Doc Intrepid
New member
jamullinstx said:"I think the stronger argument against firearms possession prohibitions is that it is simply too important a right to allow a private entity to limit. Framing it as a property rights issue only invites debate whenever some other right arises and property owners wish to limit its exercise on their property."
It is not being framed as a property rights issue, per se. It is being framed as a requirement that companies provide a safe workplace for their employees - a requirement that is being driven by litigation and judicial awards resulting from lawsuits, as well as by the insurance industry which must ultimately pay out those rewards.
The insurance industry seeks to avoid paying out large awards, and companies seek to lower their insurance premiums and overall risk by eliminating foreseeable and previously identified risk factors from their premises.
From an earlier post in a related thread:
Here is some scary stuff for background reading --
http://workplaceviolencenews.com/200...the-workplace/
[scroll down to the bottom of this link, and click on this link: ]
http://www.asisonline.org/foundation/guns.pdf
Note - the author, Dana Loomis, is a Brady co-conspirator.
Everyone interested in this issue should take the time to read what Loomis wrote, whether you disagree with it or not. It is enlightening regarding the strategic direction being taken by the anti's.
Also here:
http://www.asisonline.org/
Go down to "Hot Topics" then "Information on School Safety", click on "Workplace Violence Guideline"
Both are Adobe9 .pdf files.
See pages 20, 25, and 28/29 --
Issues are numerous, but among them are these:
1. Mentioning firearms gets you identified as a potentially violent employee. Not a good career choice.
2. "Pre-employment Screening" - if the potential employee reveals that s/he is a sport shooter, participates in competitive shooting, is a hunter, etc. potentially "pre-employment screening" could suggest that another potential employee be selected instead - under the concept that people who own/handle firearms are potentially of greater liability concern to corporations than people who do not own/handle firearms.
Similar to issues involving people with pre-existing health conditions (or genetic predispositioning towards certain undesirable health conditions) being screened out of "employability" by health insurance employability pre-screening (by Human Resources), the pseudo-science of violence prevention is slowly adopting an attitude that persons who are involved (to any stated degree) with firearms offer a higher degree of "dangerousness" in terms of insurance underwriting and mortality tables, etc. Ergo, companies who hire such persons may find their liability insurance policies more expensive.
At its simplest, the objective is to define, by using various behavioral sciences and insurance industry coercion, "firearms ownership" as a deviant characteristic - a characteristic that employers would be wise to be aware of and avoid at all costs. Simultaneously, of course, being labeled a 'deviant' behavior by some pseudo-science would, over time, tend to cast all gun-owners in an 'anti-social' light - which, over time, could be quite effective in altering people's behaviors, social standards, and perceptions or norms.
A company's right to limit both who works for it, and their behavior, has a chilling effect on those who would protest their intrusions. They are free to protest, but they may find themselves unemployed as a result. Take the matter far enough...and they will become known, and hence unemployable.
How many are going to be willing to risk losing their livelihoods over this?