Wednesday 02-03-16

This is going to be the next battle ground for your right to own and carry guns

Adviser: Gun control can be tough topic at work

The right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is sometimes in conflict with other rights and obligations, including specific requirements of state and federal law. This is especially true in the workplace, where employers are generally assumed to have the authority to control the conditions of access to their property.

In Ohio, employers may — by statute — impose rules prohibiting employees from bringing firearms to the workplace, including the employee parking lot, and can exclude customers or business invitees on the same basis. Conversely, the right to exclude firearms from a particular location is not the same as an obligation to do so, and it is generally assumed that employers have discretion to determine whether to prohibit weapons. Further, the absence of a direct workplace policy may allow employees with concealed carry permits to bring firearms to work.

Against this backdrop, and in keeping with concerns about gun control generally, there is renewed interest in the federal government’s regulatory authority under the Occupational Safety & Health Act, or OSHA. In particular, proponents of President Barack Obama’s executive orders in the area of gun control point to OSHA’s General Duty Clause as a possible basis for a national “no guns at work” policy.

The General Duty Clause requires employers to maintain a safe workplace, including the implementation of policies that may be necessary to further that goal. Proponents argue that this significant increase in workplace violence coupled with the expansion of concealed carry laws would be the basis for this regulatory change. Moreover, because a General Duty Clause already exists within the OSHA statute, there would not be a need for congressional approval.

The coming disputes, likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, will involve questions relating to state laws intended to override aspects of the OSHA regulations. Currently, more than 20 states — not including Ohio — have so called “Parking Lot” laws that allow employees to have weapons in their personal cars while at work, and most contain specific prohibitions against discrimination or discipline by employers.

In recognition of the federal regulatory situation, a number of states have included provisions asserting that the statutes nullify enforcement efforts under OSHA’s General Duty Clause. The intent is to set up a constitutional claim under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, with the specific question being whether a federal regulation under OSHA can preempt state law. So far, lower courts have sided with the state legislatures, but this issue is far from settled.

Another issue related to the right of an employer to control the workplace is the definition of that term. Given that many employees travel in their personal vehicles for work purposes, the question is whether “workplace” can be expanded to include those vehicles.

The best advice for employers, especially those with operations in a number of states, is to implement policies regarding workplace violence, and to zealously protect their right to control the work environment.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160130/NEWS/160129773/adviser-gun-control-can-be-tough-topic-at-work

What a shame

Chicken Man kills himself after long fight with Roswell government officials

This is one of those stories that often never makes it to the Front Page of any newspaper or website. It’s a story about Property Rights and Eminent domain. It’s the story of one man who tried to fight back; and sadly it’s the story of a man who lost it all in the process. It’s also a story that can happen to anyone who is reading this article.

The story begins back in 2009 when Andrew Wordes, otherwise known as the Roswell Chicken Man, began his fight to raise chickens on his property. In February 2009, the city of Roswell, GA started to cite Andrew Wordes for raising livestock in his backyard. Wordes, who had started raising chickens on his .97-acre homestead in 2005, decided to fight back. And guess what he won.
But sadly, that’s when the real trouble started:

You see, the story actually has very little to do with chickens. While the city of Roswell, and cities just like it across America, would like people to believe it’s a story about chickens, the real story is about the rights of property owners.
When taking a look at a map that was published back in 2003, as part of Roswell’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for city improvements, one thing becomes painfully obvious; The city had already planned to take Wordes’ property.
The Map showed that the city had major plans for his property. In fact, his property sat right in the middle of a planned city park. His property was being targeted for “city improvements”, and this fight had nothing to do with chickens. The chickens were really just the catalyst for the city to unlawfully seize his land.
After initially winning his fight in municipal court, the City of Roswell made Wordes life a living hell.

The Harassment Campaign Against Andrew Wordes

On Dec. 14, 2009, the city council approved a new ordinance banning roosters and using lot size to limit how many chickens a resident could keep. Wordes claimed that the harassment started immediately after the meeting, when Roswell police ticketed him for no insurance and a number of other moving violations.

• In September of 2010, Roswell prosecuted Wordes under the new ordinance claiming he had too many birds for his lot size. The judge found him not guilty since he had the chickens before the ordinance became law.
• In September of 2010, he was convicted of grading sediment on his land without a permit and having inoperable vehicles in his yard.  He was sentenced to community service.
• In November of 2010, code enforcement served Wordes with a  nuisance citation.
• After winning twice in court against the city, the county then got involved and actually cited him for “not properly stacking his firewood.”
• In 2011, the 84 year-old women who held Mr. Wordes mortgage was harassed by the city into selling Wordes mortgage for forty cents on the dollar. The city then began the foreclosure process.
• While in the process of trying to save his home, Andrew Wordes was arrested by Roswell Police on the day that he was to bring paperwork that would’ve delayed his bankruptcy and the foreclosure on his home.
• Wordes was jailed for violating his probation after the city claimed he only served 122 of the 150 hours of community service that he had been ordered to serve.  He then served 99 days in jail.

After his release, he placed a sign on his property that read “Trespassers will be construed as a bodily threat” and then waited for authorities to arrive and remove him.

On Monday at 10:45 a.m. Marshalls arrived at the home. After a two-hour standoff, Wordes advised the Marshall that they needed to immediately leave the property.  That’s when the explosion happened. After years of battling for his right to keep his land, Wordes finally had enough.
On a website dedicated to Andrew Wordes, one of his friends wrote:

We all lost a little something today. Andrew was a man of faith, with a strong love for God. He was a staunch Constitutionalist with a passion for our freedoms and liberties.
You pushed Mr. Wordes to this point. You marched around Roswell bashing Andrew, annihilating his character, marking him as crazy and filing lawsuits whenever you could, bankrupting him and denying him rights given to property owners in the United States.
Andrew fought the good fight, not just for himself but for others because he knew it could happen to anyone. And it is. Eminent domain is being abused all over our country, just look it up. Communities are plagued with repeated abuses of the use of eminent domain. It’s tragic and your neighborhood could be next. Andrew fought to his last breath, for himself, for me, for you. In his mind, he went on his terms. Right out of Atlas Shrugged. Andrew is at peace now but it’s not over.

The sad truth about this story is its not an isolated incident.   When any government (talking city or county now) finds financial motivations, and they are able to initiate those directives at gunpoint of it's local law enforcement, it's important to keep powers in check so that they cannot be abused.
From the Federal Government seizing property because of “environmental regulations”, to local municipalities who use code enforcement agents codes to intimidate people into giving up their land, we have a huge problem in this country. Our property rights are being shredded before our eyes, and it’s only a matter of time before this story becomes an everyday occurrence, and the causes need to be addressed.  Remember, in the U.S, every town, every county, and every State makes many of it's own laws, so circumstances vary from place to place.  It's important to get plugged in to where you live and be sure that your local governments are above reproach with their handling of the citizens they intend to serve.  

http://www.offgridquest.com/news/chicken-man-kills-himself-after-long-fig