Attention Wayne LaPierre: Your NRA Folks In Georgia Are Frigtards
Heck of a way to ruin the pro-2nd Amendment Coalition!
By Erick Posted in Guns | State Politics — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The NRA, desperate to revitalize its flagging membership (a victim of its own great success), discovered a terrible travesty that only it could see -- some employers were daring to tell their employees that the employees could not bring their guns onto their employers private property, including the evil Wal-Mart. How dare these evil employers set rules for conduct on their private property.
So, the NRA drafted S.B. 43, pitting private property rights against gun rights and then had its activists begin harassing allies in the state legislature who actually thought private property rights were more important than gun rights of employees on private property.
The law was opposed by realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, other business allies, and a number of other groups and individuals usually on the same side as the NRA who actually think that governments should not tell private property owners what they can and cannot do on their land. The result? The NRA stabbed the GOP in the back by negotiating with Democrats who'd been threatening to highlight the fact that a local employee was killed this past Tuesday in Atlanta by another employee who brought a gun to their place of business. The GOP ran the NRA out of town. The NRA burned its bridges with some of its best allies in the state legislature, and now the NRA is crying over its treatment. In the process, the NRA said S.B.43 is the only bill it really cared about this year and will grade legislators commitment to guns only on that bill.
Note to the NRA: Grow up [and if this weren't a family site, there'd be a "the . . . ." between those two].
« Obama's Gun Obfuscation — Comments (6)
Attention Wayne LaPierre: Your NRA Folks In Georgia Are Frigtards 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
CarolinaMan
I think Moe did not like my bad joke about guns at gay weddings, which by the way in no way could be ever be "shot-gun" weddings as far as I understand biology, and no I don't think pro same sex marriage would be considered within Republican orthodoxy so you misread that comment.
But it was a bad joke, not as bad as one of Ann Coulters but a bad joke, sorry.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
...I was busy cleaning out the muck, getting a little rushed, came across as a little too brusque there.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Try to be kinder and gentler. Give the kids an inch, and the next thing you know they are trying to be a ruler. Then you have to break some knuckles to get it back under control.
There's a reason we call them Kos kids.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Pro same sex marriage may not be Republican orthodoxy but read Moe's statement again.
As an unorthodox Republican, I was glad(but not gay) to read it.
CM
That's one of those issue, SSM that I'm pretty agnostic on, but try to not rub anyone's fir the wrong way over one way or the other.
As to Moe's views, maybe I mis-read, been known to do that. It's actually not that important a bone to pick over to me.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
They may have mishandled it (I dont know, I'm not in Georgia), but from what I've read this was an attempt to get companies to allow guns primarily in employees automobiles on private property.
The problem is these companies are hostile to the 2A, and they prevent me from carrying to and from work because I have no where to keep the gun. Perhaps a well intention plan gone awry?
It was a measure that, if they handled it right, would have gotten my support and the support of many others.
but I could not disagree more. I do agree that the NRA is not as effective as it once was, there are much more pro active gun rights organizations these days, such as the Virginia Citizens Defense League that is pushing for 2A rights in National Parks.
Anyway, this may SEEM like an intrusion on private property rights, but the reality is much more devious. Let's face the facts, we are not talking about a man with 10 acres losing control of his property, we are talking about major corporations telling their employees what they can have in their car when they park in a garage.
And if you really study the issue, it is about a handful of major insurance companies, many that support gun control, telling companies they will have to pay extortionate premiums if they dare allow their employees to do anything banned by the insurance companies.
As I said in another thread, private property rights do not allow someone to take away someone's constitutional rights simply becuase they are on your property. You can not enslave someone on your property for example.
Finally, sometimes rights do conflict with each other. Sometimes you have to look at something realistically and decide the right course of action. The reality is the vast majority of people with gun carry permits are working stiffs. This means that since they can not even keep their gun in their car at work, they are forced to be disarmed the VAST majority of their day. In effect, their gun permit is only useful on weekends or maybe at a late dinner.
I support private property rights. The home is a man's castle. But when major insurance companies say that the average worker has no right to the Second Amendment if he wants a job, I say this has gone too far. And I am amazed you think they NRA is acting strange for supporting the Second Amendment side of things, that is kinda of what they are all about.
Molon Labe!
But lets take a slightly different example. I own a suit of armor (built it myself) and a Two handed sword. If I ever wore that too any place of business, (Aside a ren faire or SCA meeting) I would expect to be asked to leave.
I look at this as being no different than a business owner being able to enforce a dress code.
The flip side is if you are disarmed by said employer and then suffer damages because you were unable to defend yourself, you should be able to seek restitution.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I find the example to me humorous but not in any way applicable. Also, if you are dead you will have little chance of restitution.
please please people, the last thing we conservatives need is a split by those who are pro big business and those for individual rights. We have enough fights now. And this argument made by the poster will NEVER gain traction with conservatives.
