Atilla wrote:I'd like to see notification go, but more important for me personally is the right to carry my gun(s) in my car no matter where it is. If an employer wants to restrict employees why can't they ban bibles in cars, or bumper stickers, or certain types of music. It's just plain discrimination. If a business wants to control employees and customers like that they can move to Saudi Arabia or England.
I think the courts have upheld reasonable restrictions regarding what items an employee can bring onto the employer's property, either afoot or by vehicle.
The word "discrimination" is a Term of Art, and as those who hold an Ohio CHL are not protected class members by virtue of holding said license, it is simply not valid in this argument.
Employers act to control the actions, speech, etc. of employees all the time. Look at any employee rule book, or standards of conduct.
We had a forum member, hereon, who lost a job due to an utterance in a workplace.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the loss was due to defacing/removing company property along with utterance ?
Brian D. wrote:... in any government building where open carry is now (in theory) legal ...
Perhaps that theory could be tested by a certain paralegal following his own (unlicensed) advice and regularly carrying an unconcealed firearm into non-school, non-courthouse government buildings. Don't you think that's an excellent idea?
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
OhioPaints wrote:Okay, you guys that want to champion "property rights", how about we support property rights: my car is MY property and no one has the right to search it, no matter where it is, without a court ordered search warrant?
curmudgeon3 wrote:Let's try sea to sea state CHL reciprocity again, just like driver's and vehicle licenses.
I'm not sure if you are asking for federal legislation (which driver's and vehicles licenses are not) or just broader reciprocity.
Let's keep it transparent and unbiased, NO FED SOCIALIST EXPERIMENTING; just broader state[/i] reciprocity.
My recollection of the matter is the individual made commentary in the workplace, and was subsequently terminated from his employment. Any destruction of the employer's property, or that of a customer, could also be grounds for termination.
My point is the employer, in Ohio, has wide latitude in the ability to control the words and deeds of the employee. The mere possession of a CHL does not provide any protected class status.
Get rid of notification and decriminalize CPZs - or at least make it so that you have to be asked to leave, and refuse to do so, before it becomes trespassing.
I am slightly torn about the property rights vs. right to carry. I think that ANY business who operates PUBLICLY (storefronts, etc.) with PUBLIC parking areas (NOT employee-only parking lots) should be required to allow weapons in the vehicle or on the person. I also think that any business that restricts an employee's, visitor's, or customer's right to self defense takes on that role (and liability) for themselves. In other words, a business should NOT be compelled to allow firearms inside their business or controlled parking areas... but, should an issue arise, THEY should be liable for any damages.
BriKuz wrote:I am slightly torn about the property rights vs. right to carry. I think that ANY business who operates PUBLICLY (storefronts, etc.) with PUBLIC parking areas (NOT employee-only parking lots) should be required to allow weapons in the vehicle or on the person. I also think that any business that restricts an employee's, visitor's, or customer's right to self defense takes on that role (and liability) for themselves. In other words, a business should NOT be compelled to allow firearms inside their business or controlled parking areas... but, should an issue arise, THEY should be liable for any damages.
My big issue is the safety of employees from home to the work building. Many busensesses are in high crime areas. It's one thing to work a 9-5 shift in a downtown area, it's another thing for a person, especially a woman, to get off work at 2am in a bad area. By prohibiting an employee from storing a firearm in their vehicle, they are stripping a person of their right to self defense from the time they leave home until they return home.
I agree that an employer who prohibits firearms should be responsible from the moment the employee leaves their car until they return to their car. IOW, in the parking lot and inside the building.
The more law-abiding people that have guns, the better off we are," Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said. "Because the bad guys always have guns, You look at these school shootings or church shootings, the ones that have been stopped, it was because someone there had a gun."
I would like to see the magazine of 31+ rounds is classified as a machine gun rule removed...or however it's worded.....pretty sure we all know what I'm referring to.
BriKuz wrote:I am slightly torn about the property rights vs. right to carry. I think that ANY business who operates PUBLICLY (storefronts, etc.) with PUBLIC parking areas (NOT employee-only parking lots) should be required to allow weapons in the vehicle or on the person. I also think that any business that restricts an employee's, visitor's, or customer's right to self defense takes on that role (and liability) for themselves. In other words, a business should NOT be compelled to allow firearms inside their business or controlled parking areas... but, should an issue arise, THEY should be liable for any damages.
My big issue is the safety of employees from home to the work building. Many busensesses are in high crime areas. It's one thing to work a 9-5 shift in a downtown area, it's another thing for a person, especially a woman, to get off work at 2am in a bad area. By prohibiting an employee from storing a firearm in their vehicle, they are stripping a person of their right to self defense from the time they leave home until they return home.
I agree that an employer who prohibits firearms should be responsible from the moment the employee leaves their car until they return to their car. IOW, in the parking lot and inside the building.
+1
I drive 3.5 hrs a day, so that's a lot of time on the road where protection might be needed, but I would be in violation of parking rules while at work.
I would like to see your vehicle made an extension of the home. Just as it is in Castle Doctrine. You should be able to keep your guns in your vehicle the same as in your home, no matter where the vehicle is legally.
Last edited by Cruiser on Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Cruiser wrote:I would like to see your vehicle made an extension of the home. Just as it is in Castle Doctrine. You should be able to keep your guns in your vehicle the same as in your home, no matter where the vehicle is.
So, if I drive onto the Statehouse lawn, I can still have a car-full of firearms?
-- Someone edited my signature and deleted my posts, and all I got was... this edited signature.
Cruiser wrote:I would like to see your vehicle made an extension of the home. Just as it is in Castle Doctrine. You should be able to keep your guns in your vehicle the same as in your home, no matter where the vehicle is.
So, if I drive onto the Statehouse lawn, I can still have a car-full of firearms?
He didn't say that one could drive their car anywhere. Drive on the statehouse lawn and the infraction is for doing a lawn job, not what's inside the car.
Ken
The more law-abiding people that have guns, the better off we are," Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said. "Because the bad guys always have guns, You look at these school shootings or church shootings, the ones that have been stopped, it was because someone there had a gun."
Cruiser wrote:I would like to see your vehicle made an extension of the home. Just as it is in Castle Doctrine. You should be able to keep your guns in your vehicle the same as in your home, no matter where the vehicle is.
So, if I drive onto the Statehouse lawn, I can still have a car-full of firearms?
Cruiser wrote:I would like to see your vehicle made an extension of the home. Just as it is in Castle Doctrine. You should be able to keep your guns in your vehicle the same as in your home, no matter where the vehicle is.
So, if I drive onto the Statehouse lawn, I can still have a car-full of firearms?
He didn't say that one could drive their car anywhere. Drive on the statehouse lawn and the infraction is for doing a lawn job, not what's inside the car.
He said "no matter where the vehicle is."
I'm just trying to narrow it down.
-- Someone edited my signature and deleted my posts, and all I got was... this edited signature.