Leaving gun in vehicle at work? Fired

[dansgotguns]

Except your rights are limitations on the governnment. Not private citizens. I have no right to free speech, at your house.

BOOM

 

[IndyBeerman]

Nope. Nada. You're wrong.

One can voluntarily surrender their rights, but a property owner cannot require one to surrender them.

But the problem is you surrender those rights upon receipt and acceptance of the employee handbook. What part of this do you not understand.

Don't accept whats in the handbook, do one of two things.

Quit or decide that the money is worth it.

You failed to see that this below in my post.

You give up your rights when you turn in the forms in the back of the handbooks that acknowledge your receipt of the handbook.

The same goes for an employer. Otherwise, you may be required to be strip searched by your office manager every Monday morning at 9am, simply because its "required" by your "employee handbook."

The employee handbook does not supersede established civil liberties and due process of law. Not even the police who have a wide latitude in the enforcement of law with their statutory authority, can exceed their authority to enforce the criminal codes.

HAHA, why don't you try it in your zip code, number, state, ballpark, and see what happens. I'm willing to bet that you would be looking at the inside of a jail cell in fairly quick order.

Another person that believes that property rights absolutely supersede the civil liberties of the individual.

Here's another person who try's to interject a thought process that a company is going to subject a strip search into their policy.

Comparing the McDonalds' video to this is absurd, this is a stupid manager thinking that they are talking to law enforcement, no company is going to insert a strip search policy into the handbook because they know that's a recipe for a lawsuit.

When you accept a handbook's policy, you give up rights, I can direct you towards a guy I used to work with who though it would be funny to try and steal from work.

He got caught @ the guard shack while leaving, his lawyer opted for a bench trail and argued that his rights was violated.

Judge's last words before he sentenced him was, "you gave up those rights by signing and adhering to the employee handbook".
I know this was said because I was there as a defense witness because I was one of the 3 employees who seen him walk out with the product and we all thought he had paid for it through an employee purchased because of the way he strolled out.

 

[HotD]

Except your rights are limitations on the governnment. Not private citizens. I have no right to free speech, at your house.

Fair enough. Though one doesn't surrender one's right to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects at my house. Otherwise, rape would be legal, so long as it happened at the house of someone who condoned it. Right?

That is a concept that Indybeerman can't seem to grasp, even in the face of a stupid judge believing that people giving up all their rights by signing and adhering to the employee handbook.

 

[vanillagorilla]

Vote for people who will change the laws or break them. Cant have it both ways.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Fair enough. Though one doesn't surrender one's right to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects at my house. Otherwise, rape would be legal, so long as it happened at the house of someone who condoned it. Right?

That is a concept that Indybeerman can't seem to grasp, even in the face of a stupid judge believing that people giving up all their rights by signing and adhering to the employee handbook.

You have the right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects, yes. the 4A prevents government from infringing those rights (or at least that was the intent of it.) That 4A right applies only to government, however. Given the employee handbook example, if a condition of employment is that you submit on request to a blood, urine, and/or hair test for the use of drugs, the case could be made (and may have been, I don't know) that such is an unreasonable search of your person. You, then, have the choice: You can refuse the test, knowing it will result in the termination of your employment or you can submit to the test, knowing what will or won't be found. What you cannot do is refuse the test and reasonably expect to keep your job, because while you have a right to security of your person, papers, and effects, you do not have a right either to that job or to be at your employer's place of business. You have been allowed to be there conditioned on you doing work for your employer.
The same argument applies at a home. If I demand that you, a guest in my home, must smoke a (tobacco) pipe with me or must drink a beer with your supper, as long as you are not violating the law (i.e. age) by doing so, I have that right. You have the right to either do as I demand or to leave my property. Now...that's a purely hypothetical situation, as I don't drink or smoke, and wouldn't ask that of someone even if I did. Your rape example fails on the grounds that it is unlawful: One cannot lawfully be forced to have sex. I'm not sure if solicitation laws would apply to someone saying that someone else could stay at their home in exchange for sex, however. If they did not, then the person would have the choice to stay or leave, the latter if they did not wish to participate.

