The Non-Abosolute Right to Bear Arms: Meaning for the Workplace

As noted in a recent post, the “gun rights” movement has been trumping the “gun control” movement both legislatively and judicially. Some state legislatures have passed or are considering laws that could make an employer’s ban of guns in the workplace unenforceable. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last year in District of Columbia v. Heller, saying the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms applies to an individual, not just an individual in the militia, added fuel to the fire.

The Supreme Court has now decided another case saying the right to bear arms isn’t unlimited. In United States v. Hayes, the Court considered the federal Gun Control Act, initially enacted to prohibit the possession of a firearm by a felon and later extended to anyone convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” In Hayes, a man was convicted of a misdemeanor battery against his spouse. Subsequently, he was found to be in possession of firearms and was convicted of violating the Gun Control Act.

His conviction was overturned because the battery statute under which he was convicted didn’t specifically apply to domestic violence. It applied to battery generally.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, reinstated the conviction. According to the Court, if a person is convicted of a violent act against his spouse, it doesn’t matter whether the statute specifically covered domestic violence or was a more general statute, like one preventing battery against any person.

Although it’s unclear whether the Hayes decision has application to an employer’s right to ban guns from the workplace, any gun decision by the Supreme Court is significant because of the current noise in state legislatures on this subject. Hayes supports some form of gun restrictions, so both sides of the argument have a recent Supreme Court case in their arsenals.