Calif judge to stop 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[Right2Carry]

The reason I am posting this is because if a Judge has deemed the prohibition on openly gay military service members unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians, then what about my rights under the 2A.

When an employer bans my right to store a firearm in my vehicle at work, isn't this unconstitutional because it violates the 2A? I don't understand these judges and their thinking. Am I missing something?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100910/D9I50KL00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Excaliber]

The reason I am posting this is because if a Judge has deemed the prohibition on openly gay military service members unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians, then what about my rights under the 2A.

When an employer bans my right to store a firearm in my vehicle at work, isn't this unconstitutional because it violates the 2A? I don't understand these judges and their thinking. Am I missing something?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100910/D9I50KL00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes.

Your rights on your property and in public are different than your rights when on private property owned by someone else - e.g., an employer.

Example: A fancy restaurant can deny entry to anyone who isn't wearing a jacket and tie. You can wear what you want at home and in the street, but if you want to enter the privately owned restaurant, you have to abide by their rules.

[Oldgringo]

The reason I am posting this is because if a Judge has deemed the prohibition on openly gay military service members unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians, then what about my rights under the 2A.

When an employer bans my right to store a firearm in my vehicle at work, isn't this unconstitutional because it violates the 2A? I don't understand these judges and their thinking. Am I missing something?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100910/D9I50KL00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes.

Your rights on your property and in public are different than your rights when on private property owned by someone else - e.g., an employer.

Example: A fancy restaurant can deny entry to anyone who isn't wearing a jacket and tie. You can wear what you want at home and in the street, but if you want to enter the privately owned restaurant, you have to abide by their rules.

Judges have different interests - just like everybody else.

[Right2Carry]

The reason I am posting this is because if a Judge has deemed the prohibition on openly gay military service members unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians, then what about my rights under the 2A.

When an employer bans my right to store a firearm in my vehicle at work, isn't this unconstitutional because it violates the 2A? I don't understand these judges and their thinking. Am I missing something?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100910/D9I50KL00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes.

Your rights on your property and in public are different than your rights when on private property owned by someone else - e.g., an employer.

Example: A fancy restaurant can deny entry to anyone who isn't wearing a jacket and tie. You can wear what you want at home and in the street, but if you want to enter the privately owned restaurant, you have to abide by their rules.

If the military is forbidden to set its own standards based on the constitution, why is my employer able to violate my constitutional right to keep and secure a firearm in my vehicle? I still think there is a contradiction going on here. The second amendment flatly states that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Either I have a right to keep and bear arms in my vehicle or I don't.

Are you saying that are constitutional rights are not created equal? That some constitutional rights should be taken more seriously than others? I beleive that constitutional rights should be applied equally across the board. I don't think the first or fifth amendment should be applied any differently than the 2A.

[dicion]

The second amendment flatly states that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Yes.. by the government. The constitution rules the government, not the owner of Joe's Crab Shack

[Oldgringo]

The second amendment flatly states that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Yes.. by the government. The constitution rules the government, not the owner of Joe's Crab Shack

Since you brought it up, I really like Cobb Salad the way it's prepared in Joe's Crab Shack next to BassPro in Bossier City. Yummo!

[RSJ]

I really don't see much of a comparison between sexual orientation discrimination (fundamental civil right) in the military (in government), and 2nd Amendment law. Many organizations and people are working to extend "gay rights" to become a recognized as an absolute fundamental civil right. I am against an ABSOLUTE ban on "Reasonable restriction" as current court opinions affirm (no firearms @ airplanes, laws regulating guns in schools, laws regulating minors possession of them, Class III, etc)

[bdickens]

Why should there be a protected class of citizens based on who they bed down with? It should be sufficient that all citizens have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

[ScottDLS]

Why should there be a protected class of citizens based on who they bed down with? It should be sufficient that all citizens have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

You didn't know...? The right to homosexual lifestyle protection is right next to the abortion clause and the prohibition on prayer in school. It's right there in the Constitution...

[Right2Carry]

The reason I am posting this is because if a Judge has deemed the prohibition on openly gay military service members unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians, then what about my rights under the 2A.

When an employer bans my right to store a firearm in my vehicle at work, isn't this unconstitutional because it violates the 2A? I don't understand these judges and their thinking. Am I missing something?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100910/D9I50KL00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes.

Your rights on your property and in public are different than your rights when on private property owned by someone else - e.g., an employer.

Example: A fancy restaurant can deny entry to anyone who isn't wearing a jacket and tie. You can wear what you want at home and in the street, but if you want to enter the privately owned restaurant, you have to abide by their rules.

Do I have rights while in my personal vehicle? Do I have a right to protect myself going and coming from work? Does an employer have the right to tell me what I can and can't keep in my private vehicle? How is this any different from the Military (employer) stating that gays cannot serve openly in the military. If a judge finds this to be unconstitutional via the 1st and 5th amendments, then I contend that an employer who prohibits me from storing a firearm in my PERSONAL vehicle to be in violation of my constitutional rights to carry granted to me under the 2A. This is just my opinion as I am not a lawyer.

My vehicle is an extension of my home IMHO.

[RSJ]

in my opinion the 2nd Amendment:
Collectively forbids the people (citizens as a whole) from being disarmed

Individually allows for private citizens to keep, have, and posses firearms BUT it subject to restrictions, (time, place and manner)

However, if a private company decides that on its' private property to forbid firearms, how can you deny them that right and assert that only your right should be protected....

We are an at will state, if you don't like your companies policy, then don't work there, or decide that the law regarding parking lots is unreasonable and petition for reform, but don't hide behind the holding of sexual orientation laws because as we have been reforming lately, gay people cannot legally be treated differently. Gays in the military is clearly a public/governmental issue. Private property rights (especially regarding firearms) are likely to remain on the side of the owner, rather than the guest or visitor. If I own a business and put up PROPER 30.06 signs and include them in the parking lots, then respect my wishes, then again it is MY property isn't it? No one is making you come onto my property, for work or goods/services.

[Dave2]

or decide that the law regarding parking lots is unreasonable and petition for reform

Conveniently enough, that's already been done. I think the law either gets voted on or takes effect next January. I think.

[gabe]

The second amendment flatly states that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Yes.. by the government. The constitution rules the government, not the owner of Joe's Crab Shack

That would cover court houses, military bases, and other federal facilities.

[threoh8]

I'm not convinced that there is a right to serve in the military. If there is, why does ADA not apply? Why is the military allowed to discriminate on the basis of age?

[The Annoyed Man]

Either I have a right to keep and bear arms in my vehicle or I don't.

You absolutely have the right to keep and bear arms in your vehicle. The company absolutely (apparently) has the right to tell you not to park on their property if you're going to have a gun in your car. In other words, the Constitution protects your right to have a gun in the car, but it it doesn't grant you a right to park on company property. Parking on company property is a privilege, not a right, which the company extends to you. Since company parking is a privilege which the company extends to you, the company gets to determine under what conditions they will grant you the privilege.

Similarly, you have a constitutional 1st Amendment right to spout obscenities, but you don't have a right to spout obscenities under certain situations - say inside a nice restaurant. If you are ejected from a restaurant for spouting obscenities, your 1st Amendment right has not been infringed, because your 1st Amendment right stops when it runs up against the restaurant owner's property right to set a certain atmosphere and decorum inside his restaurant.

Your comparison of this to the military's don't ask don't tell policy - which comes down from the civilian leadership, by the way, not the DOD - is a logical fallacy.