Follow us on Facebook

Latest Comments

ND Outdoors Sites


Featured Link


Login Form

Support NorthDecoder

Search This Site


Amazon Search Widget

Feature Stories

The Low Road

Amazon Search

JoomlaWatch 1.2.12 - Joomla Monitor and Live Stats by Matej Koval
North Dakota House Attacks Employer Property Rights PDF Print E-mail
Written by Chet   
Monday, 21 February 2011 18:00

Remember the anti-big-government Republican Party candidates you voted for in 2010?!?  Remember how they were going to get out of the way of business?!?  Remember how concerned they were about "property rights"?!?  

Well, those anti-big government Republicans joined with a few Democrats to support some nanny state government legislation that meddles in private employers' property rights and employers' rights to contract with employees.  The bill and analysis...


Now, let's clear up a couple things about this:  First, though the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bare arms, it does not give you the right to carry weapons on property owned by someone who does not want you to carry weapons on their property.  If I don't want you to carry a weapon in my house, I can kick you off my property, and the second amendment does not help you.  The second amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from limiting your right to bare arms (though there are lots of exceptions; like you can't carry a weapon into a courthouse or a prison visitation room, and you can't own sawed-off shotguns, certain automatic weapons or nuclear arms).  Anybody that is not the government -- e.g. people, corporations, partnerships, etc. -- is not governed by the second amendment.  This bill is not a second amendment constitutional issue.  It is a big-government private property rights grab.

Second, this bill would not stop a business owner from prohibiting everybody else in the world from bringing guns onto her property.  This bill, if enacted into law, would only take away her right to prohibit her employees from bringing guns onto her property.  And she cannot do ANYTHING about it if they do, so long as they claim they are carrying it for "defensive purposes."  

Imagine you own a restaurant and you hire some guy to work in your restaurant as a bus boy.  One day he shows up at work with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder.  You say, "Hey.  Ah.  So.  Um.  What do you think you're doing with that gun in here?"  He responds, "I need to have this on me for lawful defensive purposes.  North Dakota law says I can do that, and you can't do anything about it."  You fire the employee because you know you're gonna lose lots of business with some assault-rifle-toting crackpot walking around.  

Next day, your former employee sues your pants off.

Bummer, huh?

I kinda like this bill.  It'll be good for business.  Well... my business, anyway.  Yours?!?  Not so much. 

Comments (1)add comment

Had this kind of problem... said:

but what to do about lions?
Here in ND, a couple years ago, I managed a couple young employees who (secretly) brought their personal guns in company-owned cars, to company-leased hotels, and then onto client job sites. This despite our clients' contractual rule of "absolutely NO guns," and our written/signed company policy of "absolutely NO guns, ever." These were projects on federal agency managed land. -- They did this, they said, so that "after work" they could hunt their way back across public lands (ignoring that they were still in the company car) to catch their evening meal and save money.

I heard about the guns and hunting through the grapevine, I hadn't seen it. They confessed they did it all the time, but couldn't imagine why it was wrong. So I reminded them of our policy of immediate termination if guns were EVER present, (which they'd read and signed,) and ... they got really pissy and self righteous about their rights to bear arms. They said that we had no right to tell them they couldn't use their guns "after work." I clarified whose vehicle/hotel/job site/employment they were in.

Apparently it was a deal breaker for them, they moved on shortly thereafter, to a company that allows them to bring their guns. They were seriously indignant, they'd scouted all these great hunting spots while working, they couldn't understand what was the problem of them carrying guns onto the job sites, it was public land afterall? So, good riddance.

I imagine now, they will simply say their guns are for "defensive purposes" from the mountain lions, tigers, and bears. (Which, unfortunately, has a grain of logic.)

I'm not sure how this bill, if enacted, would affect our business, given that our policy and our clients' contracts say NO GUNS on the job sites/hotels/vehicles. I imagine these types, who don't have the capacity to comprehend why companies might not want guns on the job sites, will insist on driving their personal vehicles to the job/hotel sites, and then demand to be reimbursed. What a nightmare. It's the wild west out there.
February 23, 2011
Votes: +0

Write comment

security image
Write the displayed characters