I am millions like me consider the Second Amendment to be the Amendment that preserves all others. If you say big insuarance companies, many of which give money to anti gun groups are the good guys, and individuals who simply want to have the right to self defense, are the bad guys, prepare for an even smaller tent.
Molon Labe!
This isn't a big business vs individual rights issue. It's private property rights vs individual rights. It doesn't matter if the private property owner is Wal-Mart, your local coffee shop, or your own home. The owner should have a right to decide who and what is on his land.
I own guns, I have used guns since a child. I have been through NRA training program. I don't hunt any more but not from lack of desire. I believe in the Second Amendment, I also believe in the first. But nobody believes in screaming in a library.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
some (many?) will never see my point of view. When people liken exercising rights to defend your life or the lives of your family to "screaming in a library", I realize that we can never understand each other.
time to move on, and yes, jol, i normally agree with you :)
Molon Labe!
Let me put it to you another way. How would you feel about guests bringing guns into your home ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I would feel fine with it. Any guest in my home that I would not trust with a firearm would never be trusted without one.
Molon Labe!
I don't believe a gun will go on a rampage, But I have had altercations in my home :(
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I don't think that's a fair argument. You don't have to work or rent from owners who do not allow guns on their property. You are allowed to exercise your right to defend your life and family by renting from a place that allows guns.
but I am talking reality. the reality is there are relatively few insurance companies that insure large businesses. The Insurance companies have decided the right to keep and bear arms is an extreme liability. THEY HAVE NOTHING THAT SHOWS THIS IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a simple left wing bias. It is not based on anything other than enjoying the power to contol working stiffs.
I want to be clear here, I work for myself and exercise my property and 2A rights whenever I want. I am not here defending my desires, I am defending the majority that are coerced into cheapening their lives to make a buck.
I really don't care if some Constitutional scholar thinks he can beat me in a debate, I know I am on the right side and most conservatives would agree. If a man has no right to defend his family, he has nothing.
Molon Labe!
Whether the insurance company is in the right or not on their facts is moot, they as a business in this country can charge what they want for their services. If the business does not like their policies, they do not have to purchase insurance from the company.
I'm not sure what your solution to this problem is. Have the government to tell property owners what they have to allow on their property, or tell the insurance companies they can't raise rates based on weapons?
But it's really not a constitutional issue. Your right to bear arms is not infringed on because you can't carry a gun onto my property. You are free to bear arms down the street or in your own home, just not on my property.
This is the same exact thing as freedom of speech. While I can kick you out of my house for saying something I don't agree with, you are free to speak your mind across the street. You are not forced to be inside my house, just as you are not forced to be employed by the particular business.
If you support forcing businesses to allow guns in their stores because of the second amendment, you have to support forcing businesses to allow someone in the store who spews racial slurs.
They are not taking away anyone's constitutional rights. Private property owners have every right to determine who they want on and off their property. If someone came into my home and called me names, I'd have every right to remove him from my property. That is not infringing on his freedom of speech.
I'm as big a supporter of the 2nd Amendment as anyone. But I'm also a big supporter of private property rights. Owners have the right to determine who and what they want on their property.
did not read my post or are ignoring the major point. This is about anti gun insurance companies.
Molon Labe!
The only this insurance companies are against is losing money. Insurance companies have every right to charge what they want for their services (like any business) based on what they feel is most profitable. If they felt having a gun in the parking lot raised their liability, they should charge more. Just as my health insurance should charge me more if they felt something I did made me more prone to illness (smoking for example).
But that doesn't matter. I fail to see how insurance companies are even in this discussion. They provide a service to businesses. If a business doesn't like their price, they don't buy from them.
"But that doesn't matter. I fail to see how insurance companies are even in this discussion."
then i must respectfully state you do not understand this issue. most big companies, and small ones, have no particular rules about firearms in garages, these are the rules dictated to them by insurance companies. And i am very pro business, but you are mistaken when you think companies only do things in their interest, they can be just as fooled as the majority. They bring their individual biases in all the time. Since my job is investing in said companies, I know of what I speak.
Anyway, I am done with this. The NRA was right to defend INDIVIDUAL rights over corporate entities. There is already a major schism in this party between Rockefeller types and Goldwater types. I am not a populist, I am a supply sider, but I believe an individuals rights to defend his familiy is more important than the rights of lefty insurance companies to dictate to working stiffs what they can and can not keep in their cars.
Molon Labe!
The insurance companies don't dictate anything to the owners. The owners CHOOSE to purchase insurance from a company that has those rules. If the business does not like the rates or rules, they don't have to purchase insurance through that company.
