Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
By Vin Suprynowicz
For years, Garry Watson, 49, of little Bunker, Mo., (population 390) had been squabbling with town officials over the sewage line easement which ran across his property to the adjoining, town-operated sewage lagoon.
Residents say officials grew dissatisfied with their existing easement, and announced they were going to excavate a new sewer line across the landowner's property. Capt. Chris Ricks of the Missouri Highway Patrol reports Watson's wife, Linda, was served with "easement right-of-way papers" on Sept. 6. She gave the papers to Watson when he got home at 5 a.m. the next morning from his job at a car battery recycling plant northeast of Bunker. Watson reportedly went to bed for a short time, but arose about 7 a.m. when the city work crew arrived.
"He told them 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you,' " Bunker resident Gregg Tivnan told me last week. "Then the three city workers showed up with a backhoe, plus a police officer. They'd sent along a cop in a cop car to guard the workers, because they were afraid there might be trouble. Watson had gone inside for a little while, but then he came out and pulled his SKS (semi-automatic rifle) out of his truck, steadied it against the truck, and he shot them."
Killed in the September 7 incident, from a range of about 85 yards, were Rocky B. Gordon, 34, a city maintenance man, and David Thompson, 44, an alderman who supervised public works. City maintenance worker Delmar Eugene Dunn, 51, remained in serious but stable condition the following weekend.
Bunker police Officer Steve Stoops, who drove away from the scene after being shot, was treated and released from a hospital for a bullet wound to his arm and a graze to the neck.
Watson thereupon kissed his wife goodbye, took his rifle, and disappeared into the woods, where his body was found two days later -- dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Following such incidents, the local papers are inevitably filled with well-meaning but mawkish doggerel about the townsfolk "pulling together" and attempting to "heal" following the "tragedy." There are endless expressions of frustration, pretending to ask how such an otherwise peaceful member of the community could "just snap like that."
In fact, the supposedly elusive explanation is right before our eyes.
"He was pushed," Clarence Rosemann -- manager of the local Bunker convenience store, who'd done some excavation work for Watson -- told the big-city reporters from St. Louis. Another area resident, who didn't want to be identified, told the visiting newsmen, "Most people are understanding why Garry Watson was upset. They are wishing he didn't do it, but they are understanding why he did it."
You see, to most of the people who work in government and the media these days -- especially in our urban centers -- "private property" is a concept out of some dusty, 18th century history book. Oh, sure, "property owners" are allowed to live on their land, so long as they pay rent to the state in the form of "property taxes."
But an actual "right" to be let alone on our land to do whatever we please -- always providing we don't actually endanger the lives or health of our neighbors?
Heavens! If we allowed that, how would we enforce all our wonderful new "environmental protection" laws, or the "zoning codes," or the laws against growing hemp or tobacco or distilling whisky without a license, or any of the endless parade of other malum prohibitum decrees which have multiplied like swarms of flying ants in this nation over the past 87 years?
What does it mean to say we have any "rights" or "freedoms" at all, if we cannot peacefully enjoy that property which we buy with the fruits of our labors?
In his 1985 book "Takings," University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein wrote that, "Private property gives the right to exclude others without the need for any justification.
Indeed, it is the ability to act at will and without need for justification within some domain which is the essence of freedom, be it of speech or of property."
"Unfortunately," replies James Bovard, author of the book "Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen," "federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors are making private property much less private. ...
Park Forest, Ill. in 1994 enacted an ordinance that authorizes warrantless searches of every single-family rental home by a city inspector or police officer, who are authorized to invade rental units 'at all reasonable times.' ... Federal Judge Joan Gottschall struck down the searches as unconstitutional in 1998, but her decision will have little or no effect on the numerous other localities that authorize similar invasions of privacy."
We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king's men are allowed to use force or the threat of force to push their way in wherever they please, and that any peasant finally rendered so desperate as to employ the same kind of force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a "lone madman" who "snapped for no reason." No, we should not and do not endorse or approve the individual choices of folks like Garry Watson. But we are still obliged to honor their memories and the personal courage it takes to fight and die for a principle, even as we lament both their desperate, misguided actions ... and the systematic erosion of our liberties which gave them rise.
Yes, I did. The GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Yes, and it intends to codify the right of GA employees to secure arms in their vehicles while at work.
No, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Certainly not justified in this case.
You know. It would really help if you had read the bill. TATA!
