The Golden Rule of employment law comes down to “He who has the gold makes the rules.” The federal government – as an employer – sets the rules (even dumb ones) for conduct in its facilities and employment rules. If employees don’t like those rules, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. The rights one may believe they have end when an individual accepts a government paycheck in exchange for their employment.
This might be part of the attempt to get those who work from home to report into a traditional workplace run by their employer.
One of several things might happen.
A-the employee reports into a real worksite, and the employee regains their right to keep firearms in their home.
B-the employee changes employers with the same result in A.
C-the employee insists on working from home and gives up their right to keep firearms in their home.
Or, the employee reports to work in a federal building that has a “no guns” rule in place with a firearm and insists that it’s his “right.” He gets fired (any maybe charged with a crime) and gets to spend his money on a lawyer to defend against criminal charges and try to get his job back. Of course, the federal government has legions of lawyers working for it, all of whom draw from an unlimited legal warchest composed of taxpayer dollars and printed money.
What would be nice is he wins a landmark case against the federal government and gets all that changed. But, that is a big if.
In a perfect world.
I think that this is a case of government overreach into our private property. The employees that reside in their own homes don’t need Big Brother telling them that their home has to be a GFZ.
I doubt they want personal residences a GFZ. They are saying that now that they have to show up at the office, now it violates their 2ndA.
They lived with it before(probably didnt like it and i dont blame them) but now its an issue. They just dont want to give up their cush remote work and actually have to go in.
My FFL isnt happy, his primary job is with a fed angency. He had to go in a couple times a week and when he does, he has to park down the road cuz of no guns on fed property.
Id love to see fed buildings go gun friendly but im not holding my breath
To be perfectly honest. This reads like a Democratic ploy to cause the pro 2nd Amendment people to lobby their representatives to let Federal workers to continue to “work” remotely. 0 desire to “spend” what meager political capital the Pro 2nd Amendment community may have on this issue. If I’m going to spend political capital and good will would rather spend it on National Reciprocity. Not because now Federal Workers actually have to go to the office. You (Federal Workers) are not a protected class of worker.
But that’s just me.
By this logic can we assume that a home-worker can, without prejudice or penalty, perform his government duties while completely shite-faced? After all, it is legal to drink at home, is it not?
I didn’t read the whole post I’ll admit, but…is it misleading to claim disarmament of “remote workers” when the disarmament is inside of federal facilities as federal employees go in person to work inside of federal facilities?