“Hi! Eric Stratton, rush chairman! Damned glad to meet you!”
Posted on 05/08/2009 11:57:12 PM PDT by neverdem
In other words, you can’t answer the question. I see.
You like laws that force other people to do what you want. I don’t.
What else do we have to discuss?
What am I forcing you to do? Not a damn thing. You aren’t being compelled to take any action at all! What you are doing is what is the problem. It is employers like you that allowed the unions to take hold. YOU loosed the Democrat tools upon us, and you are now claiming aggrieved status.
You are right. We have nothing to discuss. But if one of your employees are hurt going to or from work in a criminal act that a weapon could have prevented, I hope the jury awards him/her both ears and the tail. That is all.
I am always fascinated when people type out vulgarities. Does it seem more mature typed than spoken?
And that you guessed that I am long-time lurker George Meany. Incredible! But, how did you know I have a tail?
But if one of your employees are hurt going to or from work in a criminal act that a weapon could have prevented, I hope the jury awards him/her both ears and the tail.
Someday I hope you get the chance to run your own business with your own money. I really do.
This is great law.
If they allow for the possibility that the employee can defend themselves, they are not liable.
If they prevent the employee from defending themselves, they are liable.
“Now, you get a politician to pass a law you like that limits my exercise of liberty over my property and business.”
No such thing... You still don’t have to allow firearms in your parking lot and nothing changes for you. You simply have the same liability as you had before.
What’s your beef?
Uh, no. Your right to private property doesn't negate my right to self-defence.
Business liability, private property rights, freedom of association.
I do like Idaho House Bill 65A, though.
And that's the way it should be. An employer's private property rights do not negate the right to life and self-defence that the employees have. Simply because someone agrees to work for you doesn't mean you have the right to put their lives in jeopardy if some nutjob comes on site and starts shooting people down.
Uh, no. Your right to self defense doesn’t negate my right to private property. Which is the whole point.
Actually, MI Dude is right.
Frankly, if your negligence and infringement upon your employees' right to life and self-defence results in one or more of them being injured/killed, then you're negligence makes you (or should make you) liable because you are partly at fault.
Guess what? The right to private property doesn't give you an unlimited right to the disposition of any and all people who may happen to be on your property, especially if they're there with your permission (like employees).
Sorry, but life trumps property. Even the Founders and Locke thought so.
“Hi! Eric Stratton, rush chairman! Damned glad to meet you!”
You’ve not moved the argument forward. The bill is overreach, excepting the part about parking on a public way with your firearm in your vehicle.
You exaggerate the risk and need for a firearm on my property. Although I understand the insurance aspect of carrying a firearm, its actual use is quite low.
If they are there with my permission then they are there at my disposition, no? May I rescind my permission or place limitations on their staying?
You needn’t work for me or visit my store. You decide, not some law lobbied by a lobby you happen to like.
This law removes my choice. It is intentionally coercive, and in this case populist. How is this different than liberal mob rule? You just happen to like this particular law as it doesn’t infringe on your rights.
Of course, I would still support your 2nd Amendment rights even if there wasn’t a majority behind it.
Who wouldn’t waste property to save a life, that is the Founders argument, but they noted carefully that your property is your life and your use of it your liberty. To lose either is to infringe on liberty.
That is what this law does.
The original Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property, was simply too limited and was changed to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (self-defined).
The possibility of an accident with a “properly stored” firearm, should you ban it but it comes on your property just the same, is also quite low. Doesn’t this result in a verdict of “de minimus non curat lex” when approached from either side?
Both probabilities (encountering and countering a crime with a gun; it accidentally going off) are very low events, I agree. The issue is how the law behaves. It doesn’t provide the option of choice to the business owner, just the appearance of it.
My understanding is that if you choose not to allow your employees to store their firearms on your property you are open to greater liability than if you do. It is manipulative; like affirmative action or the ADA. (correct me if I am wrong, this is from news reports)
For my part I would not care if my employees were at work armed all day. The issue is the continuing encroachment on individual liberty, in this case both private property and freedom of association.
As conservatives we must be especially careful not to pick government interventions of convenience because we happen to agree with them.
TN just passed a law that allows CC in bars or restaurants that serve alcohol. That is a move toward liberty, although I don’t drink or go to bars. In this case the owner may, at their discretion, ban firearms from the premises.
Given that these are concealed weapons how would the owner of said business know? There would at worst be a civil settlement (in or out of court) banning said customer. More likely, and the event that Americans should prefer, is the owner of said establishment judges the violation for what it is. Weighing the customers intentions with the owners personal and economic interests, either providing an exception or asking the patron never to return (or at least not armed).
I would not patronize any establishment (a restaurant, a bank, a publisher, etc.) that is against my values in the first place, but nor would I force my values upon them by act of law.
What ID politicians have done is create a populist “show law” to help their chances with reelection. This is the opposite intent of the American Revolution, no?
This bill doesn’t respect the employers private property and right to enjoy it.
Or do you think a ban on Bibles (or Koran) in cars is fine, too?
Assuming you are not a slave (which makes the argument moot), but an employee voluntarily choosing to work for my company which of my work rules do you get to ignore? Any employer can set up work rules that don’t allow you to post or have personal property at work, photos, etc. You agree that is normal and acceptable?
Does your parking lot have spots for visitors (thus being open to the public?)
Is there alternative parking for employees who prefer not to be disarmed on their entire commute and other errands?
If my control of my property, the product of my labor, is “illusory at best” then I am a slave, no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.