Billmanweh
Member
But that's the argument I'd lay out.
I think it's an interesting idea, and I'd love to see how it'd play out. I just can't believe it hasn't been tried already.
But that's the argument I'd lay out.
Read the Constitution, it affirms my right to bear arms.
It's my understanding that they (employers) have a duty to prevent your being sexually harassed. Similarly, they should have a duty to provide, best as possible, a safe workplace. When somebody gets robbed & shot, they've failed, particularly when they've removed your ability to self defend.Billmanweh stated;
...that employers have the right to keep you from carrying a gun, they don't have the right to sexually harass you.
So Susanna Gratia Hupp was unprepared in mindset as well as practice. Hmmmmm. Seems a little harsh to me.the feel that they are completely unprotected if they do not have a gun on their person and they call places where guns are not allowed "victim zones." This shows a significant defeatest attitude on the part of the gun owners. Not only that, it shows a lack of preparation on their parts, both in mindset and practice.
Actually they're easy to get, outside of NYC. Most of the state is shall-issue, for all intents and purposes.assuming the state has determined you are OK to carry by issuing a carry permit. Which is very hard to get in NY.
It's my understanding that they (employers) have a duty to prevent your being sexually harassed. Similarly, they should have a duty to provide, best as possible, a safe workplace. When somebody gets robbed & shot, they've failed, particularly when they've removed your ability to self defend.
the employer knows that his insurance will try not to cover 'wrongful death' lawsuits if something happens on his property. (have any idea how many Insureds claim "No Guns kept on premises" to the insurance companies? i see inspections every day for policy holders that state they dont have guns.)
therefore, the employer feels they must make every effort to provide a 'weapon free, non-hostile work environment'. so never mind the fact that more people are attacked with golf clubs like the ones sitting in the bosses office, your slugs retrieved from the ground at the firing range pose more of a 'threat' and need to be removed, IMMEDIATELY!
I'd be curious to hear that as well. I just can't imagine you winning a lawsuit like that. They have every right to not allow someone to carry a gun on their property. And knowing that you can't carry, you choose to work there.
I'm sure that some bright young attorney could win such a suit, based on some implied warranty of personal protection.
Where does the right of a company end and the rights of the employee begin? If we accept the notion that private companies have total control over their people, and can do whatever they wish-then why do we have organizations like OSHA and others to force companies to follow safety regs? Could the companies have just told the government to buzz off and tell their workers either accept the danger of the job or leave?
THAT'S what really torques my nuts about most business policies.
I can very well understand an employeer asking employees not to carry at work. Not so much because it's a liability but because it could be a distraction. But to say I can't drive to work, and I for one have in the past had a job where I commited 50 miles each way, leave my legal firearm safetly stored in the trunk of my car, and then after my day is done retrieve said weapon and then go about my business.