Thursday, June 03, 2010

...and there ain't no GONDA.

Donate to any political organizations your boss might find distasteful? From the HRC and NORML to the NRA and NRLC, there are plenty of volatile issues whose quiet advocacy or fiscal support people might want to keep on the down-low at work or around their neighbors, something that will be impossible if Chuckie Schumer has his way.

34 comments:

idahohunter said...

Upchuck Schumer is full of ideas like this. How much longer?

Anonymous said...

But, but what about the completely imaginary "right to privacy"?

Oh, right, "right to privacy" only applies to the stuff that Leftist like to do. How gauchiste!

Shootin' Buddy

Tam said...

SB,

"Oh, right, "right to privacy" only applies to the stuff that Leftist like to do."

Tsk! Remember your Alinsky: What is Rule 4?

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Why do you keep pulling at your chains? The shackles will just chafe.

Tam said...

Oh, and the right to privacy is as real and fundamental and basic as the right to bear arms.

Witness: I just had a thought and/or performed an action. You do not know what it was. The government does not know what it was. Never in a million years, using all the powers of the courts or coercion will you or the government ever find out. If that is not privacy, then what is?

Similarly, the right to bear arms is inherent in my possessing thumbs & a forebrain and the earth having rocks. If I pick up a rock, I am bearing an arm. Burn the Constitution, go back in time and kill Madison, and as long as I have thumbs and a brain, nothing is changed.

Really, this slavish devotion to paper and the opinions of dead guys is kinda alarming and smacks of Shintoism or a CTA bus rider and not the thinking of a Free Man.

Anonymous said...

Pffft, too easy, you were thinking about Russell Crowe.

All I am observing is that Chuckie's new proposal is just further evidence that the "right to privacy" is nothing more than a stalking horse for the Leftist agenda.

Shootin' Buddy

Tam said...

And I'm saying that it needs to stalk back.

They should have thought the implications for their own game plan through before making a big deal out of the Right to Privacy, because we stand to gain a whole lot more from it than they do.

Brad K. said...

Does this list labor unions and lobbyists, too? I mean, sauce for the goose and all that.

One of the serious abuses of campaign spending I saw in Arizona. Labor unions published political ads that just happened to slander a non-union cause or candidate. Since most of the ads were produced by the unions, not the candidates, the money spent wasn't counted as "contributions".

Grr.

Or maybe the NRA and others should just advertise and make announcements without actually handing money to the FEC or a candidate. Keeping coordination activities under the radar might be the only exposure. . .

Divemedic said...

This is why I oppose that "property rights are absolute" nonsense that I hear spouted all the time.

After all, if it is the employer's private property, can't he fire you for being a gun owner? Donating to the NRA? Aren't you interfering with his property rights?

Or are we ready to concede that property rights, like other rights, are not absolute?

Tam said...

Divemedic,

"After all, if it is the employer's private property, can't he fire you for being a gun owner?"

Sure he should. But he shouldn't be able to root through your trash or the membership rolls of the organizations to which you belong in order to determine whether you own guns or not. It all comes back to property rights. ;)

Mattexian said...

If they can't fire you for being a Jew, they shouldn't be able to fire you for belonging to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Tam said...

I think they should be able to fire you for being a left-handed woman with strawberry blond hair, but I'm all crazy like that. ;)

Nathan said...

Nah, you'd fire back :)

Divemedic said...

Tam:
But aren’t you interfering with a property owner’s rights by denying him the ability to know what kind of employees are entering his property?

Your prospective employer checks your credit history, your criminal record, and your health records. Why is this any different?

Tam said...

Divemedic,

"Your prospective employer checks your credit history, your criminal record, and your health records."

How much of that is your private property? (Or at least something which should require a court order to access?)

Divemedic said...

Your credit record is as much yours as the fact that your name appears on the list of NRA members, isn't it?

Tam said...

Why yes, actually. (Depending on various agreements voluntarily entered into with creditors and the NRA...)

Divemedic said...

That's my point- your job currently checks your credit record, your criminal history, and your medical record, and everyone is OK with that.

Now you get your panties in a wad because they want to add things like your donations to the NRA.

There is no difference.

I keep hearing about how it is wrong to enter a business with a concealed weapon if the owner of the business doesn't want me to have it. Doesn't that also apply to entering a business if the owner doesn't want an NRA member inside?

