Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ExSoldier

I agree completely.

I think I've made my arguments as clearly and simply as I can, so there's probably not too much point in repeating them, although I may go back and read the comments of others that I probably have missed.

The standpoint that I operate on and that normally, unless I screw up, dictates my opinions is that governement should not play a major role in the ordering and arranging of society. That's all.

It so happens that I'm a life member of the NRA, and have owned and used guns all my life. Sometime deer hunter, sometime upland game.


193 posted on 10/10/2005 3:02:13 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]


To: Sam Cree
Okay here it is from the NRA:

EXTRAORDINARY LIABILITY INCURRED IF BUSINESSES BAN LAWFULLY OWNED FIREARMS

(a) Businesses incur an extraordinary liability should customers or employees be attacked while at the business or in the parking lot of the business when the management has specifically banned the individual's right of self-protection.

(b) The exposure for employers is even greater when an employee's right of personal protection is stripped away. Employees have a right to have firearms in their vehicles for protection on their way to and from work. While customers and clients can do business elsewhere, employees have to go to work. Employers are, therefore, responsible for the safety of their employees while they travel to and from work.

(c) Requiring an employee or prospective employee, as a condition of employment, to give up his or her personal protection rights and privacy rights is flagrant employment discrimination.

(d) When businesses discriminate against their employees for exercising a constitutional and state protected right, they incur exposure that is not present when they do not interfere with constitutional, civil and human rights.

(e) Businesses are prohibited from discriminating against persons because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. They are also prohibited from discriminating against persons who carry firearms in their vehicles for protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting. Further, business may not substitute their own storage policies for statutory requirements.

(f) When businesses post signs attempting to prohibit customers from having legally owned firearms stored in their vehicles while shopping or visiting their facilities, they are practicing extreme discrimination against customers who have taken responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their families while traveling.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. Having a firearm in your vehicle is clearly keeping and bearing.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you try to package it. Calling the gratuitous banning of firearms a safety issue is a blatant attempt to hide an anti-gun political philosophy. And it is a political philosophy that will be costly in terms of liability due to the extraordinary duty to provide more extensive safety and protection for customers and employees, and the inherent litigation that will result from failures to do so.

249 posted on 10/11/2005 4:35:48 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson