Soybomb and Art,
soybomb said:
So if I employ you as a customer service respresentative you believe I cannot fire you for saying whatever you want to the customers and will sue me for first amendment rights violations?
I never mentioned speech, and it isn't a right, it's a freedom not to be abridged - meaning I may not alter anything you say or keep you form saying it. But there is no guaranteed protection in the First Amendment from the consequences of what you might say. You certainly might suffer adverse consequences of any libelous and slanderous remarks you make, or of disparaging your employer. You might even be subject to divorce from your spouse for what you might say.
There are vast differences between the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment is not absolute. It is nuanced. It says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...." Note that it does not say, "...abridging speech." This means Congress can not make any laws that would alter the meaning of or limit what you say. Congress may, however, pass law punishing the use of foul language or provide avenues for recompense and rectitude for persons slandered and/or libeled. The First Amendment does, in fact, protect freedom of speech, but does not recognize a right to free speech. If it were a right, and protected in the same fashion as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, libel and slander would be untouchable.
The phrase, "...,shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment is not equal to, "Congress shall make no law...abridgeing..." in the First Amendment. The difference is in the different meanings of the words "Infringe" and "Abridge", and the context in which they are used. The Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms is unconditional. "Shall not be infringed" is quite clear.
Speech is an active exercise. You actually do something with speech. You convey thought. You can do harm with your speech. Keeping and bearing arms is passive. The simple keeping and bearing of arms does nothing. Keeping and bearing arms neither harms anyone, nor could harm anyone. It's what you
DO with arms that is of concern. That's why there are justifiable and constitutional laws that prohibit firring off your guns in the middle of town except in self defense.
Parking your potentially deadly(if misused) automobile in a company parking lot is no different than keeping your potentially deadly(if misused) gun locked up inside it. Both are in a passive state. They are just sitting there, harming no one.
The right to defend yourself is closer to the freedom of speech than it is to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Just as you can do harm with your speech, you can use excessive force in defending yourself, like using deadly force on someone who might be in the act of slandering you.
A protection could be written into the Constitution forbidding government from infringing upon your right to learn and keep as many languages in your repertoire as you so choose. That would be analogous to the Second Amendment's protection of your right to keep and bear as many arms as you so choose. Both of those rights are passive, harming no one. And again, it's what you
DO with them that can be governed.
As for being the owner of a business, I own a chapter "S" corporation now and had a chapter "C" corporation prior to the "S" corp. I hired employees for both companies. Both companies had to be incorporated in accordance with state and federal law. I've learned much about the law, what I could do with my companies and what I could not do. There is much more state law than federal law regarding the incorporation of a company and setting a company's bylaws. Being in compliance with federal law comes after you are incorporated - mainly for tax purposes, and some of the mostly bogus alphabet agencies' "regulations". In neither state I incorporated in was there permission in the corporate law granting either of my corporations power to govern what my employees kept in their vehicles. In Oklahoma, my corporation is specifically prohibited from adopting any bylaw(s) that would be inconsistent with the rights of my employees - the same law Weyerhauser is in violation of.
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, corporations and other forms of companies do not have the power to forbid you to keep arms in your vehicles in their parking lots for employee or general public parking. Those companies that do so either usurp the power or break the law - or any law allowing such behavior would be unconstitutional.
Woody
A major discrepancy is substituting "infringed" with "abridged". That is a no-no. The two words do not mean the same thing. "Abridge" is a verb meaning to shorten by using fewer words but keeping the same substance. It applies to writing or speech. "Infringe" is a verb meaning to break or violate a law or agreement. Either word has no other meaning than those specific to each. They are not interchangeable. None of their synonyms cross over, either.
, Art
