign a warrant to search my car in order to enforce a company policy. They certainly aren't going to break into my car and I'm not going to give them permission to search it willingly either.

The funny thing is that the company doesn't really care what I have in my car anyway. All these companies have written these policies in an attempt to minimize their liability when some maniac goes postal and kills a few people. As has been clearly stated on another thread, you're not going to stop a crazed person from killing people with some bs company policy. It's not a safety issue as they've asserted and the property rights issue seems equally weak to me.

Now you got it Dutch. Don't ask don't tell.

I know you disagree and that is ok. But the GA General Assembly can not write a law that conflicts with existing law as supported by case law. In order for you to get what you desire, a suit needs to filed and new ruling by the Supreme Court.

The property rights issue is supported by existing law and therefore today is a stong argument. Keep posting I enjoyed the banter.

Dutch,

If you come on to my property and start screaming at me, am I justified in forcing you to leave? Am I violating your right to free speech?

If someone leaves a comment here that is off-color or uncalled for, am I not justified in removing it from my property?

Just some food for thought.

Sure Jason. If you want to maximize your rights and keep everyone off your property, you should be able to do that. Put up a No Trespassing sign and if someone wanders onto your property, throw them out.

If you decide you want to employ others on your property, you're going to have to give up some of your rights. That's nothing new. Every employer knows that and accepts it.

If you decide you want to open up a business and invite the public onto your property, even more of your rights disappear. Again, every business owner understands that and makes the compromise because he chooses to.

SB 43 shouldn't have been necessary. A responsible employer shouldn't jeopardize the safety of their employees nor should they infringe upon their rights when it does absolutely nothing for their business.

Think, guys. As Jason said, "Under our Constitution only individuals have rights." So, corporations, businesses, etc. have no place denying my personal right to protection. You know that "Life, liberty... thing." My life, my liberty should be sacrificed so that a so-called right to property is held by a non-person entity?

Sorry guys, but the clash of interpretations must always side with the person.

As a follow-up: Government exists to protect us from each other, not from ourselves. Government's role in protecting or pandering to business is purely a matter of financial considerations - not rights as granted by the Constitution.

Telling me to "get another job," or to "take another route" fails the smell test. This position purely favors the group, business, etc. over the individual. True, the business owes me no protections. The business is not responsible for treachery on the streets. That is exactly why I, with my right to bear arms, would be fully legitimate taking steps to fill my own needs.

When people formed compacts and agreements in our Colonies, individual rights were curtailed only in the sense of avoidance of anarchy. The concept that government, business or anything else could or should overpower personal liberties was not in the plan.

When we depend on government to protect us, or business to provide a safe world, we are woefully lost in Hillary's Village. The concept is too far removed from reality.

Larry and Dutch,

Your argument has merit but no base in the reality that is today's law. Since 1873 corporations have been seen as corporate citizens and due the same protection as individual persons as defined by the 14th amendment.

File a suit and get a new ruling. It has stood firm since 1873. Nice try and well thought out arguments by both of you.

Your argument has merit as well, but it is equally flawed. You are assuming that property rights are paramount above all other rights. That has no basis in reality either. If that were really true, there would be no eminent domain. Employers would also be free to do whatever they wanted on their property. There would be no minimum wage. There would be no Title VII provision preventing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The rights of one entity must be balanced with the rights of others.

The NRA is an organization with one goal - preservation of the 2nd Amendment. That's what they were doing with SB 43.

If someone leaves a comment here that is off-color or uncalled for, am I not justified in removing it from my property? Jason

So the libertarian does practice censorship while guarding his right not to offend others with his site. So much for live and live attitude of the free spirit anything goes world of libertarianism.

Greenie,

It's a matter of property rights. If you say something that is potentially harmful or off-color, I reserve the right to remove it.

It's no different if you come onto my property and start screaming in my face, I have a right to remove you from my property.

Dutch,

Can we agree that in my house you as a visitor do not have the right to free speech? If that be the case your right to keep and bear arms on my property is also subject to what I want.

The Supreme Court of the US has ruled that Corporate citizens have the same distinction as individual persons. Therefore they can restrict your right to keep and bear arms on their private property.

I am only arguing that current jurisprudence is on the side of the corporations in this matter. My argument has merit and the law to back it up.

Sure, that's an easy one. By controlling free speech on your property, it has no implication off your property. With these employer gun bans, they are impacting the rights of their employees while they are off the employer's property (during their commute).

I also agree that "current jurisprudence is on the side of the corporations". While true, it has no bearing on what should be and that's all I am presenting. Corporate thugs aren't any better than individual thugs.

What nobody wants to talk about are the 'whys' of the corporate gun bans. However, the 'whys' are critical when trying to balance the property rights of the corporation with the Second Amendment rights of the employee. If you consider that at all, and I am asserting your are logically irrational if you don't, you find the corporation's position is pathetically lacking. My firearm locked in my vehicle has no affect whatsoever on the business operation or the safety of its employees.

