Applying the Rule of Reasonable Construction to Gun Laws

Question 1: Personal Opinion on Legal and Moral Right on Guns 

The reasonable construction rule is a formula for interpreting laws within a complex scenario that rise above the mere letter of the law to the implications thereof. Within the first question, two main secondary questions come to bear. This includes whether I believe it is legal to carry a gun everywhere and also whether I believe it is moral to do so. The second aspect of this question is whether I believe this legal and moral answer also applies when the gun is carried into someone else’s parking lot against their will. With regard to the legality of carrying a gun, the answer is a resounding yes. I believe I have an inalienable right to legally carry a gun all over America, except in places where the law expressly provides that I should not. This belief is based on the second amendment, which provides that the right to bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed (Forsey, 2013) . This provision of the law is definitive and the source of my belief that I have an inalienable right to carry a gun. 

The moral argument, however, is not as definitive as the legal one. The best way to look at this moral aspect is through the application of the reasonableness rule. It is a fact that Americans today do not need to operate as a militia to protect their nation. This is of course in the unlikely event that they need to protect their freedom against their own government, which is a very rare eventuality. However, the right to bear weapons is pegged to the right to protect the self and also personal property (Forsey, 2013) . The only way to be safe in America is if everyone does not carry a gun, or if everyone who needs to, carries one. It is, however, impossible and unreasonable to expect the US government to be able to take away guns from everyone. Therefore, as long as anyone can have an illegal gun, everyone has a right to carry a gun for their own protection. The only alternative is to empower criminals who do not follow the law, as against those who follow the law, thus transforming law abiding citizens into victims of criminals. From this perspective, therefore, it is also moral to carry a gun, just as it is legal to do so. 

The issue becomes complicated when the property issue is introduced by the second question of someone else’s parking lot. Once again, through the application of reasonableness, two contrasting fundamental rights come into conflict herein. The first is the right of the owner of the parking lot to determine what will and will not happen within their own parking lot. The second is the right of a car owner to determine what to or not to put in their private cars. This begs the question on whether or not, when a car is parked on someone’s lot, the owner of the lot gains control over the car. A simple and reasonable way to look at this is to consider a car that has been towed by the police and placed on a police parking lot. Can the police search the said car without either the consent of the owner or a search warrant? The legal answer to this question is a resounding no. Meaning that the inside of a car remains the private property of the owner of the car, in spite of where the car is parked. This settles the legal and moral issue of driving a car, with a gun into someone else’s parking lot. As long as the gun does not interfere with the lot in any way, then the same is both legal and moral. 

Question 2: Legal and/or Moral Rights of Employees to Carry Guns in Their Cars 

When the workplace scenario is introduced, the word definitive absolutely ceases to exist and gives way to the words ‘reasonable’ and ‘relative’. For a start, the right of every American to bear arms comes into conflict with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. §651. This law creates an obligation for each and every employer to provide safety and security for employees. Further, with the parking lot belonging to the employer, the issue of property rights also comes to bear. Finally, there is also the amorphous issue of safety concerns which relate to the peace of mind of other employees once they realize that there are guns on the premises. From a factual perspective, statistics show that over five hundred homicides have been taking place in workplaces across America annually (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013) . Further, over three-quarters of these homicides are caused by shootings. This may seem to legitimize the contention that employers have an obligation to prevent individuals from bringing guns to the workplace . However, the argument cuts both ways. Most people who use guns illegally will not adhere to gun laws or rules. 

The fact that shootings happen in workplaces creates the probability of illegal guns being brought to the place or work and, therefore, enhances the right and moral obligation to responsible citizens requiring guns in the case of attack. Secondly, there is still the inalienable fact that the guns are inside the car and not on the parking lot. Once the owner of the parking lot is given authority over the inside of a car, there is no telling where this right will lead to. Finally, there is also the reason why the employee needs to carry a gun to work. Some employees pass through bad neighborhoods on their way to and from work, sometimes early in the morning or late at night respectively (Lott, 2013) . This makes having a gun necessary while outside the place of work. Denying these employees the right to have the gun in the cars is tantamount to denying them the right to own a gun at all. This will, therefore, revert to the initial contention that as long as the gun remains in the car and concealed as much as possible to avoid creating apprehension, the car owner has a moral and legal right to carry it. 

