Posted on 09/30/2014 7:45:01 AM PDT by rktman
In Oklahoma City last week, a business owner and reserve deputy sheriff named Mark Vaughan shot and injured a man who had beheaded one of his employees and, by all accounts, was in the process of attempting to decapitate another. In doing so, a spokesman for the police told reporters, Vaughan had likely saved the lives of “untold others” and he deserved to be treated as a “hero.” Almost universally, local law enforcement concurred. “The incident was not going to stop if he didn’t stop it,” Sergeant Jeremy Lewis explained to the Associated Press. “It could,” he suggested darkly, “have got a lot worse.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Judging by Holder’s behavior in Ferguson and Sanford this guy will be prosecuted soon.
I read the article.
While it brings up one important point, insurance rates, it completely ignores the other, much bigger point, discrimination against legal ownership of guns.
I don’t know anything about the author, but he sounds much like the Oklahoma Muslims warning people not to discriminate against them because of the beheading while saying nothing about the beheader.
I think Cooke makes decent points both in this piece and the denounced one about questioning the Holocaust.
I have no idea how the Holocaust assignment was specifically handled. But there is certainly value in teaching students how to recognize and then disprove claims that are pseudo-historical or pseudo-scientific.
And that is not really accomplished by resorting to argumentum ad hominem or argumentum ab auctoritate.
Either way, it’s about surrender to liberal rule.
Same guy. Weird huh?
National Review cares more about the rights of business owners than of the peons who work for them. Not a surprise.
I am amazed Al, Jessie, and the NAACP aren’t hot on this issue yet.
This was a black man. Blacks can do no wrong.
Isn’t this evidence of some form of racism?
Where are the marches, the looting, the claims that racism isn’t dead yet?
Where is Eric Holder? Where does Barack Obama stand on this?
Surely this man was wronged here.
/s
I can sort of see his point, that private property imbues the right to restrict access.. but that right has been limited in many ways already so why is the 2nd amendment to be held to a lower standard than say the 14th.
EEOC does not allow discrimination Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes. Is e belief in he Constitution not a creed ?
If an employee ACTS at work in a dangerous way armed or not then and only then should the company have a cause of action against the employee
At least if one is going to enforce the 14th and 2nd amendment as presently construed
Agreed.
It is actually the role of gov’t to protect rights. It gets tricky when rights need to be “balanced”, i.e., right to carry vs private property. However to allow a restriction there should be good reason.
Per insurance and guns, do my rates go up if I attend a protest? Can certainly get injured there.
I start from the premise that if everyone were armed, we’d be better off because the good guys outnumber the bad guys.
Mr. Vaughan is not the business owner as he sold it to a larger corporate organization with a contract to stay on the payroll. He is an employee of the corporation, just like everybody else inside those 4 walls. This has been clear in multiple articles and not hard to find.
Cooke’s commentary has a good basis on the benefits of freedom and free enterprise. He’s also correct on the purpose of insurance. Where he goes astray is in assuming a justification for the insurance carrier to act with impunity to the basic framework of freedom and to be coercive in its contrary approach to freedom. Rights have responsibilities and that goes both ways on the contracting parties.
My preference would be to leave the decision in the hands of the business, subject to the two provisions:
1) The business be liable for the safety and security of it’s employees should company policy prohibit a CCW holder from carrying on company property. The logic being that if the company prohibits a basic right of self defense, then the company assumes responsibility for the individual.
2) The business not be held liable for actions of a CCW holder who has been verified to be a legal CCW holder by the business. The logic being that if a CCW uses their firearm on company property, they have been pre-cleared by the State and as such, the company has done it’s due diligence to ensure that the CCW holder is properly trained. Further any liability would now rest with the CCW holder for any actions taken.
That is not supported by the wording. The 1st Amd, for instance says "Congress shall make no law..." That is specific and doesn't even apply to State governments. The 2Amd, however does not say anything about Congress. It says the RtKaBA shall not be infringed. That is a statement of universality. How that applies to private entities is a riddle but if it is answered by allowing private employers to "infringe" than application of that statement is no longer universal and admits of exceptions that are not allowed by the wording in the 2Amd. One exception permits others and negates the Amendment.
Until well after the passage of 14A the Bill of Rights die not apply to states.
Various of which cheerfully infringed 1A, 2A and others.
For example, several states had established religions for some time after the Founding. Numerous southern states passed laws trampling all over freedom of speech and press in order to fight back against abolitionists.
The Bill of Rights was established to limit federal powers, and has since (largely) been extended to also cover state and local action.
But I have no right to exercise my 1A rights on private property against the wishes of the owner. If I don’t like the restrictions he imposes, I have the freedom to go exercise thos rights somewhere else.
Same with 2A.
“I don’t know anything about the author”
I know about him he’s a fascist. Spouting this BS about how every leftist tyrant with any kind of company gets to decide which of your constitutionally protected rights you have to give up to do business with them. That is called fascism, pure and simple. The idea that you need to charge gun owners more is BS anyway, you are more likely to fall off a ladder than accidentally hurt yourself with your own gun.
The author forgets or ignores the likely fact that insurance agencies are not acting on their actuarial tables, but rather at the behest/demand of an intrusive government that has directed them to do so, à la Operation Choke Point.
Else they would have done this years ago...
I noticed that also.
The Florida law on one hand is contrary to conservative principles. OTOH, it could also be seen as a preemptive strike against liberal lawmakers forcing gun owners to carry special insurance at exorbitant rates mandated by an anti 2A legislature. The insurance industry is often forced to be a tool of the left. Just as the feds are forcing banks to cut credit to gun shops.
While I like the idea of carrying at work, I'm not comfortable with the idea of government forcing business to allow it. We have right of free association. I can't be forced to work for a business whose policies I am against. A business shouldn't be forced to employ people who carry firearms at work if it doesn't want to. Remember the Christian bakers that have been ruined by the feds for refusing to cater the gay "wedding".
If I felt the need to carry on my job, I'd either not work for that company, or I would violate the rule and take my lumps after if I was forced to use a gun there.
He's a holocaust denier.
That's all I need to know about him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.