Glenn, you are right that it is only the relative dollar amounts of legal exposure that are weighed by these companies.... BUT .... you have to remember that in assessing that risk, what is taken largely into account is the anticipated liklihood of what a JURY would do, given the current law (their instructions), and jurors ARE of course highly influenced by their own personal beliefs, which is in turn affected by the political climate, which is inextricably tied to the struggle for the RKBA, etc. So it still IS, as always, about the 2nd Am - indirectly at least. For example, suppose some maniacs go postal or rob the place or whatever. Suppose you, who are carrying in accord with company policy, manage to off two of them in self-defense and defense of others. Then in an attempt to shoot the third one, you accidentally hit an innocent bystander employee, one whom you could not see behind the perp, so you were not grossly negligent by any stretch. Now that person or their family sues you and the company for a negligent workplace rule. Around here, the jury would send them packing in a hurry, but in Yankeeland, PRK, or some other anti-gun climate, the jury is likely to find at least SOME negligence on the company's part, because of their FEELINGS that guns are bad and people really shouldn't be defending themselves with a gun anyway. You must remember that the law of negligence is based on society's (i.e. a jury's) ever-changing views of what is right, wrong, careless, etc. So the risk assessment by companies and their insurers are logical in the immediate sense, but based on the illogic of the public at large in an anti-gun climate.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 27, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 27, 2000).]