Why is it everytime a corporation does something seemingly objectionable, some people can't believe there's any other rational explanation than that they must be evil leftist or rightist tycoons trampling the common man and his family and human rights and the environment or whatever the beef is?
It's not that I don't empathize with you... our government seems perfectly able to tell restaurant owners what their patrons and employees can't do (smoke), so by that logic why shouldn't they be able to tell owners what their patrons and employees must be allowed to do (bring guns onto the premises)? On the other hand, I'd rather prefer in general that the government stands well clear of what owners decide they will or wont allow on their own premises to as great an extent as is reasonable. I can see exceptions, sure. So maybe you just need to argue more forcefully as to why this should be one?
But then again, don't the property owners have INDIVIDUAL rights? Look past the big shiny building and logo/letterhead and NYSE symbols and see the people inside! When it comes to rights versus rights, can you explain why the owner's right shouldn't supercede that of the employee who willfully and without coercion enters into an employment agreement?
You're not without options. Are you a shareholder of said company? Do other shareholders feel similar to you?
Or, the employees could, I suppose, form a union and engage in some collective bargaining for those things they feel really strongly about...
argued forcefully. I think many just don't know the reality of the affect this has on most people. The Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Individual states have decided to issue concealed carry permits to their most law abiding citizens who want them. But a small group of left wing, anti individual, insurance companies are running roughshod over businesses large and small.
I am stunned by the reaction here. I hope it is just a desire to agree with the head honcho. Because this issue is a lead weight on conservatives if they try to carry it forward.
This is not about private property, this has nothing to do with a man's home. Look, I see most will not agree with me and the little organization called the NRA. I have said my piece. I favor the individual more than many who favor the corporation, renting a garage from another corporation, that has to pay insurance to another corporation.
If you think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would agree with you, that is really just sad.
I hope you guys realize we are talking about people's lives and not obscure legalisms to be guffawed over while sipping port. This is not theory, this is about emasculating people who just want to pay their bills.
Molon Labe!
"This is not about private property, this has nothing to do with a man's home."
Private property is not just a man's home. Someone owns Wal-Mart, and someone owns that property. Whether it's 40,000 shareholders or one man, it is the owner's private property. You can't differentiate between a home and giant building simply because one is owned by a corporation and the other by an individual.
This is no different than the first amendment. If someone comes into my business and starts yelling racial slurs, I have every right to kick them out. Do you feel that Wal-Mart would be infringing on the person's constitutional right to free speech by doing so?
Listen, I understand your point of view and I fully support the 2nd amendment. But I also support the the notion of "my property, my rules".
The Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
Does that mean I can carry a gun onto an airplane? Or are there not reasonable (though few) exceptions to the exercise of that right - one of which may be the superceding right of a property owner to revoke my welcome onto their premises for almost any reason?
This is not about private property, this has nothing to do with a man's home.
Well, at least part of your beef as I understand it is about private property, which certainly encompasses more than just an individual's own residence. It's simply a hard argument you have to convince people that a property owner shouldn't have very great leeway in directing the manner of use of and permittance of persons and things onto their land - greater than the right of said persons to bring a firearm against the owner's will.
The other part of your beef - that insurance companies are completely groundless in adjusting rates higher for companies without a policy forbidding firearms on company property - I'm willing to listen to but you've got to provide some real evidence. The first time someone told me that I could be held liable for injuries that an individual sustains on my property - even if I hadn't invited them onto it - I thought it was total myth. Is it? It surely still boggles my mind but I've heard it again and again. So maybe the true target of your derision should be liability laws that subject property owners to unjust peril, and which then trigger insurance companies into the very logical position of raising rates where the probability of such peril might be magnified even slightly?
Is that possible? That the chain of events starts with unjust liability for property owners, which triggers rate adjustments by insurance companies, which triggers company policy aimed at lowering expenses, which results in you not being allowed to bring a firearm onto company property?
Regardless, whats your evidence that there is zero increased probability of filed claims at businesses that allow firearms on company property versus those that do not? And what is the actual rate differential between those two scenarios?
I could do it but will not. This is not an isurance actuarial table discussion. This is a political site. I am saying, those that take on people who care about the second amendment are on the path to destroying our party.
I have made my argument. YOu may care more about insurance companies than the right for individuals to defend themseleves. It seems many on this thread really no nothing about the legislation. This is about employees being able to keep THEIR firearms, in THEIR cars, in a parking lot.
This site seems to me to be not very strong on 2A rights, that is fine. I could go to even more popular sites and have a hundred positive comments to my posts. That is not my desire, my desire is to tell fellow Republicans that this issue is a LOSER.
Molon Labe!
What is your solution? Force property owners to not have control of who and what they have on their property (and thus incur high insurance rates that could put them out of business), or force insurance companies to charge lower rates? I'm trying to understand your side, just don't see what solution you have.
my solution is to follow the Constitution. The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". And furthermore, since we are so learned here, the Founders made this point more clear in hundreds of documents and essays that are there to read.
I believe any laws (or elimination of laws) that bring us closer to the intent of the Founders will be an improvement.
I could see a law that says corporations can not take away Second Amendment rights when it comes to parking a car in a parking lot. In no way do I believe that will result in higher insurance premiums. The facts are, the cities with the most totalitarian gun laws, have the most gun crime. If a few insurance companies raised rates, they would be undercut by others. But at this time, with institutional bias, they all can tow the anti gun line.
I simply do not believe this is about private property. I have studied this issue and it always comes down to a handful of insurance conglomerates with anti gun views. most average companies just want to make a profit, they do not even think about guns in parking lots they do not even own. This is something dictated by insurance companies, not mom and pop, big ones.
I never said the issue was not complicated, and I do care about property rights. But the individual right to defend yourself is vital. If we do not have that, then we are pawns to a cradle to grave leviathan.
Look at the arguments against mine, almost none of them mention parking lots, they talk about bringing a gun or suit of armor to work. That is not what this is about. When people use subterfuge and misdirection, you know something is amiss.
Molon Labe!
Ok, thank you for expanding. I understand what you're saying, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
My issue with your position is that property owners have no rights to kick people off their property. If you force them to take someone on their property with a weapon, you have to force them to take someone in their store who screams racial slurs at other customers (1st Amendment right). It is also forcing a business to abide to more government mandated regulations, which is a more liberal stance on the rights of a business.
But I think the biggest problem I have is that I don't think having a property owner not allow you to have a gun on the premise is violating your constitutional right. You being on their property is a choice, a choice that you don't have to make if you feel it is unsafe to you or your family.
I agree with you. And the last thing I believe in is a "living Constitution". But there is a thing called reality or practice. In practice, people with concealed handgun permits (chps) can not carry their weapons or have them near them the vast majority of the time they are awake.
Most people go to a job in the morning (can not carry because of the parking situation) and then leave at night, unarmed as well. What is the point of having a CHP? You really think people will quit their jobs to regain their rights? What if a handful of insurance companies conspire so that they can not go to another job with more rights? That is what is happening in practice.
Personally, I work for myself for reasons such as this. I am very lucky, I would never use my luck to deny others. Many have more responsibilities than do I. I respect them and want them to have their rights too.
You might not know this, but almost all gun control laws came out of segregation. And yes I can add links if you want them. Gun control laws are about those in power, stripping rights from those without power.
I am amazed that I am comming off as a populist in this thread, trust me, I am an evil capitalist lol. But the point is, we simply disagree on which rights are more important. I think they are all important. I don't want the government infringing on my property rights. Yet, if the government has to tell a few left wing insurance companies to drop their anti gun bias, then I can live with that if it makes men whole.
I care deeply about this issue. I believe a man's right to defend himself and his family is given by God. If I worked for xyz and xyz said I could not have a weapon in my car, I would ignore that rule. The state I live in says I can carry a weapon for self defense. PJ mcfudders is not going to say otherwise.
There is an old 2a saying, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" I am law abiding, but I feel for those who must overtly disarm themselves as an act of obedience to their employers simply becuase they are trying to feed their kids. NOTHING CAN CONVINCE ME THAT IS RIGHT!
however, I appreciate the debate and AM always open to other ideas.
Cheers
Molon Labe!
it provides immunity to employers for allowing employees to have their personal firearms locked in their personal vehicles.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/sb43.htm
Molon Labe!
Because the right the property owner is claiming to enforce doesn't end at his property line?
If your employer says you can't have a gun at work, and you can't have a gun in your car on the parking lot or in the garage, then you are deprived of your constitutional right between getting to work and where you can exercise that right. The legal principle as I understand it is that you need to make a reasonable accomodation, and on gun rights, most businesses don't.
Also, while it is clear that you have the right to tell me I can't bring my gun into your house, businesses are less clear. Because they involve so many non-related people, they aren't strictly private. They clearly aren't purely public either, so some balance must be achieved.
it is clear that you have the right to tell me I can't bring my gun into your house
But then I've deprived you of your constitutional right no different than had you accepted a position at my business under terms that restricted you from bringing your gun onto the business parking lot.
Unless you decide not to enter my house, or not to accept a position at my business. So what's the difference?
I'd be interested in a more formal explantion of why a business is different. If the question revolves around whose right weighs more - the property owner or the employee - then the owner(s) of the business shouldn't have any fewer property rights than the individual owner of a residential lot, should they?
