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

To: supercat
but shall be liable if they require someone to disarm and injury befalls someone as a consequence of such disarmament.

I agree employers should not be held liable when employees bring firearms with them, but the second part of your statement is ludicrous too. Its my property, I can require you to disarm and you have the right not to work here if you don't want to. It is as simple as that. I will add that I also have the right to require you to bring a firearm to work and if you don't want to, you can go somewhere else too.

But the employer should not be held liable if some nut invades the property and starts shooting under any circumstances.

125 posted on 10/22/2005 1:23:48 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]


To: staytrue
I agree employers should not be held liable when employees bring firearms with them, but the second part of your statement is ludicrous too. Its my property, I can require you to disarm and you have the right not to work here if you don't want to. It is as simple as that.

That could be countered by the fact that your actions create an attractive nuisance. Even if the law were written so that for such a lawsuit to proceed one would have to show that the criminal was likely aware of the restriction, the key point would be not so much to punish companies for restricting firearms, as to make their liability-avoidance lawyers discourage them from doing so.

132 posted on 10/22/2005 1:52:12 PM PDT by supercat (Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | 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