Business operation is impacted by this due to insurance cost as imposed by the big bad insurance companies. The "whys" are more connected with cost implications.

The orginal reason for this legislations is from Oklahoma. Weyerheuser and Conoco Phillips fired some employees because they left guns in plain view in the company parking lot and were aware of company policy on guns in parking lots.

Weyerheuser for instance in Georgia operates hunting perserves that they allow employees and customers to enjoy. They often take customers hunting and then on tours of plants. They make their customers park off campus with their shotguns or deer rifles and then escort them on the property.

SB 43 is a notable intrusion on employers’ rights and one that could have a major impact on corporate risk management policies and add significant costs to property-casualty, liability and workers’ compensation insurance policies. All of these cost would be passed on to the employee and customers.

Good explanation, except that you have done what so many others have done when addressing this topic - failed to read or grasp the substance of the bill inits entirety. The last paragraph of SB 43 says:

No employer shall be held liable in any civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possession, or use of a firearm pursuant to this Code section unless such employer commits a criminal act involving the use of a firearm or unless the employer knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known that the person using such firearm would commit such criminal act on the employer´s premises. Nothing contained in this Code section shall create a new duty on the part of the employer.

I have read and do grasp. Who is to interpret unless such employer knew...what did they know, should they have known that the fired employee is mentally unstable. The language is vague. Most shootings on corporate property like the one that happened this week, involve disgruntled employees or domestic issues.

How is the employer to know? Are you willing to grant the employer the right to do mental screenings on a regular basis on all their employees. Then we get into invasion of privacy issues. Where does it end?

Well Dutch how is your marriage? The wife and I are fine boss. Dutch, we have a PI on staff and it appears that there have been some domestic issues over the childrens education and there is some stress in your marriage. This could be risky and your mental health could be unstable...therefore we are going to have to let you go. Sorry Dutch, you could be a risk for violent behavior on our property and since we are aware that your marriage is under stress this is the action we need to take to protect the company and stockholders.

I know the PI part is a little far fetched but one could argue that the company should have know that an employee had marital problems that led to stress and caused the violent action.

Who is to interpret...the same people who make all decisions in such cases - a jury. As I mentioned on another thread, I'd like to see what a jury would do with a case where an employee was mugged or carjacked and was unable to protect himslef as a result of one of these gun ban policies. That might tilt this liability nonsense in the opposite direction.

We've made our points and I've enjoyed the discussion.

The Brady Campaign has linked this comment. All contributors here at this site fully support 2nd Amendment as an individual right and we fully oppose the Brady Campaign's assault on our civil liberties.

Thornton isn't saying anything new. He's sided with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and bought into the flawed logic that property rights are absolute and supercede all other rights - total nonsense that no thinking person really believes.

Ms Brady is the wife of a man who was shot while working for Ronald Reagan, who is responsible for the deaths of 100s of thousands of innocent UNARMED civilians in Nicaragua, Guatamala, and other areas of the world, during his reign. If you take these deaths by firearms into the equation, your position becomes laughable.

Reagan killed 100,000++ unarmed innocent civilians in Nicaragua, Guatamala, etc. Brady dies in assasination attempt on Reagan, Duhh!!!
Liberals get firarms banned. Fascists bury liberals and unarmed opponents in mass graves. Won't be the first time! Get a life and preserve it! B. REMEMBER REALITY!!! Don't forget, Ronald was here when the deaths of 2 million in DARFUR started!!
What side are you on???? signed:OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW THE TRUE, but not too old to care!

Dutch and Larry, I could not agree with your more. Fascist organizations (which corporations clearly are)were never intended to supercede individuals. B

As in baseball ("Constitution"), the tie ("question of legality") goes to the runner ("individual rights").

Did they rightfully respect your request? I myself am looking to leave the NRA, having joined, and now wanting to leave for very similar reasons.

I can see this is an old argument. But, I've been "away".

I too have no confidence in the current leadership of NRA, specifically Wayne LaPierre. They were up their old tricks recently with the "Disclose" bill.

However, I would point out that NRA "represents" you even if you are not a member - the media always uses the NRA view point as a "gold standard" for all gun owners. Whether we agree with NRA or not!

You, as a life member, are among a relitave few gun owners who can change the direction of NRA. Only VOTING members, of which LIFE members are the largest group can elect members to the NRA Board of Directors. It is the Board who HIRES the NRA employee to the office known as Executive Director. LaPiere is an EMPLOYEE, well paid, I might add.

If you don't like the way LaPierre is leading the NRA, vote for Directors who can FIRE him!

Believe me, if you are a Life member who does not like the way NRA is doing, it amounts to "music to his ears" to tell Wayne you wish to resign from the organization!

I agree very closely with the sentements your expressed in your letter. At the time SB-43 was in the Ga. General Assembly, I was President of the Georgia Sport Shooting Assn. we (GSSA) OPPOSED SB-43 and, I like to think, GSSA was a major factor in derailing that legislation.

So, I urge you to reconsider your LIFE membership in NRA.

Personal question: Ever been to FOB Vulcan?