Do you have not only a legal but also a moral right to own a gun?
Owning a gun can be viewed from both a legal and a moral viewpoint depending on the context of the employee. In my case, I believe that I have a legal right to own a gun considering that there is a provision to provide private citizens with guns. The right to bear arms is entrenched in the Second Amendment, which establishes that the government shall not infringe on my rights to keep and bear arms. For this reason, I am confident that no one should accuse me of having a gun as long as I am using for self-defense without risking the lives of others. From a moral perspective, I am of the view that I have a moral right to possess a firearm. The reason for this assertion is for the simple reason that I will use the guns to keep others safe from individuals who would want to hurt others. For instance, I may witness a criminal holding bank employees hostage and I may use my gun to incapacitate the criminal thus guaranteeing the hostages freedom. In this way, I will have fulfilled my moral duty of making the lives of the majority safer.
Do you believe that you have either a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a privately-owned parking lot, regardless of what the lot’s owner wants?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I think that I do not have both a moral and legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a privately owned parking lot. While the law is clear that I have the right to possess and bear firearms, the law is clear on this right when it comes to private property. The Constitution can be considered as a double-edged sword in this regard, as it seeks to advance the rights of every citizen. In this regard, the owner of the parking lot has the right to decide who and what comes into the privately-owned property. If the owner decides that no one is allowed to park a car with a loaded gun, I am expected to comply. The reason why I should comply is for the simple reason that the owner has a legal and moral duty to protect all individuals in the private entity. This claim is supported by Shaw (2016), who asserts that at least 700 individuals are killed in the workplace due to availability of arms. I, therefore, feel that it is my legal and moral right to stay away from my gun by leaving it at home and thus honoring the parking lots owner constitutional rights.
In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot?
Personnel have both a moral and a legal right to have their guns in the parked cars in the firm’s parking lot especially if is it not a private entity. The constitution is categorical that persons have a right to carry and bear firearms and no one has the right to infringe into their rights. However, it would be important if they liaised with the company management so that there is a log, which indicates which employees have guns in their parked vehicles. At this point, the employees will be carrying out their legal and moral obligations, which are associated with their legal and moral rights. In particular, the employees must be aware of the provisions that exist to guide their moral and legal right to bear and keep arms. In this case, the presence of arms in the parked cars indicates that the employees know the risks they pose and ways of minimizing those risks are borne by the employees.
What do you believe should be the property rights and safety concerns of employers?
Employers have the responsibility of ensuring that the presence of guns in their employees’ parked cars is in line with constitutional provisions surrounding safety worries and property rights. In this case, private workers have the right of determining whether the employees can leave their guns in the parked cars or not. On the other hand, corporations may not have much say on whether to allow or disallow guns in parked cars as their rights are at the discretion of the government. However, employers must consider the safety of their employees which ten calls upon them to keep the parking lots free of guns. According to Shaw (2016), gun presence in the workplace locality may make volatile conditions to turn into lethal situations
Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle?
State legislatures are right to engage in the issue of bringing arms into the workplace considering that this is a national issue. Being a national issue, there is a need for all stakeholders to get involved so that there is uniformity in how this issue is handled. If the issue is left entirely to companies and employees, it means that there will be disputes, which may lead to deadly consequences. State legislatures can help resolve this dispute considering that the law mandates them to offer guidelines on such contentious social and political issues. The state legislatures have the capacity to interpret the constitution to ensure that it is favorable to all citizens no matter their obvious and different perspectives. For this reason, companies and employees should endeavor to function within the existing legislation and legal proviso to ensure safety and compliance.
Because the workplace is the company’s private property, the company could choose to allow employees to bring guns not only into the parking lot but also into the workplace itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable?
The constitution is clear on the regulations that govern private entities and corporations. In particular, the law gives private property owners the discretion to decide who and what gets into the property without interference from outside agencies. In this case, a company could allow its workers to carry their guns not only into the car parks but also in the office itself. There are reasons why a firm could decide to let its staff to bring their weapons into the workplace. For instance, employees who work late or their jobs are considered volatile may be permitted to bring their guns for self-defense. The company would not want the employees to lose their lives on the line of duty just because they were defenseless. While these reasons seem to be genuine, the employer should consider the effects of carrying guns especially when one considers the safety of other employees. Employees and employers who bring guns to the workplace may become the source of workplace homicides something that should be considered while allowing guns in the workplace (Shaw, 2016). Consider a situation where an employee sees a gun on her superior’s desk. The employee would be forced to do tasks that she would not otherwise do just because she does not want the superior to be angry and use the gun on her. Moreover, the employee would not feel comfortable working in the company and would be constantly looking over her shoulder, which may affect her productivity. Unless the guns are necessary they should be left outside of the workplace to enhance a general feeling of well-being and safety. Otherwise, the availability of guns will inevitably undermine the rights of other workers to feel safe at work.
References
Shaw, W. H. (2016). Business eEthics: A textbook with cases (9th ed .). Boston: Cengage Learning
