Gun rights or property rights?

Via ["Fox News":http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138512,00.html]:

bq. Whirlpool Corp. (WHR) has sued to block a new law that allows employees to keep guns in their locked vehicles on workplace parking lots. The law was scheduled to take effect Nov. 1, according to the Associated Press, but a federal judge blocked it. Only Kentucky has a similar law.

bq. Whirlpool, which is trying to save its ban on firearms (search) on company property, believes workplace safety should override the rights of gun owners.

Oh. *Of course* someone who intends to blow away their co-workers is going to be stopped by a company policy against guns in their car in the parking lot. And *obviously* the miniscule potential gain in safety because of the one in a million employees who just might avoid killing their co-workers because they have time to think on their ride home to go pick up their gun far outweighs the rights of Whirlpool employees to defend themselves on their way to and from work.

While I strongly disagree with Whirlpool's policy on this one, I firmly support the company's right to control what goes on on their property. If one really wants to have a gun in his car at work, he can do it anyway and not tell anyone (how do you get caught, anyway?) or quit the company. And if he doesn't work for Whirlpool and would like to send them a message, he can write them a letter or boycott them.

If Whirlpool wants to tell its employees that they can't park on their property at all or must wear a particular brand of suit to work, that's their prerogative. It is inappropriate for the state to pass laws telling a company what policies it must have, whether it's about smoking or dress codes or guns. Let's be consistent here, folks.

Perhaps this is another opportunity to join hands with the lefties in supporting federalism. If one doesn't want the State imposing its own policies on property owners when it comes to things you don't like such as guns, perhaps one shouldn't support the State when it attempts to tell property owners how they can and can't use their property in other ways.

Share this

"Perhaps this is another

"Perhaps this is another opportunity to join hands with the lefties in supporting federalism."

Problem is, they don't mean it. They're just sore that they aren't holding the whip right now, or at best they want to cut "Bush Country" overboard and consolidate their turf.

I do agree with you, to a

I do agree with you, to a point, but let's look at this from another perspective. The constitution/BoR provides for certain things, including the right to keep and bear arms. While this has been abused and misused over time, the principle is the same. And I don't know if this is so clear-cut.

Take, for example, the concept of aggression. If Whirlpool said "we think that it should be acceptable to physically attack people on our property, and that the State should stay out of it, because it is our property", would that also be ok? The state provides for the protection from aggression, so, concievable, Whirlpool's policy of allowing physical violence on its property would be trumped by the state's laws against said violence.

Are guns really different? Is the right to keep and bear arms different from the right to be protected from aggression? Does one right stop at Whirlpool's property line, while the other one does not? I don't know the answer for sure, but I don't think it's as clear as Sean makes it out to be.

If Whirlpool said "we think

If Whirlpool said "we think that it should be acceptable to physically attack people on our property, and that the State should stay out of it, because it is our property", would that also be ok?

Yes, assuming people entering the premises are aware of the policy. There are places like that. They're called boxing gyms. It's probably not a profitable policy to have at a factory, though.

Evan there are two aspects

Evan there are two aspects of 'right to bear arms'. The first is Constitutional, which is a grant of power to individuals to organize into a government. The BoR is a specification of limits to that power (not that it does any good). Thus the 2nd Amendment is specific to the Federal Government (and by extension of the 14th to the state governments). Unless Whirlpool is a government agency, the Constitution has no say.

The second aspect of 'right to bear arms' is from natural law. In this aspect the right to bear arms is a property right. Since it derives from property rights, it cannot trump property rights. Sean got it right. Think of it this way - only those who are not carrying guns are invited onto Whirlpool's property.