Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > January > 04 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USAnother fight over who controls the glove compartment of your car
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
We hear tell that the National Rifle Association plans another, but bigger, push to pass a bill this session that would allow employees to keep firearms in their automobiles on company parking lots. Many companies currently bar employees from carrying weaponry onto corporate turf.
The bill would set up the re-match of a classic fight between two conservative principles: the right of property owners to control their land without government interference, versus the right of individuals to preserve their right to bear arms in a society that’s increasingly dominated by the rules of the workplace.
This time, to avoid provoking big corporations, the bill would exempt companies that have their parking lots secured by gates and fences. Opposition from corporations did the bill in last year.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Ed Stone
January 5, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Workers are not necessarily worried about their physical safety while in the fenced parking lot of their “big corporation.” They are worried about their safety while commuting to and from work. They are worried about their safety while stopping for gas or groceries. Big corporation work rules banning firearms from parking lots effectively disarm company employees well away from company property, leaving them defenseless outside the “secured area” of their parking lot.
Workplace rules banning firearms do absolutely nothing to enhance the safety of employees. Such rules make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant. A corporation that ban firearms demonstrates a contempt for the lives and safety of its employees. By extending such a ban to the parking lot, a coporation demonstrates its contemptuous disregard for the safety of its employees even while they are away from work.
Ed Stone President Georgiacarry.org
By John Monroe
January 5, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this
To add to Mr. Stone’s comments, parking lot bans also restrict the outside activities of employees before and after work.
People’s lives are busy these days, and have to get their recreation in when their schedules allow it. Those that hunt or shoot recreationally are impacted by parking lot bans, because they can’t plan before or after work activities that involve firearms (e.g., no leaving directly for the hunting trip right after work on Friday).
By Keith Phillips
January 5, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
Another note: many companies that enact such a rule are often doing it primarily for insurance purposes; i.e., their lawyer(s) advised them to make a rule or risk being sued “if something bad happens.”
By Matt Knighten
January 5, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this
A simple solution to what Keith said is to include exemption to liability for the owner/employer.
The bill would allow firearms in thier parking lots and a simple addition that says the company or owner of the lot is not liable for damages from firearms that were kept in cars in their parking lot would remove all concerns they should have of insurance and lawyers.
By Anthony
January 5, 2007 7:43 PM | Link to this
It's ok, everybody...everyone will protect you, once you are inside the magic gates and, on the outside, the police can protect you. After all, you are not responsible for your own well-being...everyone else is....they'll save you. Wait..they've been disarmed, too. What to do..what to do...I know! Why don’t I take responsibility for myself, and everyone else do the same? We only need one rule..and that is, “mind your own business, and don’t bother anyone.
By Az
January 5, 2007 11:12 PM | Link to this
I’ve often wondered exactly HOW those unarmed and often undertrained security guards are supposed to protect me from a crazed armed gunman who comes into my workplace?
rolls eyes
Luckily…in this state, even if your employer DOES have a rule against guns in your vehicle, the worst they can do is fire you. You haven’t broken any laws.
By Kimber Jones
January 6, 2007 6:04 AM | Link to this
If “companies” are allowed to bar employees from storing guns in the glovebox, will their next step be “no freedom of speach while you eat”?
If an apartment owner refuses to rent to Blacks, it’s a civil rights violation and a federal crime, as is is “no guns in the glovebox”.
The only place “good liberals” may be found are hanging from the gallows.
By scott cockrell
January 6, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
This may seem harsh,but someone has to say,what others are afraid to.The term”good liberals”in reference to hanging from the gallows,is an overstatement of what “good”is defined by.I’m not against the comment or intent.I just feel that being shot for treason,is the”JUST PUNISHMENT”,the majority of democrats deserve.
By John W.
January 7, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
I am an employed at a local hospital and it is located in a “shady” area. We are not supposed to have firearms on the campus. The security is a joke, it consists of old men in security uniforms. There are smash and grabs occuring almost daily there. It is not safe walking across campus at night. I would feel much safer with protection.
By lewis casto
January 7, 2007 8:38 PM | Link to this
i could not agree more no busines as any busines in my privet live!and the constitution do’s not say that you’er rights end on privet property; just like why can an emplorier incurage thair people to vote fore a certon person; and just as thay can stop you from going to a particuler church,what to say. thay can’t violate the constitution.