Question 3: State Legislature Involvement 

The United States of America is a union of 50 states which differ exponentially from a practical, moral, and legal perspective. Within these states, there are also many different localities which also differ from one another. Personal security is an issue that cannot be factored from a federal level as the defense is. This is because it needs to adapt to the different scenarios and local factors, which will differ as aforesaid. For example, the security situation for a worker in an urban working district in Silicon Valley will differ from that of a factory worker in some parts of New Orleans. The worker in Silicon Valley can even walk home late at night with little fear for security. Yet the worker in New Orleans might be in danger venturing outside the place of work even in stark daylight. Further, guns are also a cultural issue with different geographical areas adopting different culture about guns (Patton, 2011) . For example, in a state like Texas, it is normal to openly carry a gun, even a rifle and this will not cause apprehension to anyone. In some states, however, the very sight of a gun, even carried by a law enforcement officer, is a cause for apprehension. When the matter of gun laws is left to be sorted between employees and employers, a company will apply the same rules in Houston Texas as it will apply in Concord Massachusetts. Yet these two areas have very different cultural approaches to the issue of guns. Further, the company may apply the same rules in Silicon Valley as it applies in New Orleans, yet the security situation is exponentially different. Similarly, as has been shown above, the issue of guns in general, and specifically guns in places of work is not definitive per se (Lott, 2013) . Even experts cannot seem to agree on the subject of gun laws in the workplace . 

The instant case study reflects two legal scholars having very different opinions about the same subject. Noticeably, Professor Tushnet who support the prohibition of guns is from Massachusetts in the New England region and Professor Volokh who support gun freedom is from Los Angeles in California ( Shaw, 2013) . These two areas have very different gun cultures and the same are reflected in the legal opinions. From a judicial perspective, the case of Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009) is evidence of how divisive the issue of guns in the workplace can be (Patton, 2011) . Therefore, if the issue is left without practicable state laws, the constitution will be pitted against federal laws such as OSHA, creating confusion, conflict, and labor disputes. However, the state law legislation process will bring together all stakeholders to a particular state. Through the process of consensus building, they will establish tailor-made laws that will suit each particular state. State legislation on the issue of guns in the workplace is, therefore, not only important but also expedient. 

Question 4: Implications of Allowing Guns into the Work Place 

There is a colloquial expression about guns not killing people but people who kill other people that have gained prominence among the gun control debate in America. This expression finds great traction when it comes to the issue of legal and illegal guns. There are millions of legal guns in America and most of them have never been fired in anger. Their users have either maintained them unfired and or only fired them within firing ranges or when hunting. On the other hand, there are millions of illegal guns in America, most of which are procured for the express reason of using them (Lott, 2013) . This creates a scenario where criminals have guns and are always ready to use them and the responsible and law abiding citizens have guns hoping never to have to use them. The second aspect of the question relates to the fact that these are actual employees of the company. This means that they are not only Americans responsible enough to take up jobs, but also trusted enough by the same employer to be given the said jobs. It is, therefore, more probable that the employees will fall amongst the responsible and lawful citizens who carry guns but hope they will never have to use them. But the same would be able to use these guns in the event the workplace is attacked by terrorist or criminals as has been happening so frequently in America (Lott, 2013) . A good example is an attack on schools by armed shooters, who end up getting shot down after killing , maiming and wounding tens of children. There is no doubt that if only a few teachers would be armed in those specific schools, some of the children died in the shootouts would still be alive. Having a gun can create the difference between life and death in times of danger. This difference can be made in the workplace if the right and responsible people are allowed to have guns. Therefore, in scenarios where the workplace faces high-security risks, it would be beneficial to let workers bring guns not just to the parking lot but also to their offices. Fellow workers would feel safer, not threatened by the guns, as the secondary risks are greater. 

References 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, January). Fact sheet - workplace homicides from shootings. Retrieved June 01, 2017, from https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/osar0016.htm 

Forsey, L. A. (2013). State Legislatures Stand Up for Second Amendment Gun Rights While the US Supreme Court Refuses to Order a Cease Fire on the Issue.  Seton Hall Legis. J. ,  37 , 411-437   

Lott, J. R. (2013).  More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws . Chicago: University of Chicago Press 

Patton, J. B. (2011). Pro-Gun property regulation: How the State of Oklahoma controls the property rights of employers through firearm legislation.  Okla. L. Rev. ,  64 , 81 

Shaw, W. H. (2013). Business ethics: A textbook with cases: Boston: Cengage Learning.