[piytar]

“Leave it up to the employer to decide.”

Agreed, with one caveat: If some nutplace shoots up the business and it can be shown that the place was chosen at least in part because the nutcase knew his targets would not be armed, the employer should be subject to liability. Decisions have consequences. The decision to disarm people automatically makes those people more vulnerable, so that decision should carry the risk of liability for doing so.

[ThomasThomas]

Would you also hold him liable if the nutcase demanding to carry was the employee that shot up the place?

[SampleMan]

Agreed, with one caveat: If some nutplace shoots up the business and it can be shown that the place was chosen at least in part because the nutcase knew his targets would not be armed, the employer should be subject to liability.

Negative. You knew the rules and YOU chose to comply. Yes, decisions have consequences.

"If some nut job" should never be the employer's liability.

[piytar]

Been an interesting discussion that has made me rethink my answer in that post. I hereby recant this part:

“Agreed, with one caveat:...”

Replace with “Disagree and...”

Someone’s right to a thing - property - does NOT trump the God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to effective defense of someone else’s own life. Period.

As a conservative, I hold property rights nearly inviolate. But I hold the right to effective self-defense COMPLETELY inviolate. After all, life trumps property...