Employer Policies the new gun control.

[MLeake]

Uncle Buck, some companies might be better off with mimes working their CS lines...

But I digress.

In answer to your question, I am pretty sure both TX and FL passed laws denying employers the right to ban guns in parking lots. Florida provided some exemptions for security-sensitive businesses (munitions storage facilities are a specific example that spring to mind, as Disney was trying to use the fact that they have fireworks as a way to work the loophole); I think Texas has similar language about businesses with security perimeters, but I'm not sure.

And I think you're right about letter writing being more readily available than tort reform. Based on my experience (and the experiences of others) with IKEA, though, I don't have much faith in their effectiveness, unless a MAJOR grassroots campaign takes place.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Therefore, I still think the only real fix to the problem is tort reform. Take away the sword of liability hanging over the business owner's head, and much of the motivation for firearms bans will go out the window.

Right. If business owners were not held responsible for weapons carried by employees for personal protection or their use (versus employees who carry weapons as per their job descriptions), a huge amount of the problem would go away. The main issues would likely then become the regulation of the visibility of weapons carried for personal protection while one the job, how the weapons are secured or retained in the workplace, and whether or not the weapon would interfere in the performance of a job.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I posted this in the Jared's thread - so I will redo it here - it refers to property bans but employer bans go by the same rules. I will add some leading comments culled from the discussion.

It was said that property bans were not systematic used to control gun rights. That is incorrect, the antigun folks specifically have written about using store, property, employer, parking lot bans, religious bans as ways to make carry so inconvenient that it won't happen.

Using this mantra they suckered the property rights folks into buying into it.

Why is property more fundamental than life? That is not the tenure of modern self-defense law. The rationale for using lethal force is the following:

1. All life is sacred (not in the holy sense).
2. When you offer grievous bodily harm to someone, your right to life becomes less valuable than the person protecting his or her own life or that of another.
3. But if grievous bodily harm is not immediately threatened, lethal force is usually disallowed in most circumstances (with a few property exceptions that related to threat to life or livelihood). Shooting for simple property is not legit or is it legit to shoot a fleeing suspect, surrending suspect - without a real and immediate threat.

Thus, property is secondary to life.

What I said in the Jared post

We have done this before - many times.

Let me summarize:

1. We have the battle of two rights.

2. The right to protect yourself

3. The rights of a property owner.

4. The latter are not inviolate. Health rules and civil rights protection show that in our society, what is seen as the great good overtakes the property owner of a business open to the public to be king or queen of the castle.

5. You may disagree with that.

6. Some folks argue that civil rights protection is based on a protected class. Some argue that carrying a gun for self-protection should have the same status for class protection as race, religion, gender, etc. You may disagree.

7. The argument that you can go elsewhere is not always practical, depending on locale.

8. The use of store bans is promoted by the Brady folks as a method to make carry impractical and discourage it.

That's it folks. I'm on the side of gun rights trumping property rights if you open for business to the general public. My call on the battle of rights. Life trumps your property. You don't have to have a business open to the public, just as folks say you don't have to go there.

As far as still complaining about being snarky - or deleting your own OP - that is poor style. A strong hint.

GEM

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Closed as the OP didn't like the heat in kitchen, so to speak.

GEM