This post at QandO has some interesting commentary. The issue is related to the Georgia Bill HB 998 whose topic is the right to carry and hold a firearm in a personal vehicle which is legally parked on another person or entities property.
The summary of the bill:
The crux of the real world issue is employers denying access to employees who choose to carry firearms for self-defense. I have rarely ever read a justification that is reasonable for denying a person the right to defend themselves. The parking lot is not the place of work and there is no allowance in the legislation for allowing carry onto the work premise.
Employers take a certain level of liability for the safety of the employee while they are on the premise. The action of disallowing firearms in a vehicle goes beyond the reach of that liability. By forcing the employee to be unarmed at work (and the parking lot) and not being capable of rearming before they leave the site of employment the employer has forced the employee into a risk situation where the employer has no liability.
In fact the legislation provides for liability protection:
There is the argument of "find employment elsewhere if you don't like the rules." But I find that disingenuous. Where does one draw the line with making a reasonable living and providing themselves with self-defense? Especially when the companies reasoning is non-existent and by this legislation the company would have no liability.
As to private citizens, I just don't see this law as being enforceable. Then again, I don't see a person demanding that no one have vehicles in their parking spaces as enforceable either. I would say that the legislation goes over the top in some of the workings on this part.
The summary of the bill:
A BILL To be entitled an Act to amend Part 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the O.C.G.A, relating to carrying and possession of firearms, so as to provide a short title; to provide for legislative intent; to provide a definition; to provide that it shall be lawful for any person who may lawfully possess firearms to park a motor vehicle on any property set aside for the parking of a motor vehicle when the person is lawfully transporting and storing a firearm or firearms in the motor vehicle and the firearm or firearms are locked in or locked to the motor vehicle; to provide for certain civil immunity for occurrences which result from, are connected with, or are incidental to the use of a firearm which is being lawfully transported and stored in a locked motor vehicle on any property set aside for the parking of motor vehicles; to provide for an exception to such immunity; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.From what I've read, this is a very broad law. McQ at QandO essentially argues that the legislation is government overreach in forcing private citizens to allow firearms on their property when they don't want them there. I see his point to a certain extant. Though the discussion in the comments goes other places, I'll stick with a utilitarian argument, which appeared to be undesirable in the comments. (Note: philosophical discourse without any reasoning related to the real world is at best mental gymnastics and at worse mental masturbation.)
The crux of the real world issue is employers denying access to employees who choose to carry firearms for self-defense. I have rarely ever read a justification that is reasonable for denying a person the right to defend themselves. The parking lot is not the place of work and there is no allowance in the legislation for allowing carry onto the work premise.
Employers take a certain level of liability for the safety of the employee while they are on the premise. The action of disallowing firearms in a vehicle goes beyond the reach of that liability. By forcing the employee to be unarmed at work (and the parking lot) and not being capable of rearming before they leave the site of employment the employer has forced the employee into a risk situation where the employer has no liability.
In fact the legislation provides for liability protection:
(e) No person or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence which results from, is connected with, or is incidental to the use of a firearm which is being lawfully transported and stored in a locked motor vehicle on any property set aside for the parking of motor vehicles as provided in subsection (d) of this Code section, unless such person or owner of the business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of such firearm.I'd like to hear a logical reason for disallowing the storage of the firearm in a vehicle parked on a company premise. I won't accept that this will encourage violence at the work place. That argument assumes that the person couldn't return home to get a firearm or ignore the rule in the first place. The reason, "just because I don't like guns" isn't an argument. I don't particularly like not being unable to defend myself either.
There is the argument of "find employment elsewhere if you don't like the rules." But I find that disingenuous. Where does one draw the line with making a reasonable living and providing themselves with self-defense? Especially when the companies reasoning is non-existent and by this legislation the company would have no liability.
As to private citizens, I just don't see this law as being enforceable. Then again, I don't see a person demanding that no one have vehicles in their parking spaces as enforceable either. I would say that the legislation goes over the top in some of the workings on this part.
1 comment:
Disclaimer: I would like a law that makes it illegal for my employer to prohibit me from carrying at work in the same way I like the ban on smoking in a bar. It makes my life more convenient, but I think they both trample property rights in particular and freedom generally.
That said, I would like to suggest that the government, at the very least, stop being hypocritical (I know, I know...but a guy can dream). Here’s the thing, if the government can 1) demand that a private property/business owner allow FAs onto his/her property and 2) can limit/eliminate his/her liability for the misuse of those FAs then I would like to see the government apply that to all employers...including their-dirty-selves.
Why is it again that I cannot carry into a police station? How about the State Legislative building (in my state those are restricted places). What, exactly, is the reason my legally licensed arse is a threat to the high and mighty legislatures and police by not to my employer?
Now I'm going to go urinate into a strong headwind and expect to stay dry.
Post a Comment