(b) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply:
(1) To an employer providing applicable employees with a secure parking area which restricts general public access through the use of a gate, security station, or other similar means of limiting public access into the parking area;
>>I disdain commercials also, but I fail to see how vigilantism/anarchy is to blame.
Please finish you point though. What happened after the commercial?<<
The point was that this was basically the end of it. There were no repercussions on the family that wiped out ALL the males from the other family.
And life went on...
I've answered it as in the post below , but you claim you can't 'understand'.
I have NO interest in your 'debate' with luis so don't go there. I am just asking luis so that I can understand why you won't answer the question.
I'll re-post this one more time:
You wrote:
I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. I do not have the right to tresspass another's premises with my gun in my vehicle.
Clever non-answer. -- You are not trespassing - you are an employee with a right to carry a gun in your vehicle, -- as you admit.
A condition of employment is that I obey the rules of my boss. He has the right to not allow me on the property if I don't obey his rules.
You admit: "-- I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. --"
Does your boss have the right to stop you from carrying a gun in your vehicle"?
You said you agreed with the GA bill.
Yes, I did. The GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Daffy inference, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Not a daffy inference. I read the bill, did you?
Yes, and it intends to codify the right of GA employees to secure arms in their vehicles while at work.
My employer is not in GA but if we had that state law, he would be allowed to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Clever. now you claim the issue is about "uncontrolled guns" on his property; -- it's about guns secured in employees vehicles while parked.
His policy is in strict agreement with the proposed GA law
No, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
and in strict agreement with my position as stated to you prior to my reading the bill.
It's becoming quite evident your position parallels that of Luis Gonzalez. approves of parking lot prohibitions.
-- Thanks for your candor.
UpAllNight 'dissembles':
Clever. But we weren't talking about the right to carry arms in a vehicle.
Daffy claim; -- that's what the GA bill is about.
We were talking about the right of an employer to restrict weapons from his private property, a right that is recognized in the GA bill.
Nope, the bills object is to stop an employer from banning weapons from his employees private property, their vehicles.
It's becoming quite evident your position approves of such parking lot prohibitions. -- And that when you wrote:
"I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle"; -- you were being 'clever', not truthful.
I've answered it as in the post below , but you claim you can't 'understand'.
I have NO interest in your 'debate' with luis so don't go there. I am just asking luis so that I can understand why you won't answer the question.
I'll re-post this one more time:
You wrote:
I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. I do not have the right to tresspass another's premises with my gun in my vehicle.
Clever non-answer. -- You are not trespassing - you are an employee with a right to carry a gun in your vehicle, -- as you admit.
A condition of employment is that I obey the rules of my boss. He has the right to not allow me on the property if I don't obey his rules.
You admit: "-- I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. --"
Does your boss have the right to stop you from carrying a gun in your vehicle"?
You said you agreed with the GA bill.
Yes, I did. The GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Daffy inference, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
Not a daffy inference. I read the bill, did you?
Yes, and it intends to codify the right of GA employees to secure arms in their vehicles while at work.
My employer is not in GA but if we had that state law, he would be allowed to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
Clever. now you claim the issue is about "uncontrolled guns" on his property; -- it's about guns secured in employees vehicles while parked.
His policy is in strict agreement with the proposed GA law
No, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.
and in strict agreement with my position as stated to you prior to my reading the bill.
It's becoming quite evident your position parallels that of Luis Gonzalez. approves of parking lot prohibitions.
-- Thanks for your candor'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UpAllNight 'dissembles' yet again:
Clever. But we weren't talking about the right to carry arms in a vehicle.
Daffy claim; -- that's what the GA bill is about.
We were talking about the right of an employer to restrict weapons from his private property, a right that is recognized in the GA bill.
Nope, the bills object is to stop an employer from banning weapons from his employees private property, their vehicles.
It's becoming quite evident your position approves of such parking lot prohibitions. -- And that when you wrote:
"I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle"; -- you were being 'clever', not truthful.
I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth, -- with everyone here.
Clever. But we weren't talking about the right to carry arms in a vehicle.
Daffy claim; -- that's what the GA bill is about.
We were talking about the right of an employer to restrict weapons from his private property, a right that is recognized in the GA bill.
Nope, the bills object is to stop an employer from banning weapons from his employees private property, their vehicles.
It's becoming quite evident your position approves of such parking lot prohibitions. -- And that when you wrote:
"I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle"; -- you were being 'clever', not truthful.