I'm aware of laws that forbid a business from discriminating on the basis of race, for example, or perhaps gender, disability, perhaps soon sexual orientation. Maybe you want to attach some signifigance to those laws and use them to justify other kinds of government regulation the restricts the authority of property owners from deciding who may use their property and under what circumstances. But then you're adding bad policy on top of bad policy (not that I would laud any business that refuses service to, say, Asians, but if they really want to be known for such a restriction and accept the inevitable bad PR and the loss of revenue that results, it's really their perogative).
So does a landlord have the right to ban guns on his property (i.e., the right to ban his tenants from having guns)?
We have a somewhat analogous situation here. In a sense the property owner rents the parking space to the patrons or employees so it seems the patrons/employees should have some "renters rights".
So long as it was in the original lease agreement, where property rights are, albeit temporarily, transferred. If the tenant doesn't agree he/she doesn't sign. If they do, it's a condition of the temporary property rights. No conflict here.
(I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on T.V.)
much more complicated than that. Many states ban a landlord from playing God. Even the Federal Government was stopped from 2A bans in government housing.
Molon Labe!
a governmental actor constrained by the 2nd Am., a private landlord is not, so a private landord can enter into an enforceable contract with you, a lease, in which you agree that you cannot have a gun on his property. Your choice is whether or not to enter into the contract.
In Vino Veritas
I've lived in places where it was in the rental agreement that no firearms were allowed in the apartments.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Interesting question. I do think the scenarios are different though. I don't consider someone parking in my driveway "renting" the space and having any rights to it.
Nonetheless, I still think it's a private property rights issue. I think when you own property, you can choose who and what you want in it. Whether its guns, pets, or loud noises at night. The owner has the right to enforce their rules on their property. If the renter/employee doesn't like it, they have all the power in the world to rent/work somewhere that does allow them.
And it may be that Mr. Lapierre is the "frigtard".
Now, Mr. Lapierre may have an A+ rating up to this vote, but now, I'm giving him an F rating. Because, by his own standards, this is the only vote that matters now. At least, that's what he threatened folks who have spent an entire career supporting our 2nd amendment rights with.
When a State Senator like John Douglas, who last year successfully had a unanimous consent resolution praising Jane Fonda revoked, equates the NRA with a "hysterical teenage girl", Mr. Lapierre may have a problem.
When the VP of the Georgia Shooting Association, the local NRA arm says, "I oppose SB 43 because it violates property rights. And, for 30-plus years I have been fighting the infringement of my right to own guns. Now, I believe that if a property owner's right to his property are not valid, then pretty soon somebody will tell me that my right to own and shoot guns on my own property are not valid either.", then it appears the national organization might have F'ed up, and Mr. Lapierre might be a frigtard.
Mr. Lapierre, I strongly encourage you to look at what happend to a lot of national Republicans in 2006, when groups like the NRSC chose to overrule the grassroots and take a "we know better than those local folks" attitude toward their membership. I strongly suggest you get on a plane TOMORROW morning, fly down to Atlanta, and bring some knee pads. You've got a lot of apologies to make.
It's important to remember who your friends are, and who they aren't. You messed up, Mr. Lapierre, and this came from the top down, not the bottom up.
I work at a manufacturing plant in KC. It's a pretty good place and people are generally happy there, but there are probably 100 people there. These people are not doctors and lawyers but lower and middle-class folks trying to get by. In spite of the fact that this is a good company that treats everyone well, many of the people drink and sometimes they have bad days - occasionally we even have to let people go.
A couple of years ago a manufacturing plant down the street lost several employees to a fired employee who took his anger out on the people in their cafeteria. We noticed the similarity with our operation and implemented a no tolerance policy on guns on plant property.
We have also suffered recently from the tragic suicide of one of our own on the plant property. He was a great guy, had been to Iraq, lost his wife while he was gone, and was scheduled to go back. He had the keys to the place and we found him on Monday morning in his chair, with a note on his door saying not to open the door, that he was sorry. None of us knew how deeply depressed he was. We lost a friend on the plant property and that still haunts us.
Now, the first incident happened at another company and the second we couldn't have stopped because we weren't there. Kansas has a concealed-carry law which I am ok with, but it does allow companies to forbid firearns on their property, which we do.
I personally think this is the correct balance. We probably can't stop someone from bringing a gun on the property if he is intent on doing harm to himself or others, but at least they aren't right in their cars if an incident arose where someone lost their temper. That critical cooling-off time may be the difference between someone having a problem and our company losing innocent people. We understand that it may not be a perfect policty, but this, as a company, is the best we can do. I firmly believe that we as a company should have the right to ban firearms on our property.
Like I said, to me it is a safety issue.
I sincerely respect your feelings, but could not disagree more. Think about it logically, if someone is so crazy as to want to kill other human beings, you think a "no guns" rule will stop them?
