Has someone checked the White House to see if Dubya’s head exploded because of this?
dropzone don’t assume that all NRA members are Republican.
Madd Maxx, registered Democrat and NRA member since 1995.
Huh? What makes you think these statements conflict with one another? 
Conoco should be driven out of business if enough of its customers are sufficiently offended by its political position to boycott them. This is perfectly consistent with free-market conservatism.
Now you’re simply being ridiculous. No one forces you to take a job. If you don’t like the bullshit rules that come with it, then don’t work there. Find a job somewhere else. If I were presented with an opportunity to work with a company that banned me from drinking, eating eggs, drive a Ford, or parting my hair on the left, then I have to consider whether or not the pay and benefits of this job outweigh the bullshit rules. Unless it was a great job with great pay and benefits, it likely wouldn’t.
Don’t misunderstand my position – I think that Weyerhaeser is completely wrong to have a policy banning guns on their property. I don’t think it’s morally justifiable. However, I do concede that they have the right to have this policy and the state should not be enacting laws that interfere with this right. It’s their property; they can do what they want. Any business can make rules for its property. Just because I recognize property rights does not mean that I think that rules of this sort are good.
Except in this case it’s conservatives organizing a boycott of a company because it’s standing up for property rights. How consistent is that?
Look, I can sympathize with the companies involved to an extent. Given the nature of lawsuits, legal liability, and insurance, it seems natural to want to ban guns from your property, even if they are secured in someone else’s trunk.
(Although it seems natural, it is in fact counterintuitive, as legal gun owners are quite safe people.)
The state attempted to help out here, saying they are not legally liable for those weapons so long as they are stored properly. As a matter of law in Oklahoma, private property rights ends to the car tires for this sort of thing.
Companies should have been reassured by this law and just gone about their business, instead of suing to block its implementation.
Perfectly. They don’t have any “right” to your patronage.
True, but I’m getting at the point for the boycott. Conservatives are generally strong supporters of property rights. So now conservatives are going to stand up for a company that is fighting for its property rights?
The right of someone to control his own property (or of a company to control its property) isn’t dependent on whether or not you agree with what he/she/it does on that property, much like the freedom of speech isn’t dependent on whether or not you agree with the speaker.
It’s pretty inconsistent for conservatives to howl about how the Kelo decision infringes on property rights and now to support a state law that infringes on those same rights.
Yes, but what you seem to be missing is that property rights cut both ways here. And the state law seems to be drawing a line clarifying where the rights of the parking lot owner end, and the rights of the car owner begin.
A locked trunk seems reasonable here.
I assume you feel the same way about rules prohibiting racial discrimination. With your private company, on your private property, you should be able to only serve whites, and laws forbidding that are bullshit, right?
No, in this case property rights are pretty clear. A company owns a certain amount of land. It tells those who come on this land that they cannot have a firearm. When a person enters that land, he has an obligation to obey the owners of that property.
The fact that the gun is locked in a car is irrelevant. The car may be the property of a person, but that person is a guest on the property of another. Therefore that person has an obligation to obey the rules of the property owner.
Let’s take another situation – my mother-in-law says that when I go to her place she doesn’t want drugs or porn brought in. I, however, bring a locked bag that have both. I am obviously in violation of her property rights, even though the bag belongs to me. It’s her property, after all, and I should respect those rules.
True, the company should allow people to bring guns in a locked trunk. However, it is under no obligation to do so. It has the right to be stupid, and it exercised that right. No state law should infringe on that right. Conoco is right to fight a law that infringes on their right to set rules for their own property.
I’m a libertarian, so of course I do. I think such practices are abhorrent, but should not be against the law.
As long as you’re consistent…
I don’t agree with the thinking behind this state law myself. The company should be free to create whatever conditions it likes for parking on its property. Obviously I’m sympathetic to the issue of wanting to have guns in the car, but if you don’t like your company’s, get another job.
However, it seems to me that if you acknowledge the power of the state to tell a private company, “You must not discriminate on the basis of race,” then you acknowledge the power of the state to make this law, too. You may not agree that the goal of racial equality is of the same magnitude as having an armed citizenry, but that’s a judgement of what values society is prepared to push over private property rights. If there is a power to enforce one, then there’s a power to enforce others.
Hunger is a great motivator. Seeing his children starve will make a man give up freedom. You seem to be confused about the available of jobs in rural areas like in the OP. Have you ever heard of company stores? Was it bullshit rules that most companies had that would fire (or even kill) anyone who spoke of Unionization in the early 20th Century? Have you heard of The Ludlow Massacre?
Capitalists given free-reign will not restrain themselves.
Don’t assume anything. The rural county I’m originally from generally has 10-15% unemployment. Guess what? I moved to an area where there are jobs.
So now you’re comparing a company firing a worker for having a gun in his car to the Ludlow massacre? Seems a bit of a stretch.
All I’m saying is that a company has the right to set the rules for the land it owns and to negotiate a contract with workers that may have bullshit rules. If the worker doesn’t like it, then that worker can stay off company property or forgo the job. If that worker is valuable enough to the company, then that company will accommodate the worker.
Or pornography or contraception? With drugs or drug paraphnellia, you have something illegal. With the case of guns, you have something that is legal.
paraphernalia :smack:
Freezing and boiling water are measured with the same thermometer.
This is a false analogy. Unless your name is Edward Riflehands.