Tuesday, August 23, 2005

The NRA Finally Pissed Me Off

Let me preface this post by saying that the Old Man has a more in-depth analysis of this forthcoming. Balance of rights, a priori, etc.

The NRA, who I wholeheartedly have supported in the past (my dues are paid til' 2011), has decided to go on some delusional Jihad against any private company that has a gun policy. Meaning companies that forbid firearms in vehicles while they are on the property.

PRIVATE COMPANY. Meaning they own the land, the building, and the fucking parking lot.

Now if there is any right I hold sacred, even before the first and second amendment, it is the right to property. It is never stated, but is implied by every ennumerated right. Without property rights, fuck all else matters.

We, collectively, own the property we do business on. Therefore, I have a gun. We also smoke, which would not be possible if we rented someone else's property.

Basically, if it's your shit, you can require that people wear tu-tu's before they are allowed on the property. That's because it's yours and you can set up any set of rules you want and anyone who doesn't comply with the posted warnings is a trespasser. And you know what you do with trespassers.

It's a razor's edge, but property rights (read Kelo) trump damn near any other, as the others wouldn't exist without the de facto assumption that your shit is your shit and you can do whatever the fuck you want to with it.

The fact that the NRA is wasting so much money on this, blows my mind. I got another letter from them today wanting money and a boycott of Conoco and Halliburton.

Go lobby Congress, LaPierrre. That is what you are marginally good at.

In the mean time, leave Constitutional law and the theory of rights to somebody who doesn't think duck hunting is an ennumerated right.

Damn straight, Benjamin!

You know what gets me about this is that this issue is already a couple years old. Had the NRA called for a boycott based just on their firearms policy, I'd feel a little differently.

But now, the boycott is in response to their participation in a lawsuit against Oklahoma's property rights pre-emption rule.

The NRA is as clueless in this matter as Michael Moore. And they won't listen either.
Thanks, Jed.

What I don't understand is how they decide what fucking issue they are going to fight tooth and nail and what they are going to let slide.

I'll admit that I've donated generously to the NRA in the last several years. That stops now, if they want to pursue nonsense like this.

And you're right, they won't listen.


I support the rights the property owner and company have up to one point. They have the right to seyt the rules because they are the boss. But their rules should never not put me in danger. No job is worth death.

So if I was a cab driver of worked at a gas station I would say my right to live trumps their right to make the rules. So the NRA is only slightly right here, but mostly wrong.

I'll disagree here.

My vehicle is my property. What's in my vehicle, so long as it does not violate state, federal, or local law, is none of the company's business.

Conoco should not prohibit me from having a firearm in my trunk or glovebox or console. It's not like the rule is going to prevent a workplace rampage shooting, but prohibiting employees from having a firearm in their vehicle might very well contribute to more deaths and injuries in the event of one, since it will guarantee that the only person on site with a firearm is the perpetrator.

Such rules would force those who wish to keep a firearm in their vehicles to park off of company property. Essentially it says "HEY! THERE'S A GUN IN THIS CAR!" - and the car will be parked in what is probably an unsecured area, as well.

No, I'm with the NRA on this. They're right.

You bring up an interesting point. To the best of my understanding, legally, you vehicle is an extension of your home; so, indeed, it's contents would fall under your purview.

However, taking this to its logical conclusion, would you object say to a community of condiminiums that forbade posession of firearms, and one willingly bought a unit and later objected to the rule?
I'd feel a lot differently about businesses that banned guns if they took responsibility for protecting the employees and customers that they banned from protecting themselves - but they don't.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?