Yet, if responsible people in your plant had firearms, they could possibly stop a killing.
pro 2a groups call businesses that ban guns "victim zones". It is like an advertisement to criminals that no one will stop them from killing or stealing, it is kind of like a buffett.
Sir, I am a historian (among other things lol), and one thing I know is crime has been with us from day one. No law will make crime cease to exist. The countries, states, and cities with the most draconian gun control laws always have the worst gun crime.
life is a crap shoot. You can live to 100 or 20. You can get hit by a bus or you can be just missed and live another 80 years. But when someone takes the Constitutional rights of another, that person is emasculated. You are telling that person they do not even have a fighting chance if the 1 in a million happens.
this site seems cool on gun rights, and I have been here over a year. I know many care about gun rights, but look at this thread, I am basically alone. this is about the norm.
The thing some will never understand is killer do not care about gun laws. Think about it. As for "cooling off periods", come on, what sane person would kill someone simply because they are angry?
Anyway, aside from my beliefs, if the Republican establishment turns against gun owners, we are through, we mine as well be the greens. That I can tell you as a fact, and I have worked on Capitol Hill. Not saying that makes me special, it does not, but I am saying if we as a party turn limp on guns, then it is over.
Molon Labe!
...that mass murderers, of the type you mention, never run into a police station to commit their mass murder. They pick schools, or warehouse offices, or brokerage firms, etc. Why do you suppose that these evil shooters, intent on mass murder, like public schools more than they like police stations? Hmmmmmm....why would that be? It's because they don't want to shot while they're busy killing women and children. If there is a problem in America, it's that so many people these days are so helpless, facing criminal violence. In Minnesota, where we have a concealed carry law, a store owner can ban armed permit holders from carrying on his property by simply putting up a "firearms banned" sign. But from my perspective, they look more like "Criminals Welcome" signs.
we call the masses "sheeple", they have not the means or desire to defend their own lives.
They have polled career criminals, the vast majority have said they do not invade homes because they are afraid of being shot. I guess that is why businesses are attacked more than homes.
Then you look at places such as Great Britian and Australia. Since they have banned people from defending themselves, home invasions have skyrocketed. And yes, as usuall, I can offer links if requested.
Molon Labe!
I don't have any problem with telling large, public entities that they can't ban guns from employee cars in the parking lot. The right of self-defense can override property rights in some circumstances.
____________________________________________________________
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
[ Side note: the first time I wrote this, 15 minutes ago, I had a network error when trying to post, and since the redstate site seems to want to reload every time I hit the back button, it wiped out my whole ^$@(*^*^^@$$@^ post, so I've had to rewrite a lesser version below from memory. I've lost multiple good comments this way lately, and it only seems to happen on redstate. Grr Argh. ]
Businesses may have property rights, but the owners of the vehicles parked there have property rights, too. If you want to argue that businesses have the right to tell people parked there what they can have in their own personal vehicles, where does it end? Can Coca-Cola prohibit their employees from having Pepsi products in their cars? Can a GM dealership prohibit its employees from driving non-GM cars to work? Can McDonald's prohibit me from eating Burger King food in their parking lot?
To my mind, as long as none of the items leave the car and are in no way a direct danger to anyone, businesses shouldn't have any right to tell me what I can and cannot have in my personal automobile, and insurance companies should not be able to charge businesses different amounts based on the contents of vehicles parked in their parking lot.
That's just good plain common sense to me.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
"Can Coca-Cola prohibit their employees from having Pepsi products in their cars?"
Coca-Cola's corporate office does ban Pepsi products on the premises, although I'm not sure as to whether they apply it to items in cars.
-
NARF
For employees. They hired detectives to verify them as well. I don't know if its still legal but it shows how far this can go.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not singling you out, but your post wrapped up a number of issues expressed by others as well, so...
First, people have made a distinction now between bringing a firearm onto one piece of company property (a parking lot or parking garage) versus another piece of company property (an interior office, cafeteria, etc). The claim seems to be that in one of these instances (the lot/garage) an employee should have the right to bring whatever they want onto the premises. Defend this distinction and explain to me why, if the employee does indeed have a Second Amendment right to bring firearms onto company owned lots and garages, they do not also enjoy a Second Amendment right to bring them inside offices and cafeterias despite any objection from the property owners? Doc Holliday has cited the need to defend himself as one reason for supporting this right, but how can you defend yourself if you can't bring your firearm with you everywhere you go?
Second, I'll ask the same question I asked Doc Holliday - can you or anyone else provide evidence that indicates that there is zero increased probability of filed claims at businesses that allow firearms on company property versus those that do not? And what is the actual rate differential between those two scenarios? Are you calling for increased government regulation of the insurance industry in order to dictate to a greater extent how they run their business?
Third...
Can McDonald's prohibit me from eating Burger King food in their parking lot?
