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 employers 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. |
You exaggerate the risk and need for a firearm on my property.
Both probabilities (encountering and countering a crime with a gun; it accidentally going off) are very low events
Your concern for the liberties entailed in the 2nd Amendment, though admirable, are myopic and have made you, like many liberty loving conservatives, mind blind to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
You, me, every American gets the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, plus any not even mentioned that you can dream of. Though there is some debate about it, they are not ordinal, but cardinal, that is the 2nd Amendment is not greater than or more important than the 3rd.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit government power, federal initially, then later logically extended to the states and localities.
Your right to self-defense not enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, though perfectly real, is not better than or more important than my right to private property. Now you likely did not read the whole thread or else you did not understand it.
So we have two rights, equally important, in conflict. What is the proper course if you really believe and want to practice individual liberty? Do you go to the state and demand a law enforcing your right and subjugating mine? Or do you simply use your power of choice to choose to either work for me or not?
You could submit to my rules (not really my rules - you can bring your gun by any time and if you bring ammunition too I'll even be happy to shoot it for you) or not. Your choice. We could contract for your interests and mine, wholly free of government interference or force, no? We might even become friends as our interests intertwine so well - you a willing worker and me a willing employer.
Yet, you prefer politics and control to the above scenario. You can see my distress for my liberty and, eventually yours because someday a politician will find a majority who doesn't agree with one of your rights and he'll take it away by law - nice and legal and all.
This particular example in ID is particularly egregious in that how on earth would an employer know you have a gun in your locked car? If you used it in a crime, you'd be fired. If you used it to save a life you'd be a hero. Can you see why this is such a dumb law?
Please read this post through a couple of times before you reply, OK? I don't mind discussing it, but I've been through it more than once and I hate to pay for the same real estate twice.
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.