[oyez]

Trial lawyers, Trial lawyers. If it weren't for the lawsuits most companies wouldn't mind employees having a firearm in their car or truck. Once that vehicle crosses onto company property the company becomes liable for what's is inside. The lawyers tore up the constitution years ago. Since they make a profit out of doing it the shredding will continue.

[supercat]

Trial lawyers, Trial lawyers. If it weren't for the lawsuits most companies wouldn't mind employees having a firearm in their car or truck. Once that vehicle crosses onto company property the company becomes liable for what's is inside. The lawyers tore up the constitution years ago. Since they make a profit out of doing it the shredding will continue.

Trial lawyers are indeed the problem. I don't think the company made any pro-active moves to ensure that nobody had firearms in their trunk, nor could a lawyer very well argue that they should [the likelihood of a mass-walkout by people annoyed at having their cars searched would so far outweigh the possible good such searches could do that nobody could reasonably argue for mass searches]. Unfortunately, by moving the firearms from one vehicle to another on company propertyin an area which was observed by security cameras, they inadvertantly broght the issue to the company's attention. While companies can usually safely ignore things they don't know about, it's much harder for them to ignore things they do (thanks again to the [bleep]ing trial lawyers).

I'm no fan of AOL by any stretch, but I'd suggest that it is trial lawyers as much as anything who are to blame for company behavior.

[BTW, perhaps some legislation might be helpful positing that the mere act of a company's allowing employees to lawfully possess firearms shall not make the company liable for any actions the employee performs with such firearms unless the company

1. Requires or requests the employees to use the firearm for some purpose as part of their job;
2. Provides the firearms in question; or
3. Provides the employee with firearm training which was in some way defective, and such defect was a proximate cause of an incident producing liability

That, especially if combined with a statute that ruled that companies which forbid employees from lawfully carrying weapons for personal protection may be held liable if they fail to provide adequate security for their employees, would probably help many of these signs to disappear.

[Mulder]

Trial lawyers, Trial lawyers. If it weren't for the lawsuits most companies wouldn't mind employees having a firearm in their car or truck

Wrong. Many so-called 'corporate leaders' are inherently anti-gun. When you get to the really big corporations, most of the CEO's are just figureheads anyway, not unlike our political "leaders".

Power corrupts, and many of those bastards would demand 100 hour work weeks, and the wives and children of their employees if they could. Most of them would pimp out their mothers to get another $1000 bonus.

Those in power don't like peasants having guns, and will do everything in their power to stop it.