Posted on 03/16/2012 5:10:03 AM PDT by marktwain
JEFFERSON CITY • Many Missouri lawmakers want to protect gun owners from any threat of workplace discrimination, just as state residents currently are protected for race, religion and gender.
Legislation that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people because they own or use guns overwhelmingly passed the Missouri House before lawmakers left for spring break.
For bill sponsor Wanda Brown, a Republican from Lincoln, the goal is simple: "We would never consider giving up our First Amendment (free speech) rights for a job. Why should we give up our Second Amendment rights?"
The National Rifle Association is pushing similar gun owner discrimination bills in other states, including Alabama and Tennessee, where the proposal has put lawmakers in a crossfire between gun activists and some of the state's largest employers. Some of the state's largest corporations, including FedEx, Bridgestone and Volkswagen, testified against the legislation and companion gun bills earlier this month.
They argued that it could make companies more vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits and could hurt the state's job creation efforts.
In Missouri, some lawmakers have questioned whether the legislation is needed. No one has provided examples of an employee facing discrimination over gun ownership.
"Does a person carrying a gun really qualify as a class that needs to be protected against discrimination in housing or employment?" said Rep. Mary Nichols, D-Maryland Heights.
Missouri currently prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability or age."
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
We should return to freedom of association.
Wonder if this is related to the Oklahoma case where a paper mill’s employees were fired for having a rifle in their locked pickup.
At least it makes a counter to the idea that you can be required to associate with gays . . .
What used to be a private matter (whether you own a gun, how many guns you own, whether you have CCW) is increasingly becoming publicly discoverable. More companies are doing background checks on prospective employees, and on current employees before promotion. There is an increasing likelihood that your status will appear on such a background check, and will factor into employment decisions.
If that is the case, then folks and the NRA need to lawyer up and prepare to implement a tsunami of lawsuits.
In the corporate arena, decisions are influenced (if not controlled) by the insurance companies, liability lawyers, and the government. It doesn't matter if I as a manger am fine with a subordinate owning guns, if HR says otherwise.
A while back I started a thread about OSHA's covert role in workplace gun control
I've always believed gun owners should return the favor...
The bigger the company the more likely showing any positive interest whatsoever in guns or Second Amendment rights will be a negative in “human resources” view.
Simply reading the magazine “Weapons for Law Enforcement” some years back was enough “reason” to ask if “are you mad at somebody here?”.
Companies ,as part of the campaign to avoid workplace violence,are telling all employees that anyone showing interest in or talking about weapons should be reported as a risk and monitored.The federal government through OSHA is mandating “no weapons” as required company policy ,and insurance companies also hate the very thought of any weapons.It is common for corporate manuals to state that “all weapons are prohibited from all company property including parking areas and all vehicles and also at any location at which the company is conducting business”.
Theses policies are usually not made known to an employee until after hiring,and simply asking about weapons policies in an employment interview is likely to destroy any prospect of yur being hired.
Companies are demanding employees not use tobacco,not be overweight,and so on, but are afraid to reject sexual deviants! What a mess-ed up society!
I am not a big fan of descrimination laws based on behavior, actions or possessions. (Actually, race or religion, too.)
I think owners of businesses should do what they think is best for their business. If they don’t want to hire me because I own a gun, fine. If they don’t want to hire me becasue I am a Christian, fine. Eventually, they will go out of business.
Establish the law so that an employer who bans employees from carrying otherwise legal firearms, in effect disarming them and denying them their 2nd Amendment rights, than the employer is legally liable for any and all damages that result from any situation where position of a firearm by the victim could have resulted in a better outcome.
A similar situation could be applied for customers and guests as well if the company requires them to disarm also. In essence, if the owner invokes his rights to ensure that people on his property are disarmed, they may do so. However, in doing so, they inherently assume responsibility for protecting those individuals from danger.
Citizens with no criminal record should be able, at will, to carry, concealed or open, any firearm they please, hand gun or long gun, anywhere they please without let or hindrance by government authorities.
That is very close to the way the Wisconsin shall issue law is. It was passed last year, and grants exemption from liability for the actions of armed citizens, as long as the premises are not posted against the carrying of arms.
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.