Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

[Werewolf]

Corporations and privately held businesses are not individual human beings. They should not have the same rights as an individual and when the rights between the two conflict the individual's right should always trump that of the business or corporation.

Unfortunately the courts don't see it that way. The courts are wrong. Maybe someday they'll see the error of their ways.

 

[Biggsly]

I know where I work people have had guns in their cars way before the law was changed. I know people who have been keeping gun in their cars all the time and we have not had a shooting at work yet. I feel fine and safe at work. Please. If someone does shoot me at work, Don't blame the gun. Blame the person.

 

[loudshirt]

Corporations and privately held businesses are not individual human beings. They should not have the same rights as an individual and when the rights between the two conflict the individual's right should always trump that of the business or corporation.

Unfortunately the courts don't see it that way. The courts are wrong. Maybe someday they'll see the error of their ways.

You are right. But just like businesses can ban smoking, or skateboarding or even require dress codes they can ban guns on their property. Business can set policies that you must follow to remain employed. In Oklahoma you can be fired just because it is Thursday. If carrying a gun is such an important thing to you get a job where you can carry it all day.

 

[Biggsly]

You are right. But just like businesses can ban smoking, or skateboarding or even require dress codes they can ban guns on their property. Some people may like it and some do not, But by law they can not ban the guns in your car at work in Oklahoma.

 

[sharkbait]

If you park on a public street your employer has no legal standing to search your car for whatever reason they come up with...

 

[Biggsly]

If you park on a public street your employer has no legal standing to search your car for whatever reason they come up with...

In Oklahoma, he has no legal standing even if it is in the parking lot.

 

[henschman]

Corporations and privately held businesses are not individual human beings. They should not have the same rights as an individual and when the rights between the two conflict the individual's right should always trump that of the business or corporation.

Unfortunately the courts don't see it that way. The courts are wrong. Maybe someday they'll see the error of their ways.

You're wrong about privately-held businesses (i.e. a sole proprietorship or a partnership).

They are nothing more than the individual person or persons doing business. The business and all its assets are just part of the owner's property, and the owner has the right to make rules about his property and the right of exclusion like anybody else.

As for corporations, the corporation and all its property are really the property of the shareholders. The shareholders decide to make the rules for their property through a board of directors that they elect, and this is how they make rules for their property.

It all goes back to the property rights of individual human beings.

 

[Werewolf]

You're wrong about privately-held businesses (i.e. a sole proprietorship or a partnership).

I understand all about sole proprietorships and partnerships. FWIW the sole proprietorship is almost dead as most individual business owners set up their businesses under various laws that seperate their business and private assets to protect themselves from personal liability while retaining the antiquated sole proprietorship description. Partnerships do the same thing. If business schools at the university level are still teaching the old form that sole proprietorships and partnerships took re: personal liability of the owners someone needs to kick their professors out into the real world where they can get a lesson in reality.

Be that as it may:
Both type of non-corporate entities invite the public onto their property to do business. Just like a corporation does.They both employ people (unless it's a one man operation). Regardless of how the law treats them based on how the owners are compensated they are still business entities that should be treated differently from an individual.

As for shareholders - can you say plural? They stop being individuals and start being a group when they become shareholdersS.

Businesses are businesses no matter how the lawyers and courts have spun it. They shouldn't have the same rights as a human being.

That ole argument about don't want to disarm don't come on my property works both ways. Want my business don't try to disarm me. That's a fundamental conflict between a non human business entity and a citizen.

Personally I think citizens have more value than non-human business entities.

Don't YOU?

 

[henschman]

Businesses don't have rights, but their owners do. Business owners have the same rights to control their property (including the business, whatever form it is) as anybody else does. I don't care what the courts say either -- I'm talking about basic issues of liberty.

I don't believe in corporate personhood, but I do believe in the property rights of individuals.

I don't believe anybody has the right to tell other people what rules they can or can't make about their own property, or by what terms they can voluntarily associate with other people.

Just because a person is engaging in commercial transactions with other people (or is using his property to conduct business) doesn't mean he gives up his liberty and can be legitimately regulated more than other people. To allow the rights of one person to be violated puts at risk the rights and liberties of all.

 

[Biggsly]

I can't even comment on this thread anymore, it is starting to wear me out.