The NRA does it again
I've already pointed out how the NRA cast principle to the wind by endorsing George Bush. Portraying him as a "pro-gun" hero, they conveniently neglected his vow to renew the purely political Clinton "assault rifle" ban.
And as long as we're talking about constitutional rights, it bears repeating that Mr. Bush signed into law the wholly unconsitutional so-called Campaign Finance "Reform" [read: "incumbent protection"] Act, in which the federal government -- all three branches -- further trampled Americans' free speech and property rights.
Now the NRA is offering further evidence of their contempt for constitutionally protected rights whenever such rights prove inconvenient to gun-owners.
On the surface, an NRA-backed boycott of ConocoPhillips (because they don't allow firearms in employees' vehicles on their employee parking lots) seems like a reasonable strike in defense of the 2nd Amendment. So does NRA's support of Republican lawmakers' efforts to make it unlawful for Florida employers to adopt such a prohibition.
But what does that say about the NRA's view of property rights? Does the 2nd Amendment really trump a property owner's right to determine what is allowed on his property?
The answer is no.
Even if it's a stupid policy, a property owner is entitled to prohibit firearms on his property, including in cars, when parked on his parking lot. If employees dislike the policy (and they should), they can park offsite, or seek employment elsewhere.
I have to give credit to Sheldon Richman, of the Foundation for Economic Education for patiently clarifying this issue for me. Mr. Richman framed this issue clearly and succinctly:
"Rights can never negate rights. If you have a case in which you think a right has negated a right, then at least one of the alleged rights is not really a right. There is no right to use someone else's parking lot in a manner to which he objects, however senseless his reasons."
Would that the folks at the NRA had such a balanced and informed respect for all rights!
And as long as we're talking about constitutional rights, it bears repeating that Mr. Bush signed into law the wholly unconsitutional so-called Campaign Finance "Reform" [read: "incumbent protection"] Act, in which the federal government -- all three branches -- further trampled Americans' free speech and property rights.
Now the NRA is offering further evidence of their contempt for constitutionally protected rights whenever such rights prove inconvenient to gun-owners.
On the surface, an NRA-backed boycott of ConocoPhillips (because they don't allow firearms in employees' vehicles on their employee parking lots) seems like a reasonable strike in defense of the 2nd Amendment. So does NRA's support of Republican lawmakers' efforts to make it unlawful for Florida employers to adopt such a prohibition.
But what does that say about the NRA's view of property rights? Does the 2nd Amendment really trump a property owner's right to determine what is allowed on his property?
The answer is no.
Even if it's a stupid policy, a property owner is entitled to prohibit firearms on his property, including in cars, when parked on his parking lot. If employees dislike the policy (and they should), they can park offsite, or seek employment elsewhere.
I have to give credit to Sheldon Richman, of the Foundation for Economic Education for patiently clarifying this issue for me. Mr. Richman framed this issue clearly and succinctly:
"Rights can never negate rights. If you have a case in which you think a right has negated a right, then at least one of the alleged rights is not really a right. There is no right to use someone else's parking lot in a manner to which he objects, however senseless his reasons."
Would that the folks at the NRA had such a balanced and informed respect for all rights!
posted by Mudrostovich | 10:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home