If a business refuses to hire redheads, should you be required to tell him that you color your hair? Whose rights are violated? The employer who is forced to hire the person he thinks is a brunette? Or the redhead who is forced to disclose that they buy brunette hair color?

Tam said...

Divemedic,

"That's my point- your job currently checks your credit record, your criminal history, and your medical record, and everyone is OK with that."

"Everyone" is okay with that?!?

I'm sure not.

Divemedic said...

So you don't think an employer has the right to know if he is hiring a criminal?

How can a person who owns private property have property rights if he is prohibited from knowing who is entering his property?

Or are you suggesting that a property owner have the ability to exclude a person with a concealed weapon, but not exclude a criminal?

Tam said...

"So you don't think an employer has the right to know if he is hiring a criminal? "

Well, now we have to fall back on what is the definition of "criminal" and what convictions, by default, should be a matter of public record.

The difference between your view and mine is where we want to draw that line and what fundamental basis we operate from.

Tam said...

(To go all reductio ad absurdum: I think you should be able to avoid hiring convicted murderers, which will be easy, as who wants to cut them down from the gallows for an interview?)

Divemedic said...

Just to add: Now we get to the heart of the issue. You say that your membership in the NRA is your business, and that a property owner doesn't have the right to exclude you based on that fact, if you choose not to make your NRA membership known. I agree with you 100% on that one.

Where I think we disagree (if I have read your blog correctly all these years) is that I don't see how having a concealed weapon is any different. My possession of a concealed weapon is my business, and a property owner doesn't have the right to exclude me based on that fact, as long as I choose not to make that fact known. In other words, what he doesn't know doesn't hurt him.

TimP said...

> My possession of a concealed weapon is my business, and a property owner doesn't have the right to exclude me based on that fact

I disagree, the property owner doesn't have the right to exclude you based on you having a concealed weapon permit, but actually carrying a weapon is different.

Of course you don't have to make it known unless he asks, or has a sign up.

TimP said...

I'm also wondering how the various leftists would feel about making the membership list of the [pick a red-state, any red state] Gay and Lesbian Association public knowledge?

Tam said...

Divemedic,

"...as long as I choose not to make that fact known. In other words, what he doesn't know doesn't hurt him."

And there's the rub. :)

A property owner can put up a sign saying "No Red Underwear Allowed!"

Now, were you to walk on in there with crimson jockeys, that'd be between you and your conscience, unless you dropped trou at the door, right? (And if he made you drop trou to get in, why, who would go there?)

Brad K. said...

Divemedic,

Gun control has historically been a racial suppression tactic - used to disarm minorities in the face of vigilantes. Gun ownership is often coincident with racial identity. Does NRA membership imply racial bigotry? No. Could it be portrayed that way? Yep. Anything can.

Actually, allowing an employer to mandate whether an employee smokes at home, associate with known felons off work time, enjoy social nude recreation (where legal), or own weapons is about as relevant, and proper, as expecting all employees to eat kosher at work and at home. That is - you had better be able to demonstrate that the subject activity is relevant to the job at hand.

If you are hiring strippers and bartenders, membership in the USCCA (US Concealed Carry Association) shouldn't surprise you - they usually have to work in dodgy neighborhoods, and have an above-average need for personal security just getting to work and going home afterward. If you are hiring protesters to rail against the hazards of guns in the hands of people other than currently-employed uniformed police officers - you still shouldn't care, you are hiring screen and street presence, not the ethics and morals of the people involved.

For the most part I doubt employers do care about NRA membership - but social engineers and tree huggers love lists of people they can demonize. It makes for cheap sound bites, and scary horror stories and fantasies.

A thinking person would understand that belonging to national organizations of gun owners implies a certain discipline and maturity of character - something that should appeal to most employers. A person with years of (uninjured and non-criminal) use of firearms indicates situational awareness that translates to safety and security awareness on the job.

Thus, I see no problem with employers getting access to membership rolls of private organizations, including the Naturist Society of OshKosh, WI. The problem is the abuse that malicious and opportunistic agitators can inflict.

And, yes, I have worked at jobs that required me to list each and every group I associated, with, include the above-mentioned Naturist Society. For that kind of employer, only *concealing* any membership would likely cause problems, unless that group were dedicated to the violent, extra-legal overthrow of the US government.