Can a movie theatre prohibit you from carrying in food and drinks that you hadn't purchased at the concession stand? Can the concert venue prohibit you from carrying in video cameras and recording equipment? Why do we accept that the owners in my two examples have a right to define the rules of admittance but you seem to think that McDonalds or Coca-Cola couldn't exercise similar rights if they chose to do so? And taking it a step further, if a company does have the right to define the rules of admittance to customers, then what restricts them from defining the rules of employment - which are codified in a much more specific and comprehensive employment contract - to whatever extent they want?
Finally, I wonder if people are mixing the idea of rights with the idea of common sense, which you cite. Nothing stops employees from attempting to change the terms of their employment, or petitioning their employer for a change in policy. If employees feel such a policy is ill-conceived and runs counter to common sense then they can certainly try to have it changed. But I suspect most people here generally feel the way to do so is not by trying to leverage government power in an attempt to coerce and regulate the decisions of others, but instead through persuasion and argumentation.
Unless of course you really do feel that the Constitution guarentees that you can carry your firearm onto any property owner's parking lot over their objections.
Erick,
I keep seeing you refer to S.B 43 as allowing people to carry their guns into someones business buildings or establishments.
Nice spin guy. The bill only ever covered people keeping weapons in their vehicles, out in the parking lots. Totally different idea, than the one you are cooking up for public dissemination. Parking lot - inside the business. Think now -it's not that hard to locate the loss of logic track in your diatribe. You need to argue the pertinent facts and then tell us what you were really after in this article and the resulting debate. Smoke and mirrors is fine for some folks; some of us need to figure out where people are really arguing a point from. To this stage in the process, your actual motives are suspect in the worst sort of way. Previous to this you displayed a better intellect than this article portrays. Please feel free to talk badly about me - I'm sure I am not nearly as astute as you and so deserve it to no end. Or not.
William Cleveland
If you're trying to persuade, your tone's not helping. If you're trying to vent, well, your tone's not helping there, either.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Mr Cleveland, I'm reading you to say that the parking lot is 'outside the business' and offlimits of the business's weapon's policy. Is that right?
If the parking lot is owned by the business, I fail to see how there is a difference. Are you saying that property owners only have the rights to determine who and what is on their property if it's inside a building structure? That they have no rights to the rest of their land? I like to believe I have the right to kick someone out of my driveway if I feel the need to.
I think some are trying to spin this as opposing the law makes you anti-2A. That's not the case. It's a property rights issue and what they are allowed to do with their property. This proposal is essentially treating big business different than small business or individuals. That's a liberal stance on property rights that I'm not willing to take. To say that you have the right to determine who and what is on your property UNLESS you're a big business is absurd in my mind. If you own the property, you choose what you do with it.
As for disabling your constitutional rights, it's not. This has gone through the court system so many times when it comes to 1A. You are not being stripped of your rights since you are not required to be there. You can carry a gun outside the parking lot, at home, but not on their property. You are not required to work for the company, shop there, or even park there.
I'll support 2A rights everyday and I'm behind most of what the NRA does. But when it infringes on my property rights, it goes too far. I feel there are much bigger issues to tackle then this when it comes to gun rights. Can't have a gun in your car at work? Heck, I can't even purchase one in Chicago. How about some help up here?
you haven't been paying attention. The NRA has been clear that this is their next major issue and they will be holding people accountable for it for well over a year now.
Having finally started to lose in the courts, the gun banners have moved to focusing on businesses where they can quietly coerce liability-enfeebled managers into implementing policies that effectively deny people their constitutionally protected rights. Passing laws that require businesses to respect those second amendment rights is the only protection we'll get.
And any durn fools in the legislature who considered themselves friends of the NRA and couldn't forsee this as a possibility aren't friends of the NRA.
First, I'm an off and on NRA member and there's a wall full of guns about five feet away as I write. In this state everyone is armed much, maybe most of the time. We have one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the country; carry unless prohibited. That said, I would oppose this legislation, and I've had to deal with the precise question under our very expansive gun rights.
I would and have prohibited employees who could otherwise lawfully carry from carrying on State property as it is their workplace and a gun is not essential to their work. To the way of thinking of some, I am exposing them to risk because as a matter of law, I cannot prohibit the public from carrying except in the most limited circumstances. It was our determination that our best interest as an employer was served by prohibiting carriage unless the weapon was necessary to their job, e.g., cops, COs, game wardens, many remote area workers who needed bear defense, and others similarly situated. That gets to the crux of what's being left out in this discussion: a public accommodation is not private property in the same sense that your house is. It is private property in the sense that the owner can control its employees' conduct thereon.
