Would you commit a crime just for a little income?
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
- Thread starter J.P.
- Start Date
Would you commit a crime just for a little income?
I would certainly commit a mala prohibita crime if it stood between me and feeding my family!
Now now, the .gov is losing that fight in the courts, I thought over the "cyber bullying" case, I thought? Let's go back to the topic of the thread, and discuss how a law under title 21 could be used to call the police on your employer for having a policy in contravention of state law. I haven't found any attorneys willing to offer even a SWAG on this idea.
Again, my notion is this: It's against the law for an employer to even HAVE a "policy or rule" that forbids a gun in your locked vehicle. That law is under Title 21, Crimes and Punishments. Seems like a recipe for fun, but I'm not sure there's a penalty prescribed for violating said law, so maybe not.
>911 what's your emergency?
<Integris has a rule in contravention of state law!!!!!!!!1111one
>We'll send some units right away sir. Please try to remain calm help will be there shortly.
<Integris has a rule in contravention of state law!!!!!!!!1111one
>We'll send some units right away sir. Please try to remain calm help will be there shortly.
OCPD: "Who drafted this policy"
HR flunkie: "Uh...our legal department, sir"
OCPD: "ok, I'm gonna need your entire legal staff and HR director to come downtown, see?"
HR flunkie: "Uh...our legal department, sir"
OCPD: "ok, I'm gonna need your entire legal staff and HR director to come downtown, see?"
>Breaking News: Major local hospital has entire HR and Legal department arrested on charges of contravention of state law, more at six.
Dont ask, dont tell
It depends on the terms of the contract you have with the property owner, if any. Even if you don't have a contract, a property owner can indicate the terms of his consent for you to remain on his property, like signs or just telling you. If you persist in violating his terms, he would have every right to force you off his property. Hell, without a contract, he has the right to make you leave his property at any time, for any reason or no reason.
Which of your other "rights" do you claim to be able to exercise on another person's property against his will? Do you have the right to come into my living room and force me to listen to you talk about your thoughts on global warming, even if I tell you to get the hell out, because of your "right to free speech?"
Which of your other "rights" do you claim gives you the power to force someone into a relationship with you on terms he does not consent to?
The reason I put "rights" in quotes is because these things involve the initiation of force against others, and there is no such thing as a right to do this. Your rights protect your freedom FROM the initiation of force. This law of Oklahoma's legalizes the initiation of force. It is a violation of the rights of man, and is illegitimate.
You failed to address the question.
You addressed entering private property, while the question addressed property contained within and never leaving a mobile piece of private property. Should the interior of your privately-owned vehicle be considered public as soon as it enters property in which you do not have an ownership interest?
Agree with VM here, we need to make an apples to apples comparison. Like I said before, you can make principled arguments both ways, I just believe that the POV owner's interests in this case are more compelling.
Similar threads