I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth, -- with everyone here.
You know. It would really help if you had read the bill. TATA!
(b) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply:
(1) To an employer providing applicable employees with a secure parking area which restricts general public access through the use of a gate, security station, or other similar means of limiting public access into the parking area;
So? It's a [proposed] bill. Hopefully, - weasel word provisions like the above would be culled.
Answer this, -- why do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns?
And life went on...
I agree then, vigilantism is necessary in that situation. If one family can murder all the men in another family with impunity, someone else should take the law into their own hands and punish them when the law doesn't.
I wasn't aware that anyone but Hick's father actually was killed in "Huckleberry Finn" though.
Very interesting. I don't remember ever reading this at all.
"Our main objective is to put employees on the same level playing field as any other individual who would park in a public parking lot," Rogers said.Last year, a similar measure, the Georgia Self Defense Act, failed to gain much traction. The bill passed a House committee, but failed to reach the floor for a vote. The senator who sponsored a companion version withdrew the measure.
The Georgia Self Defense Act failed to pass last year partially because of pressure from business organizations that opposed it, saying the bill could increase the chance of workplace violence. Some employers also opposed language that would have allowed employees to leave firearms in vehicles left in private parking lots.
Rogers and Graves said their new proposal does not include employee parking that is restricted from the general public. Both Senate Bill 43 and House Bill 143 also exclude vehicles owned by an employer and used by a worker for business purposes. In addition, the bill excludes employees who are already restricted from carrying firearms on their employer's premises because of disciplinary action, and does not apply to penal and correctional institutions.
"We want to ensure that law-abiding citizens have the opportunity to protect themselves, whether they're leaving work or out shopping," Graves said. Joe Fleming, the senior vice president of government affairs for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, said Tuesday that the group's members plan to review the new bill this week before taking a stand on it. He said that the language of the new proposal differs from last year's bill.
Several lawmakers expressed reservations about the new proposal.
Well t, you're living in fantasy land again.
I'm guessing that the NRA is selling this one hard.
The Georgia bill still protects the rights of a private property owner, whose parking lot is used for employee parking only, and not open to the general public, to ban guns from their parking lot.
One more gun regulation about to be set into law with the help of the NRA.
Read what the bill's sponsors said:
"Rogers and Graves said their new proposal does not include employee parking that is restricted from the general public."
If I own a mall, a factory, a restaurant...whetever, all I have to do is fence in an area, call it "Employee Parking", tell employees that's where they must park, and ban guns from the employee parking lot.
You and the NRA have just managed to make the employees the ONLY people without a gun in their parked car.
Nice going ace.
I see fenced employee parking in Georgia's future.
Send them another check t.
I posted the section yesterday. Actually, I think that the law will generally work.
You're supporting a bill that will give employers the LEGAL means to forcibly disarm employees!!
That's the best laugh yet!!!
I saw that.
I think that the law will pass as it stands; the Georgia legislature can't totally piss off their primary source of campaign funds, they can't piss off Georgia businesses.
Thanks Lurker.
See, there are things we agree on.
You so funny!
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
"Nope, the bills object is to stop an employer from banning weapons from his employees private property, their vehicles." -- tpaine
(b) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply: (1) To an employer providing applicable employees with a secure parking area which restricts general public access. -- The Bill
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
"As Luis commented, there ~is~ an 'age old tradition' [reinforced by our 4th] that people have a right to be "secure in their person, houses, --"; thus they can ban arms from their home property." -- tpaine"Our US Constitution makes it clear that the peoples owning & carrying of arms is not to be infringed. - By anyone" -- tpaine
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
"I fight against majority rule." -- tpaine"How many millions of our peers support the NRA & similar gun orgs luis?" -- tpaine
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
"I fight against majority rule." -- tpaine"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine"How many millions of our peers support the NRA & similar gun orgs luis?" -- tpaine
"Authoritarian socialism is a political disease just as bad as liberal socialism, -- all socialists, left & right, -- want to enforce majority rule by government force." -- tpaine"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine"Actually, millions of us, -- and the NRA, - are demanding that governments do their duty and stop business parking lot owner's from violating an individuals right to carry arms in vehicles." -- tpaine
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You so funny!
Post the statute limiting the employer like you claim.
Luis, compared to you, I not so funny.
"Post the statute limiting the employer like you claim.
Post the statute that gives an employer sovereignty over the interior contents of their employee's vehicle.
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.