Since they are my employees, I can prohibit carrying in the same way that I can prohibit their accessing porn on a work computer (1st Am), that I can prohibit their having contraband, e.g., controlled substances on their person or in their desk and can search at my discretion (4th Am.) or can compel them to make a statement that might incriminate them and fire them for refusing (5th Am.). All would do well to remember that these Constitutional rights control governmental actors. An individual, including a corporation, does not have to respect your rights to free speech, free association, carry a weapon, or be protected from search or seizure without a warrant.
A public accommodation, e.g., and office building or a mall or retail store, has less discretion in dealing with the members of the public that by opening its doors it has invited to use that accommodation. Through a network of laws, mostly anti-discrimination laws, the restrictions on governmental actors have been imposed on public accommodations but those restrictions must be narrowly tailored to further an articulated compelling governmental interest. If you own a public accommodation, your 1st Am. right to freedom of association is pierced to the extent that you cannot limit your association with persons because of their membership in a Constitutionally or statutorily protected class. Nothing would stop a government from determining that there is a compelling interest and with appropriately tailored law either compelling admission to a public accommodation of persons who are armed or denying admission to persons who are armed. For example, our law explicitly prohibits carrying in a licensed establishment; booze and guns don't mix, 2nd Am. notwithstanding, has been articulated as a compelling state interest.
Governmental actors are much more constrained by the Constitution than are public accommodations or private individuals, who are almost unrestrained. For example, I could and frequently did compel statements against interest and dismiss people for those statements, for refusing to make a statement, or for making an untruthful statement. Since I was a governmental actor, I did have to meet the Constitutional minima for due process and could not use such compelled statements should the person also face criminal prosecution for the act. See, the USSC's Garrity decision for an excellent discussion of the interplay of the rights of a public employer qua employer vs. its rights and duties as a governmental actor.
In sum, the State of Georgia could, I believe, find that it had a compelling interest in either permitting or prohibiting weapon carriage in a public accommodation without offending the 2nd Am. Whether it should do either is a legitmate and weighty public policy question, but it is not a Constitutional question so long as a compelling interest is shown and the legislation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
In Vino Veritas
Hi Moe,
I wasn't trying for any "tone" in my post and persuading or venting hadn't occurred to me at the time. Actually the "friqtard" comment in the article is what got my attention. Grown-ups don't usually revert to childish name calling, not if they actually have a logical point to convey. Emotional diatribes at their best distract from any reasonable argument. ie: Note to the NRA: Grow up [and if this weren't a family site, there'd be a "the . . . ." between those two]. Someone here needs to take their own advice.
As far as the gun issue goes, most people do and will carry weapons in their vehicles. That is a fact of life. It is not the governments place nor any employers place to ask if that is the case or not. If you have to ask why they do not have that right - further discussion with you on this subject is pointless.
The truth is that the 2nd Amendment rights that Americans have and hold reguire no defence. Discussions on the rights of employers and insurance companies fall under the umbrella of legislation passed for someones monetary benefit.
You won't change anyone else to your point of view on this subject nor will I. Remaining civil is a start to further rational conversations however and I remain convinced that Erick could use less name calling and a tad more civility. One should never emulate Democratic methodologys and mannerisms. But, that's just me. If I have offended anyone, oh well......
Best Regards,
William Cleveland
Neither am I agreeing, either: I don't know enough about the situation to really comment either way.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
regarding the right of an employer to regulate employee conduct. The 2nd Am. restrains governmental actors only, not private individuals or corporations. See my post above.
In Vino Veritas
1) I'm all for private property rights. If your employer doesn't want you to have a gun at work, fine. Don't bring one inside.
2) The trunk and glove-box of your car are considered an extension of your home under Georgia law. Therefore, having a loaded gun in either one is not considered a crime, even if you do not have a carry permit.
As a result, if the gun is kept in the glove box or the trunk, I have no issue with a law protecting the right to have it at your place of employment. However, just leaving an exposed gun in plain view (a moronic action in the first place) is inexcusable.
p.s. Most employers do not, in fact, own the property on which their business sits. For example, most Home Depot stores are actually leased space, not company-owned. If your employer wants to keep you from having a gun in your car in that parking lot, I've got two words: "Pound sand."
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
you're fired, and I would make it stick even if you had both the NRA and the ACLU defending you. The fact that the property is leased is irrelevant, as lessee you have the right to control it and quietly enjoy it. As a member of the public, your glove compartment may be private property, but as my employee parking at my sufferance in my parking lot, I can order you not to bring a weapon on my property and dismiss you if you disobey that order. You'd have a perfect right to come in on your day off with that gun in your glove compartment, you're a member of the public on your day off, but if I tell you not to bring it on a work day, you'd best respect that order.
In Vino Veritas
If the NRA had only included a provision/exemption to ban guns at gay weddings....the thought boggles the brain.
Before heads spin and green pea soup is projectile vomited....just kidding.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!