ya know, i'm split on this issue. The pro-gunner in me says that this is a great idea, but the capitalist in me asks what is the government doing interfering with private industry? This is truly going to be an interesting one to watch. When do the rights of one individual (the worker) trump the rights of another (the business owner)? The patriot in me wants RKBA everywhere but by having the government intervene in a case like this, one can't help but wonder if this will harm businesses in any way.
Here is Still Thinking's heirarchy of rights:
1. Infividuals
2. Employers
3. States
4. Feds
5. Foreigners
6. Drug Warriors
7. Anything MADD approves of
I find myself suppporting a change only for corporations, who already receive a benefit of limited financial liability for their businesses. It seems perfectly reasonable to constrain corporations from infringing rights. Sole proprietors and other privately held businesses could still make their own decisions.
From a practical viewpoint, I can't see some mom-and-pop grocery store banning firearms if the local supremarket chain is disallowed.
The company in question used the sheriff's department to check vehicle tags so they knew which car's belonged to employees. They claimed it was for searching for drugs which was a lie. The company property ends at my car's door handle.
The government's reason for being is to protect our rights. Sometimes that means intervention.