shibumiseeker
Grandmaster
Right. That's what I was saying in the next sentence: "It's just that, if they're not even allowed in a locked car, it has the effect of disarming employees on their commute."
.
Missed that, my apologies.
Right. That's what I was saying in the next sentence: "It's just that, if they're not even allowed in a locked car, it has the effect of disarming employees on their commute."
.
'Fraid I just couldn't vote. As much as I don't like it, they get to make policy on their own property.
This is an example of a law in which I like the outcome, but not the principle on which it is based. Like a smoking ban, for instance.
'Fraid I just couldn't vote. As much as I don't like it, they get to make policy on their own property.
This is an example of a law in which I like the outcome, but not the principle on which it is based. Like a smoking ban, for instance.
Then I'll ask you what I've asked others: Do you also favor eliminating health codes in food service businesses? Building and fire safety codes? Sanitation codes (no dumping raw sewage in your front yard)? Zoning ordinances? In fact anything which renders a piece of private property less than a fully sovereign nation with the owner being absolute monarch unrestricted even by treaty in what he or she can or cannot do? If the answer is "no" to any of those, then the question becomes simply where to draw the line?.
In the case of guns in parked cars, private businesses already have government interference pushing them to forbid so the choice is not actually free. Consider: if they permit firearms and something bad happens they are likely to be the subject of lawsuits. That, in fact, is an argument given against passing the law but it applies now should any business allow the carrying of firearms. So, if a business allows firearms they are subject to liability from that decision.
Now, take the other side: they don't allow firearms. Do you know of even a single case where a crime happened at a business--or on the way to or from a business--to someone who could legally carry but didn't because of business rules successfully pursuing a suit for damages to the business owner for setting that policy? I don't know of one and even if any exist they are much less of a "threat" than the reverse.
So we have a business facing possible loss if they choose one way but being essentially immune from loss for choosing the other way. The effect is the business being "pushed" to choose one particular way by the government (since the courts, including civil courts, are part of the government)..
Ideally, the fix would be to undo the pressure that's currently applied so that businesses either face the same legal risk either way: whether making businesses not liable for an employee "going postal" or making the businesses liable for people who are crime victims who might otherwise not be if company policy allowed them to keep arms. However realistically that's not going to happen..
SB25 does not require businesses to allow people to carry on their property--and it says nothing about ones home or other property at which one doesn't have employees. It only restricts businesses from forbidding employees who can otherwise do so from having firearms in their locked vehicles--said locked vehicles being the private property of the employee. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise on the issue of people being able to be armed when not on the business property while going to and from the business and between the business owner's right to decide whether people will be armed on his or her property.
I ask you, though: What in your argument couldn't be made by the smoking-ban proponents, especially as it concerns the employees of those businesses?
Remember, I am not in favor of SB25 except as a counter to existing pressure coming viathe courts. Since that pressure is not going away any time soon, something like SB25 is necessary, IMO, to counter it.
When it comes to smoking bans, the pressure is already in the direction of banning smoking. There is already the threat of lawsuits by someone (an asthmatic say) going into a place where smoking is allowed and suing because they had an attack while a smoker isn't likely to get very far with a lawsuit for "pain and suffering" over withdrawal because smoking is prohibited. If anything my argument would lead toward laws requiring businesses to make accommodation for smokers to act as a counter to that pressure. And I say that as someone who not only doesn't smoke but has a bona fide allergy to the stuff.
Your cocktail of two parts pragmatism mixed with one part ideology is quite tasty, I must admit. I'll sleep on it and check out the hangover tomorrow morning.
And as much as I'd like to see this pass...your property is still parked on their property. I dunno. Tough decision to make.So my car isn't my property? The road leading into the employer isn't theirs, but their rule disarms me there as well...
Like the ban Morgan County has enacted if you have kids in the car?Would you be for them having a "no cigarettes in the car" rule...