I wonder if that was the reason the ObamaNites classified Tea Parties as extremist - to cost them their jobs? I mean, Obama *clearly* believes he *is* the law, thus any opposition *must* be illegal, including campaigning against him, or speaking out against him or his agenda.

Divemedic said...

Tam:
See, that is why I have made the point here, and over at Unc's, that a business that posts a "no guns sign" can be morally ignored, and in the case of my state of Florida, legally ignored.

What the owner of the property doesn't know won't hurt him. The only way a property owner will know I have a weapon is if I must use it to defend my life. If such an event should occur, I will gladly sign the trespass warning.

The Freeholder said...

I'm now officially old enough I don't care much. My NRA Life Member sticker is on the back window of my car.

Spare me the business about how that "makes me a target". This target takes the appropriate precautions.

staghounds said...

"your job currently checks your credit record, your criminal history, and your medical record..."

Those are different things. The criminal record is public, like land ownership.

The other two are private, you have to give permission.

Divemedic said...

Actually, you do NOT need to give a prospective employer permission to check credit records. See the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (in fact, negative items on your credit are normally removed after 7 years, but are still visible to a prospective employer if the job will pay more than $75K a year)

Regardless, don’t you all see how inconsistent your position is?

It has been claimed (at various times here) that the right to property includes the right to exclude others from your property, including those with concealed weapons. I took the position that “concealed means concealed” and was told by many (here at Tam’s, posting at THR, and at Unc’s) that this was still an intrusion on the property holder’s right to exclude me and my weapon.

Now you are saying that a property owner may or may not have the right to exclude an NRA member, but that doesn’t matter, because he doesn’t have the right to even KNOW you are an NRA member. In this case, concealing the fact you are an NRA member means concealed? Somehow, according to this position, hiding the fact you are an NRA member to gain access doesn’t violate the property owner’s right to exclude, but concealing the fact that you have a weapon does?

How do you reconcile two mutually exclusive positions? Do you really care about the property owner’s right to exclude? Or is that just a means to keep the big, scary guns away?

Tam said...

"Or is that just a means to keep the big, scary guns away?"

That is the funniest thing I have ever read here.

I tried to present you with a little parable regarding the underwear, but I guess it didn't take.

I'll try again:

Person A has the right to tell people not to come into their house wearing red underwear. Person B has the right to wear whatever color underwear they want. How much those two rights are going to come into conflict depends on a myriad of things, not least the personalities of the people involved, and I'm comfortable with that.

Divemedic said...

I get it. My point is that it is just as wrong to demand NRA records as it is to search me for weapons.

When I enter a person's property, I enter it with my rights intact. A person who allows me to enter his property does so with the knowledge that I am a person with rights, insofar as my rights do not infringe upon his.

Carry a concealed gun: not infringing
Belong to NRA: no infringement
Red underwear: no infringement
Searching me for guns, red underwear, NRA membership list: infringement

In your parable, the person with the property has the right to ask that no one wear red underwear, but should not be able to use organs of the state to enforce that infringement; likewise, the person wearing the red underwear is under no obligation to inform the property owner of the color of his undies.

To those who claim that the NRA list is different because it is a private list, would it matter to you if an employer could be notified whenever an employee received a CCW license, or submitted a NICS check for buying a firearm?

Brad K. said...

@ divemedic,

1) You persistently confuse Tam's arguments about owning a gun, with your diatribe about smuggling - carrying a weapon where you have knowledge you are entering an intended Disarmed Victim Zone. A disarmed gun owner won't shatter the DVZ owner's illusions when the mass shooting starts. That makes a big difference.

2) The NRA is a political association. I don't happen to belong, because they are inconsistent and advocate bad laws as often as they defend rights, in my opinion. If you are going to publish NRA memberships, they by golly publish every political organization membership - ACORN, all organized labor unions, all anti-abortion organizations, AARP, Green Peace and other tree huggers, etc. The Brady sympathizers and donors. If you publish Tea Party associations, include KKK, Libertarian, Democrat and Republican donors and members.

Then keep the lists accurate and up to date. All of them. See if you can get the militias and survivalist groups, the American Legion and VFW rosters, Red Cross and Salvation Army supporters, members of the Masonic Lodge and the Girl Scouts, supporters of the ACLU and the no-freaking-fly list, too.

Singling out a single demographic for scrutiny implies they are outliers, are different, are not to be trusted. All that even before you ask (which most won't) what the politics are for singling out members.