·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 05/08/2009 11:57:12 PM PDT by neverdem
| Idaho: “Employer Liability Act” Signed by Governor Otter! |
| Friday, May 08, 2009 |
|
On Friday, May 1, House Bill 287 was signed into law by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter (R). HB 287, the “Employer Liability Act,” sponsored by State Representative Jeff Thompson (R-33), will remove an employer’s liability for any accident related to a lawfully-stored firearm, provided employer does not adopt a policy prohibiting its employees from keeping their firearms locked in their vehicles while parked on company property. If the employer were to institute a policy that prohibits employees from storing lawfully-owned firearms in their private vehicles while at work, they will still be held liable. Thank you to all those who contacted their state legislators during this process and be sure to check your e-mail and www.NRAILA.org for updates throughout the year. |
Excellent! Very clever legislation... although it’s unfortunate that clever legislation for this sort of thing is even needed in the first place.
If that employer denies his employees the right to self-defense, then he is to some degree liable for that death.
I'd include going to or coming from work. The state is not responsible for protecting us. The Supreme Court said so!
Someone maybe like the POTUS when he lets the Gitmo prisoners out?
Was news to me.....
This bill doesn't respect the employers private property and right to enjoy it. We need to move back toward liberty and freedom of association.
This is a band-aid solution, right out of the socialist playbook.
How does this remove your ‘enjoyment’ of your property? It is still your property, and your rights are in no way negatively affected. What your are doing is trying to remove MY right to MY personal property! By telling me I cannot have MY personal property with me, YOU are the one swinging your fist.
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?
So now we have two rights in conflict, no? Your right to self defense (you are not claiming a right to be employed are you? You also recognize that I am not taking your property, a gun in this case, correct?) and my right to property (by default I lose my rights if I lose control of my property, agreed?).
FRiend, I swing no fist. You are still at liberty to come to work, voluntarily, and choose to either follow the work rules or not. If not, you're fired. Find other employment.
Now, you get a politician to pass a law you like that limits my exercise of liberty over my property and business. That sounds like and is socialism. The NRA is shortsighted on this one, but their purview is narrow.
It is up to us freedom loving individuals to preserve liberty. BTW, I am an NRA life member.
Now, you may set up rules that your employees must abide by, but that ‘right’ is seriously restricted by the state. You cannot demand that females come to work topless, can you? So your ‘control’ is illusory at best anyway. And I have yet to see a rational argument as to how you ‘lose control’ of your property if people have personal firearms in their personal vehicles. You are claiming sovereignty over the property of others by dint of its mere presence in your ‘realm’. Again, you are swinging your fist. Your ‘default’ that you somehow lose your property if you cannot strip others of their inherent rights is so inane it is pitiful. It is your desire to control that is causing the conflict. And I would fully back a bill that would hold employers partially responsible if they stripped their employees right to self-defense from them in the employers quest to control, and that employee is harmed by crime going to or from work. You want control? Fine. Now comes the responsibility!
It used to exist. People like you drove it out for personal convenience. The control freaks on the Left and Right are equally to blame for our current condition.
Doesn’t make it right, though. Your backing of a law that shifts blame from the perpetrator to the business owner is not better than a call for gun control by liberals.
We’ve forgotten the quintessential meaning of liberty. Sad.
If my control of my property, the product of my labor, is “illusory at best” then I am a slave, no?
I sold my parking lot as soon as they passed the law. Park on the public way and no need to report to work tomorrow, DITW.
It hasn’t existed ever, and the last vestiges of that line of legal thought was driven out with the extinction of slavery. What you advocate is liberty for you and you alone. Everyone else’s is subordinate to yours. Again, you swing your fist. Dangerous pasttime you have there.
The bill I would back recognizes your responsibility for your own action. You want to control your employees to the point that you wish to deny them rights, well, then accept what happens. But you don’t want that. You want to play Obama’s game. “I have the power and control, but its someone else’s fault when bad things happen as an indirect consequence of my actions’!
It seems you never knew the quintessential meaning of liberty. You only know it in the context of yours. Pitiful.
And you still haven’t shown how you have lost your property by someone else possessing theirs. You haven’t lost any of the fruits of your labor. But you are attempting to deny others the fruits of theirs! They did buy that firearm, remember.
So who is the leftward leaning here? Why, YOU! YOU want to deny the rights of others. YOU want to deny others their actual real property. YOU want to deny the consequences of your own actions. Absolutely pitiful!
Don't like my policies, don't work for me. You have your liberty under my system, you've removed mine under yours.
It should be patently obvious to a free man.
You work for government and possibly this has tainted your reasoning.
If I own something it is mine to do with as I please. If I choose not to allow your car, firearm or non-steel toed shoes on my property that is my right, whether it is my home, business, etc. It is simple. You don't have to work for me, visit with me or associate with me.
Freedom of Association is fundamental to liberty. That it has been taken away by affirmative action or big government conservatives like you makes not difference to me.
What I propose respects your rights, you've bulldozed mine using the power of the state. That you post here and don't get that is scary.
We have an original Bill of Rights consisting of ten rights. The 2nd, however important (for me it is the thumbtack), doesn't overrule the rest. Understand?
Liberty means everyone gets liberty. You and the NRA have turned Idaho business owners into 3/5 of a person.
Do you believe in the liberty of contract?
I work for a private contractor who has a government contract. I am not banned from having a weapon in my vehicle subject only to the post commanders rule that it be unloaded and not reachable from the drivers seat. So my thinking isn’t tainted by being some sort of government operative, as you seem to think. And I definitely wouldn’t work for you on a bet.
You have not been able to articulate exactly what right you have lost, what fruit of your labor you have lost, or what property has been seized. What liberty have you lost? You still own that business, still make money from it, and can still tell your employees that they must do the work assigned by you. You haven’t lost a dang thing.
What you are now claiming is soveriegnty over others property, denying them the use of it. You don’t own your employees guns, cars, or lives. You invite them to work for you by extending employment. They don’t have the right to that employment, but neither do you conjure up the right, nay, power to deny them their rights, which you seem to think.
I am going to ask again. What liberty have you lost? And control of your property isn’t the answer, because you still control it in all aspects. Your business, your fruits of labor. No one has come demanding that you personally take some action that affects you in any manner.
What you propose doesn’t respect anyone’s rights but your own. No one has seized control of your property (which means using it for their own purposes, by the way, not what you seem to think it means).
As far as liberty of contract, sure. But you can’t force someone to sign away rights in that contract.
It is very obvious that you have no concept of what liberty is. Especially since you think you can strip it from someone because you happen to employ them.
Private property where the public is invited is not the same as residential private property nor private property where the public is not invited.
Contact me when you own your own business. We can discuss then.
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.