Let the public know the truth behind anti-gun policies

It looks something like this:

I got to thinking that there might be people out there without access to Microsoft Word, so I created a PDF version of the stickers.

Here's a picture of what one of the stickers looks like:

I'm looking for a link, but I bought a couple t-shirts with the "no guns allowed" ghostbusters logo, and the words "I'm not armed, please don't hurt me".

I have worn the shirt to work, which used to have a "no guns" policy under the previous owners, even printed up in the employee manual. New owners haven't said one way or the other.

There have never been any signs posted anywhere (not that they'd carry any weight anyway)

If I find the link, I'll edit the post.

Found it.

http://www.libertyoutlet.com/store/bystore.html?store=2

Of course the irony was that I was armed.

phox

apollosmith said:

Well, they would carry no LEGAL weight, but you could certainly get fired for violating work policies. For many, the constitutional and moral right to defend oneself is more important than maintaining a job with an employer that has a feeble-minded, misdirected no-guns policies. Concealed is concealed.

Click to expand...

ApolloSmith,

I was having this almost identical discussion with my dad last night. Except the topic wasn't one's right to self-defense but one's right to privacy. Apparently, as he was telling me, there is a current push to develop a national employee registry which will permit employers to input who has worked for them and why they were let go/quit/etc. In addition to that an employer will be allowed, based on your application for a job (you sign an agreement), to search that database for your previous employment records.

Now, at face-value, this makes a lot of sense. For example, it would be nice to know you aren't hiring a perp or something.

BUT during our discussion it occurred to me that a larger issue is at stake -- and it seems to apply to this discussion as well:

In Utah, and many other states, we have a "Right to Work". But if you also have the "Right to Privacy" and are then told that all employers in the state will refuse to hire you unless you sign the agreement, and thus sign away your Right to Privacy, then something has to give... you can't be compelled to sign away 1 Right in order to obtain the other Right -- it isn't logical!

From this perspective, then, the 2A would seem to be in the same position.

And what about the 1A amendment??? If the employer can make you sign away your 2A rights (at least while you are at work) along with your Right to Privacy then what's stopping them from making you sign an agreement stating you won't practice your 1A rights at work if you want to be employed there... including, you can't pray over your food at lunch-time (unless you eat out), you can't carry religious material in your backpack and read it on your breaks, you can't have little signs in your cubicle or office stating anything like "Families Forever", etc... where does it stop???

What do you think???

Car Knocker said:

First Amendment rights are already legally curtailed by employers. If, for example, you work for McDonalds try insisting on your "Right" to wear a Burger King button on your uniform or the "Right" to proselytize in the lobby on your break. Or try posting photos of nudes in your area at work.

The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not absolute and may reasonably (the key word and the stumbling point) be restricted. For it to be otherwise would make society unworkable.

Click to expand...

Very good points! I guess what it comes down to, then, is the degree to which the property is meant for public use... using your excellent example, a McDonald's employee can't wear a BK button because the employee is primarily working behind the counter in a non-public area but as a customer I can certainly wear a BK button because the business was open to the public-at-large and I am there under that condition. Just like the Church main-street issue or the eCenter or whatever. So I see what you are saying.

It still leaves a scary predicament though... if a national employee database were created and all companies began to use it an individual would be barred from working without consenting to giving up their right to privacy... seems like treacherous ground...

P.S.: On an aside note, there is another thread here somewhere (I couldn't find it again) which talks about our inalienable rights and defines them, showing that they cannot be contracted away even if you wanted to. Cases like Dr. Kavorkian (sp?) come to mind... even if you want to rescind your life, you can't LEGALLY ask someone to kill you nor take your own life. So why then can you contract away your OTHER inalienable rights (since all of our other rights are merely logical extensions of our inalienable ones)???