The central point is that individual rights do trump property rights insofar as the person him/herself, but do not trump a property owner's right to choose who may and may not enter onto or remain on his/her property.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[HotD]

.....The central point is that individual rights do trump property rights insofar as the person him/herself, but do not trump a property owner's right to choose who may and may not enter onto or remain on his/her property.

Thank you for so eloquently stating my point.

 

[dansgotguns]

ok people have gotten way off topic, bottom line is if you refuse a search your fired. If your already fired and refuse a search you will be detained until 5.0 gets there under suspicion of stolen property etc.

 

[halfcocked94]

I am fortunate enough to be able to carry at work.

 

[HotD]

ok people have gotten way off topic, bottom line is if you refuse a search your fired. If your already fired and refuse a search you will be detained until 5.0 gets there under suspicion of stolen property etc.

I'd love to see how an employer is going to detain anybody. If an adult wishes to leave, just how exactly are they going to stop them?

 

[dansgotguns]

I'd love to see how an employer is going to detain anybody. If an adult wishes to leave, just how exactly are they going to stop them?

men with guns just like the government does.

 

[HotD]

men with guns just like the government does.

Deadly physical force for walking out the door, FTW!

 

[actaeon277]

I'd love to see how an employer is going to detain anybody. If an adult wishes to leave, just how exactly are they going to stop them?

The same way stores are allowed to detain someone for shoplifting.
The same way a business can detain someone for vandalism.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Only if they have direct knowledge of specific theft/vandalism. A proprietor can't just pull a claim outta their posterior as justification for strip searching a patron.

 

[HotD]

The same way stores are allowed to detain someone for shoplifting.
The same way a business can detain someone for vandalism.

The last I knew, there isn't an over abundance of employers that have trained individuals with current knowledge in restraining and detaining individuals.

So how far does theft and vandalism merit the detention of an individual?

• Is an untrained individual permitted to use physical force, at risk of serious bodily harm to the individual being detained?
• Is an untrained individual permitted to apply handcuffs or other restraints, at risk of serious bodily harm to the individual being detained?
• Is the untrained individual permitted to keep a person for beyond 2 hours, as the IC permits the detention of a shoplifter or the production of an illegal recording?

You do see my point, don't you?

 

[stephen87]

men with guns just like the government does.

So, they can legally point a firearm, if they want my property searched after I've been fired? I don't quite think that's how that works, but I've been wrong before and have already been told to keep my day job.

That would be an unlawful detention without an evidence and when the local 5-0 shows up to search, it becomes an illegal search after I tell them that I don't have anything and without a warrant they can't search. See where I'm going with this?

 

[dansgotguns]

The last I knew, there isn't an over abundance of employers that have trained individuals with current knowledge in restraining and detaining individuals.

So how far does theft and vandalism merit the detention of an individual?

• Is an untrained individual permitted to use physical force, at risk of serious bodily harm to the individual being detained?
• Is an untrained individual permitted to apply handcuffs or other restraints, at risk of serious bodily harm to the individual being detained?
• Is the untrained individual permitted to keep a person for beyond 2 hours, as the IC permits the detention of a shoplifter or the production of an illegal recording?

You do see my point, don't you?

This particular place does and many

 

[wolfy2]

Just a job-right?

 

[pinshooter45]

Indiana is a right to work state so pretty much anything can be grounds for termination

YEP!!!

 

[CathyInBlue]

But certain grounds for termination have been enshrined in the Code as actionable in civil court.

 

[pinshooter45]

But certain grounds for termination have been enshrined in the Code as actionable in civil court.

Yes! And It is really fricking difficult and expensive to the tune of about $300.00 and hour! Believe me I have tried! Not anything to do with firearms but another situation. Civil matters are a whole different ball game than criminal. For one thing you only have to be 51% right or wrong to win or lose.