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

To: staytrue; jan in Colorado
"If the owner wants bazookas on the property or no guns at all, the property owner gets to decide."

It sounds like you want to give property owners the right to search personal vehicles and decide what items people can and cannot carry in their vehicle. That is a path heading down a slippery and dangerous slope. When you run a business that employs people, you unavoidably take on certain risks associated with your employees, including the risks of actions those people may take on company property. There's no way to avoid those risks. If an individual or a company doesn't want to take those risks, then they have to hire contractors and consultants to do work for them on the contractor's property.

I'll tell you what these restrictions on guns on company property are really all about: reducing the threat of litigation by trial lawyers. These restrictions on guns don't actually make employees safer, but if an employee is shot on company property, the restrictions make it easier to defend the company against a lawsuit filed by the family of that employee. The company can then argue that they had restrictions in place against guns in cars and they "did all they could to prevent this tragedy." While the restrictions are of course ineffective and do not stop criminals from keeping guns in their cars, this sounds good in court and it can help to defend against lawsuits. That's all this is my friend. It's corporate risk management at the expense of employee rights. It's nothing more and nothing less. Have a great weekend.

123 posted on 10/22/2005 1:18:18 PM PDT by defenderSD (Unfortunately, I had to sell all rights to my tagline to pay my federal & state income taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: defenderSD
It sounds like you want to give property owners the right to search personal vehicles and decide what items people can and cannot carry in their vehicle.

Yes I do. And if you don't like this policy, you don't have to work here.

Like Indiana Pacer Steven Jackson said regarding the new NBA dress code, "they make the rules, they pay the bills, I want a job."

126 posted on 10/22/2005 1:26:17 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

To: defenderSD
It sounds like you want to give property owners the right to search personal vehicles and decide what items people can and cannot carry in their vehicle.

"My house, my rules". A friend's wife doesn't like people carrying guns in her house. Occasionally, 'the boys' get together for a board game, sometimes at her house. Most of us carry. We leave our guns in our cars whether she is home or not. Her house, her rules. Don't like it, don't come over.

It's the same thing with an employer. If they don't want guns on their property, it is their property. They can do what they want. I do not have a right to be employed by any specific employer. If I don't like the rules I can either not apply for work there, or I can ignore the rules and take my chances on getting fired. (I have done the latter in a number of different jobs. Never got caught).

It's their property. I do not have the right to carry a gun on somebody else's property if they specifically tell me not to. If I do it anyways, they have the right to have me removed from their property. It's called 'property rights'. Their property = their rules.

For the record, friends can carry guns in my house all they want to. It doesn't bother me a bit. Actually, I prefer it. My property = my rules. My rules are "pack 'em if ya got 'em".

129 posted on 10/22/2005 1:38:44 PM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | 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