Drizzt
January 23, 2003, 07:11 PM
Littwin: What's the old saying? The more guns the merrier?
January 21, 2003
This is a story about a couple of wimps who don't get it.
This is a story about two Larimer County employees who were unaccountably upset when a concealed gun slipped out of the concealed holster of one of their co-workers. And the gun tumbled, unconcealed, down the stairs.
This is a story about two malcontents, who, I guess, didn't understand the privilege of working where they did - in a setting where, say, marriage licence clerks could carry their weapon of choice to work without fear of being persecuted for their belief that more guns, even tumbling-down-the- stairs guns, make it a safer workplace, a safer Colorado, a safer world.This is a story, all right.
And it all began last year with the bouncing Beretta, or maybe it was a dancing derringer. In any case, the gun bounced, it bounded, it danced, it landed and, yet, it did not discharge.
The fact that it did not discharge and no one was, um, killed did not deter the fearful employees from insisting that their safety was more important than the Second Amendment.
Instead of doing what you or I might do, purchase either your own gun or a bulletproof wardrobe, these two complained.
They whined to a superior about this incident - and another in which an employee was brandishing a gun in the lunchroom; you know how it is when your fries come out cold - and asked that guns be restricted at the workplace to those who might actually need them. This would include, I'm guessing, people who work in law enforcement, although, clearly, it can get pretty rowdy in any department. (If only Tracy Baker had been armed when they came after his hard drive.)
In Larimer County, where sex is not the issue, the county leaders immediately went to work. They assigned county staff to investigate what other cities and counties do to prevent violence in their offices.
The staff looked at policies around this great land and found that the typical procedure - and, yes, it shocked me, too - was to limit guns. And so, that's the spirit in which the original draft of the "Workplace Violence Prevention Policy" was composed.
But fortunately, when the proposal was circulated among county employees, a few saw the recklessness of this concept.
One was the sheriff, Jim Alderden, who ran for office vowing to issue concealed-weapons permits as quickly as his well-armed staff could deliver them. (Hey, you see how fast you can type when wearing a shoulder holster.)
Certainly, in Larimer County, they're aware that the legislature, once it finishes gutting higher education, will resume the important work of regulating, or rather deregulating, guns.
There are gun bills all over the Capitol. There is one that would weaken the post-Columbine law that closed gun show loopholes. There is a bill to ensure that localities couldn't override any state law on concealed carry. I mean, home rule is a wonderful concept, but only up to a point.
And there is, of course, the annual Ken Chlouber shall-issue bill, which came so close last time. This bill would standardize the concealed-weapons law, meaning that virtually anyone who's not a felon or a certified lunatic could get a permit. Of course, there are exceptions where you can carry - but why?
If the premise, as Sheriff Alderden puts it, is that we're safer with more guns in one setting, then we should be safer with more guns in every setting. So, why the no-guns-at-school exemption? Why the no-guns-in-public-buildings-with-metal-detectors exception? (This, by the way, should be a great boon for the metal detector industry, not to mention whoever makes those cups into which you dump your change.) Why, if you think about it, have the feds gone to all the bother of keeping guns off airplanes?
These are the questions in place in Larimer County. And now there's a new draft. The commissioners are expected to vote on a policy that would allow all county employees with concealed-weapons permits to take guns to work.
The stunning part is that guns are the only weapon you can take to the office. According to the proposal, "Any other object that has its primary purpose use as a weapon is . . . subject to exclusion from the workplace."
If it's a security issue, why use concealed weapons when a bazooka on the counter would seem to do the trick?
If it's a concern that a colleague might go postal - go Larimer? - wouldn't a knife in the boot prove helpful?
As we discuss this on a day honoring Martin Luther King Jr. - who may not, if memory serves, have been pro-gun - I can only hope Larimer goes all the way. It's one thing to allow your employees to carry concealed weapons. When is someone going to get the nerve to require it?
Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at (303) 892-5428 or e-mail him at littwinm@rockymountainnews.com.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_1687837,00.html
January 21, 2003
This is a story about a couple of wimps who don't get it.
This is a story about two Larimer County employees who were unaccountably upset when a concealed gun slipped out of the concealed holster of one of their co-workers. And the gun tumbled, unconcealed, down the stairs.
This is a story about two malcontents, who, I guess, didn't understand the privilege of working where they did - in a setting where, say, marriage licence clerks could carry their weapon of choice to work without fear of being persecuted for their belief that more guns, even tumbling-down-the- stairs guns, make it a safer workplace, a safer Colorado, a safer world.This is a story, all right.
And it all began last year with the bouncing Beretta, or maybe it was a dancing derringer. In any case, the gun bounced, it bounded, it danced, it landed and, yet, it did not discharge.
The fact that it did not discharge and no one was, um, killed did not deter the fearful employees from insisting that their safety was more important than the Second Amendment.
Instead of doing what you or I might do, purchase either your own gun or a bulletproof wardrobe, these two complained.
They whined to a superior about this incident - and another in which an employee was brandishing a gun in the lunchroom; you know how it is when your fries come out cold - and asked that guns be restricted at the workplace to those who might actually need them. This would include, I'm guessing, people who work in law enforcement, although, clearly, it can get pretty rowdy in any department. (If only Tracy Baker had been armed when they came after his hard drive.)
In Larimer County, where sex is not the issue, the county leaders immediately went to work. They assigned county staff to investigate what other cities and counties do to prevent violence in their offices.
The staff looked at policies around this great land and found that the typical procedure - and, yes, it shocked me, too - was to limit guns. And so, that's the spirit in which the original draft of the "Workplace Violence Prevention Policy" was composed.
But fortunately, when the proposal was circulated among county employees, a few saw the recklessness of this concept.
One was the sheriff, Jim Alderden, who ran for office vowing to issue concealed-weapons permits as quickly as his well-armed staff could deliver them. (Hey, you see how fast you can type when wearing a shoulder holster.)
Certainly, in Larimer County, they're aware that the legislature, once it finishes gutting higher education, will resume the important work of regulating, or rather deregulating, guns.
There are gun bills all over the Capitol. There is one that would weaken the post-Columbine law that closed gun show loopholes. There is a bill to ensure that localities couldn't override any state law on concealed carry. I mean, home rule is a wonderful concept, but only up to a point.
And there is, of course, the annual Ken Chlouber shall-issue bill, which came so close last time. This bill would standardize the concealed-weapons law, meaning that virtually anyone who's not a felon or a certified lunatic could get a permit. Of course, there are exceptions where you can carry - but why?
If the premise, as Sheriff Alderden puts it, is that we're safer with more guns in one setting, then we should be safer with more guns in every setting. So, why the no-guns-at-school exemption? Why the no-guns-in-public-buildings-with-metal-detectors exception? (This, by the way, should be a great boon for the metal detector industry, not to mention whoever makes those cups into which you dump your change.) Why, if you think about it, have the feds gone to all the bother of keeping guns off airplanes?
These are the questions in place in Larimer County. And now there's a new draft. The commissioners are expected to vote on a policy that would allow all county employees with concealed-weapons permits to take guns to work.
The stunning part is that guns are the only weapon you can take to the office. According to the proposal, "Any other object that has its primary purpose use as a weapon is . . . subject to exclusion from the workplace."
If it's a security issue, why use concealed weapons when a bazooka on the counter would seem to do the trick?
If it's a concern that a colleague might go postal - go Larimer? - wouldn't a knife in the boot prove helpful?
As we discuss this on a day honoring Martin Luther King Jr. - who may not, if memory serves, have been pro-gun - I can only hope Larimer goes all the way. It's one thing to allow your employees to carry concealed weapons. When is someone going to get the nerve to require it?
Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at (303) 892-5428 or e-mail him at littwinm@rockymountainnews.com.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_1687837,00.html