Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1074216" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I agree with them striking down the Oklahoma law as unconstitutional, but not because of any preemption issues, like the Tulsa ct. ruled.</p><p></p><p>The OK law violates the employer's liberty and property rights, as protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. One of the core elements of your right to your property is the ability to exclude others from it, which includes the ability to set the terms by which other people enter onto the property. You have the absolute right to exclude people from entering onto your property who are in the possession of clown hats if you want to. Same with anything else, guns included. Laws that restrict your ability to exclude others from your property violate your property rights.</p><p></p><p>Part of your liberty includes the right to free association: free individuals can choose who they consensually associate with, and under what terms they do so. An employment relationship is one of many forms of a mutually consensual relationship. If either party to such a relationship decides to withdraw his consent, the relationship no longer exists. It is a violation of your liberty for the government to insist that you continue to associate with someone when you no longer wish the relationship to continue, no matter what your reasons are or how irrational they are. If the government forces you to continue associating with the other party, the relationship is no longer a consensual relationship, but a forced one, maintained by duress rather than consent. </p><p></p><p>The obvious analogy is to a romantic relationship. Laws that infringe on the employment relationship are the same as laws that would require you to continue dating someone even though you want to break up with her, but the law prohibits you from breaking up with her for certain reasons. Even if you want to break up with her because she folds up your socks in a really annoying way or something petty like that, your girlfriend still has no claim on a right to have you forced into continuing to associate with her. </p><p></p><p>For some reason, most people have no problem with the government infringing on our right to free association when they do it against employers, but would flip their lid if they tried to regulate other consensual relationships like dating. Just one of the many instances of people not having a consistent concept of liberty.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1074216, member: 4235"] I agree with them striking down the Oklahoma law as unconstitutional, but not because of any preemption issues, like the Tulsa ct. ruled. The OK law violates the employer's liberty and property rights, as protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. One of the core elements of your right to your property is the ability to exclude others from it, which includes the ability to set the terms by which other people enter onto the property. You have the absolute right to exclude people from entering onto your property who are in the possession of clown hats if you want to. Same with anything else, guns included. Laws that restrict your ability to exclude others from your property violate your property rights. Part of your liberty includes the right to free association: free individuals can choose who they consensually associate with, and under what terms they do so. An employment relationship is one of many forms of a mutually consensual relationship. If either party to such a relationship decides to withdraw his consent, the relationship no longer exists. It is a violation of your liberty for the government to insist that you continue to associate with someone when you no longer wish the relationship to continue, no matter what your reasons are or how irrational they are. If the government forces you to continue associating with the other party, the relationship is no longer a consensual relationship, but a forced one, maintained by duress rather than consent. The obvious analogy is to a romantic relationship. Laws that infringe on the employment relationship are the same as laws that would require you to continue dating someone even though you want to break up with her, but the law prohibits you from breaking up with her for certain reasons. Even if you want to break up with her because she folds up your socks in a really annoying way or something petty like that, your girlfriend still has no claim on a right to have you forced into continuing to associate with her. For some reason, most people have no problem with the government infringing on our right to free association when they do it against employers, but would flip their lid if they tried to regulate other consensual relationships like dating. Just one of the many instances of people not having a consistent concept of liberty. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom