By Icarus

August 23, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

The Frigtards are back.

By Anonymous

August 23, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

But I thought the right’s favorite slogan was “workers HAVE no rights!”

They’re on company property, aren’t they? Therefore they have no constitutional rights except those the employer chooses to honor. And hey, “They can always quit.”

Does the blatancy of the hypocrisy even bother anyone any more?

By Jerry

August 23, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Most intelligent people know that the Constitution concerns the relationship between the government and its citizens, not between citizens themselves, and thus it has no relevence to whether a property owner may bar firearms from his or her property. The NRA types may be misguided fanatics, but many are intelligent. Their raising the Second Amendment is simply disingenuous. I certainly would object if a guest or employee attempted to bring a gun onto my property! In fact, I’d escort him or her off immediately.

By European-American

August 23, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

If people can’t protect themselves when driving to and from work by lawfully having a gun in their car, then they risk unnecessary exposure to people who would do them harm. If a company won’t permit an employee to store a gun in their vehicle, then the employee can’t protect himself or herself during their commute.

Non-law abiding citizens won’t heed the law anyway. The net result is that if you oppose the proposed law, you are expressing that you believe criminals should be able to have guns but not the law abiding general public.

Everyone said the sky would fall when Georgia passed the concealed carry law allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Know what? The sky didn’t fall and people didn’t go out on the streets shooting each other just because they hold CC permits. Rather than using your emotion as a guide to assess the proposed law, why not use the known history associated with the CC law?

This new law simply extends the right of the law abiding to be able to protect themselves during their commute.

Some will disagree with this—primarily two groups. The first group is people who are afraid of guns. If you are, then don’t own them. The second group is criminals.

Some of us would like to be prepared in the event a criminal tries to take our life. Don’t prevent us from doing that.

By GodHatesTrash

August 23, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Nowadays, most people that own guns, especially handguns, are paranoid loser misfits suffering from mental and emotional illness. It is certainly smart on the part of an employer to protect him/herself and his/her employees from the paranoid rage of mentally ill employees. Workplace shootings and stalkings are epidemic, since there are so many mentally ill rednecks in our country, especially in Dicksea.

By European-American

August 23, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

GHT/Pope rednecks/Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda seems to know more than God’s apportioned share about mentally ill rednecks, paranoid loser misfits, etc. so I won’t argue with that.

Hey, maybe we could outlaw, say, murder. That would stop it. Everyone would realize that murder was illegal, then they’d stop killing other people. Then folks would have no needs for guns to defend themselves since murder would be illegal.

Why didn’t I think of that before? No need for the Taurus Liberty then.

By Sue

August 23, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

It’s probably that ghtpraaq [see above] is actually just one person that is suffering from multiple personality disorder but is blogging away down in Miledgeville.

By GodHatesTrash

August 23, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

I think we can all agree that the person posting as “European-American” is too unstable to own a gun without endangering innocent people. Yet s/he owns one, or given the level of paranoia displayed, probably several.

Would you want to be a co-worker on the day this kkklown gets laid off, and decides to take his/her hate/anger/misanthropy out on the job?

Or would you want to be the Hispanic or black pizza delivery person that rings the doorbell after Eurotrash has a six-pack or two under his/her belt?

By Craig

August 23, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

You have a right to legally carry a gun during your commute. But your employer has property rights to determine safety on their property as well. If they choose to have non-firearms premises, that is their right. Your rights are limited when they interfere with someone else’s rights. Don’t like the fact your employer doesn’t want guns on the property, get another job. Or perhaps ask your employer to create a check-in at the gate or lobby.

The nuts who are trying to force this on the public clearly do not understand the Constitution. They love to use it in their arguments but forget to actually look at the other 99% of the document they are ignoring. For those who wish to use the power of government to force this on property owners perhaps they would not mind me coming on their property freely speaking about how they are completely misguided and know nothing about the Constitution. If they can force their 2nd Amendment rights on my property I can force my 1st Amendment rights on their property.

By Craig also

August 23, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

If you want to pack a gun when you’re commuting, go ahead. But if you attempt to bring it on my property, you will be escorted off. And if you disagree with my decision, you are perfectly free not to come to my property. But I guess that’s too simple…

By john

August 23, 2007 7:55 PM | Link to this

This is not a property rights issue, much as those opposed to it would like it to be. It is an employment issue. And, if you don’t think the government should meddle in the employer/employee relationship, then explain why we have OSHA, minimum wages, worker’s compensation, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Right to Work Law, etc. etc. etc. The same government that can tell an employer that it has to pay a certain wage can tell an employer that it cannot take an employment action against an employee who chooses to keep a gun in his car.

By backfromiraq

August 23, 2007 8:45 PM | Link to this

Having a no gun rule in an employee handbook as a condition of employment is one thing. I have worked for many firms that had just such a rule. But in 40 years of employment I never have a boss try and “take my gun”. So what’s the point? The arguement is full of sound and furry signifying nothing. Move on.

By EA

August 23, 2007 9:35 PM | Link to this

To try to use the Constitution as a reason this law couldn’t pass muster shows your lack of understanding of constitutional law.

The Constitution doesn’t provide that a small business has to have a ramp for handicapped people. But the Americans for Disability Act—passed by Congress-does. A similar law to the one being considered in Georgia was passed in Oklahoma. There has been no constitutional crisis in that state.

In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Maybe you don’t own guns but chances are either the neighbor to your left or right does. Have you ever had cause to fear your neighbor? No, because lawful gun owners are just that.

Should you ever desire to approach the subject from a statistical and logical standpoint rather than an emotional one [you won’t], read “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. And if a neighbor ever saves your life because s/he has a firearm, remember to show your outrage after your life is saved because I know you want to be consistent.

By Zathras

August 23, 2007 10:51 PM | Link to this

Guns in company lots are just the latest fundraising vehicle for the gun-rights groups. The bottom line for these groups is the bottom line; they have staff to pay, direct mail firms to keep retained, chief executives to keep up in a style befitting heavyweight influence peddlers.

You need to send them money. You need to send them money now! That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

By Craig

August 24, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Clearly saying the Constitution should NOT be used for not allowing this bill to pass shows me you’ve failed to read it and understand precedent. Your rights are NOT always guaranteed. Your rights CAN be limited. When they interfere with the security and well-being of a business or property the owners can restrict those items. Again, your free speech rights are no always guaranteed on business property. You do not have the right to assemble freely on someone else’s property without their permission. Etc. Etc. Again, please do some reading. It really does broaden your mind.

By European-American

August 24, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Craig, you discredit yourself with your own comments. We all know the U.S. Constitution can be interpreted any number of ways by non-constructionist judges. I’m not discussing hypotheticals with you—I’m discussing facts, i.e. current laws that are on the books, in effect, being applied, real, here, now—I hope you follow.

In 1998, Kentucky`s Attorney General determined that state law prohibits employers from prohibiting people from having firearms in their vehicles. Minnesota’s Right-to-Carry law (2003) prohibits employers from prohibiting carry permit holders from having firearms in their vehicles. Laws protecting the right of any lawful possessor of a firearm to have a firearm in a personally-owned vehicle were passed in Oklahoma and Alaska in 2005, and Mississippi in 2006.

So these laws are already in effect in other states. Sometimes the laws are challenged after passage (common with many laws) but these laws have passed in several states. Georgia is just the latest to consider such a bill.

Clearly you don’t like the legislation but that doesn’t change the fact that these laws are in effect in other states and these state laws have NOT been found to violate the U.S. Constitution. By these facts, your points are not valid.

In the future, you can blog your feelings, emotions, sentiments, concerns, aspiration, goals, desires, and sympathies—but laws are laws. They, like facts, are stubborn things. Don’t suggest there is a constitutional problem with the laws—some of which have been on the books for years. On a prima facie basis, you lose your argument.

When you do this, you discredit yourself.

By MetroMole

August 24, 2007 10:32 PM | Link to this

BUSINESS FIRES BACK AT NRA; DUMPS NRA LOBBYIST WHO ALSO HAD BUSINESS CLIENTS

http://www.peachpundit.com/2007/08/24/lobbied-out-of-a-job/

“The Greater Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce has begun notifying concerned members of that organization’s Board that the business organization has officially and formally fired their lobbyist, Raymon White, who also represents the National Rifle Association.

MACoC CEO Sam A. Williams has been under intense pressure from members of his Board of Directors who have insisted that the group’s relationship with the NRA Georgia lobbyist be severed permanently. Remains to be seen if any other business clients of Mr. White follow suit.”

Comment: rightbeforeleft // Aug 24, 2007 at 5:11 pm

“No one under the dome deserves less pity than Mr. White, I am glad to see him get some comeuppance and hopefully there will be more retribution yet to come.”

By Messenger

August 25, 2007 12:16 AM | Link to this

From http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2007/08/lobbiedoutofajob.html#comments

I’m sorry Raymon has brought this on himself. He was an early and strong supporter of mine and we were good friends until he fell under the influence of the National NRA leadership. Clearly he could not serve both the Chamber and national NRA.

Your readers would do well to remember that SB 43 came from Washington, not Georgia. The GA Sport Shooting Association, our state chapter of the NRA, the Gun Owners of America of which I am a member, and most local and state wide businesses oppose SB 43.

The national NRA types made their job even more difficult last session by literally demanding that we stop what we were doing on the 39th evening and take up SB 43. We did in fact have to recess the Senate to discuss what to do and how to respond to them.

At that point nearly half of the Republican members were ready to vote no because of their arrogance and demanding posture. Our feeling was and is that your Senate will not be dictated to by people from outside this state, regardless of the subject. Had we caved at that moment, we would never again have been independent of them or any other aggressive group that might have wanted something. After we let them know we would not consider the bill, they said if we voted for adjournment, that would be considered a vote against their bill and we would receive an F rating from them for the session.

They recruited Sen JB Powell to demand we have a recorded vote on adjournment that night, but the LT Gov ignored him and we left as we normally do. I hope JB got 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal of the Senate.

Now they are cranking back up for a fight. I have received in the last three days at my home some pre printed post cards they sent to their members to send to me. Pre printed even to having each return address printed already. All the person has to do is sign their name and add a stamp.

I remain firm in my belief that this is a bad bill, that the local NRA folks opposing it is key to its defeat and that private property rights are paramount in the discussion. The state has no business telling me that if I dont want a product on my property, I still have to allow it. Individual property owners should have that final say.

Posted by Sen. John Douglas, August 24, 2007 09:34 PM

By Craig also

August 25, 2007 7:15 AM | Link to this

Thank you for your courage Senator Douglas.

By Freudian Slips

August 25, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

This bill would lead to disaster. Why? What if the company was Publix Supermarkets?

Suppose they laid off one of those halfwit bagboys? Imagine a helmeted, yet digruntled publix ex-employee retard racing out to his car to grab his 36 shot carbine; and to protect themselves, customers and normal employees running out to their cars to grab their own 19-shot machine pistols.

Why, there’d be a shoot out at the shopping cart corral…….

gotcha

By rightbeforeleft

August 25, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Senator Douglas should be commended for his courage yet again. A true statesman does not back down in the face of intimidation, especially when he knows it will cost him politically. IF you are lucky enough to call him your senator, please write and thank him for his efforts.

By GodHatesTrash

August 25, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

The overwhelming majority of people paranoid enough to carry handguns in their automobiles have severe anti-social personality disorders. Most of them are substance abusers of one (or more) kind or another. Virtually all of them suffer from severe paranoia and anger and emotional control issues. And generally, they ain’t the sharpest knives in the drawer…

How do most Georgia employers manage to hire people that emotionally and mentally defective that are not only a danger to themselves, but others?

Rather than hire native Georgians, with all their problems, they usually hire people from out of state, and Mexicans.

By Curious Observer

August 25, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

Question for you Senator Douglas:

Do you, as a Georgia state senator, have the right, provided under Georgia law, to carry a weapon in your vehicle on the grounds of the State Capitol? Can you leave a weapon in your vehicle while attending to senate business at the state capitol?

Just wondering and would appreciate your answer.

By Matlock

August 25, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this

You folks who oppose the bill must get started early Monday morning to get the legislature to remove the lawful ability of teachers to carry weapons onto school property (provided they are in a locked motor vehicle). The school is their place of employment, so you should oppose their right to carry onto school grounds. What about our children?!

Here is the proper section of the Georgia Code.

§ 16-11-127.1. Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on school property

(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to:

“Teachers and other school personnel who are otherwise authorized to possess or carry weapons, provided that any such weapon is in a locked compartment of a motor vehicle or one which is in a locked container in or a locked firearms rack which is on a motor vehicle.”

By Curious Observer

August 25, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

Senator Douglas, would you sponsor a bill that would repeal the “teacher provision” that Matlock cites above (assuming it is correct)?

Of all the places of employment where guns shouldn’t be allowed, surely a school would be it, right?

Thanks for your attention..

By Craig also

August 26, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

The difference, of course, Mr. Matlock, is that a public school is, well, public. So the legislature gets to set the rules.

My business, on the other hand, is private, so I get to set the rules. It’s simple…

By Lee

August 26, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

Oh, good grief.

Did any of you talking chimps actually read the bill? I thought not.

Bottom line, if the parking lot has open access to the public, then an employer cannot enforce a no guns policy in the parking lot by it’s employees. If the employee has to enter the employer’s property that has restricted access, such as a gate and guard, then the employer can restrict the employee’s carrying of a weapon onto the private property of the employer.

What is so hard to understand about that?

By Be a Safe Employer

August 26, 2007 7:46 PM | Link to this

Don’t hire any rednecks - you’ll get more work done, too.

By Craig

August 27, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Hyphenated American,

Clearly you’ve discredited yourself with your own argument. Just because a state passes a law does not mean it is Constitutional. Even laws on the books for years are not necessarily Constitutional. So please do not give me a list of states that have similar laws and then tell me by default that they are Constitutional. Again, please take time and read. You’ll see a nice long history of Constitutional law, precedent, and facts that show that many laws on the books exist and even years after could be taken to SCOTUS to be overturned. In simple terms - just because a law exists does not make it Constitutional.

By European-American

August 27, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Let me see if I can get this straight. If multiple laws in multiple states have not been found to be unconstitutional then that doesn’t mean they ARE constitutional. That’s like that joke about “I cannot prove you did not kill John F. Kennedy.” Under your circular logic nothing could ever be proven to be constitutional. If you think these on-the-book laws are unconstitutional, then why don’t you challenge them in court? Why hasn’t the Brady Center or all the other such groups? Perhaps they have and they have failed because they are certainly well funded. It’s funny how you folks will find a constitutional right to an abortion but twist the document to your liking when things work against you.

A business owner’s private property rights are not affected by a law preventing the micro-management of the lawful contents of a person’s privately-owned automobile. Moreover, an employer’s private property interests do not trump a person’s right to have a firearm available for self-defense, if needed, during the daily commute to and from work. As with all civil rights, employers and owners of commercial property may not act with disregard to the rights of citizens. Reasonable accommodation is the foundation of the protection of all civil rights.

A commercial landowner is subject to numerous limits, imposed by the federal, state and local governments, on what may and may not occur on its property.

Employees have a legitimate private property interest where their automobiles and their contents are concerned. In our legal system, property rights extend to property other than land.

As a taxpayer you are effectively an employer of school teachers and staff. So my question is, do you think teachers should have the right to carry guns onto school property provided they are locked in their vehicles?

The fact is you don’t believe private citizens should have the right to own guns under any circumstances. You would support a repeal of the Second Amendment and you are obfuscating that fact with comments about “your business.”

The truth is if you don’t know any more about human behavior than you’ve displayed on this forum, you don’t have much of a business.

You’re aligned with a person who calls himself “Got Hates Trash”. Stupidity by association.

Case closed.

By David

August 27, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

Atlanta is complaing about a lack of funds, but they’re not looking in the right direction on how to spend what we have here. For instance, the highways are filthy. Atlanta should be ashamed of all the trash blowing. We have a littering law and don’t even enforce it. Can you imaging how much money the city could have made if this law was enforced many years ago? And instead of paying for landscaping on the highways and intersections, easements on the curbs, abandoned vacant lots of trash, why not use the jail criminals? Put them out in the bad weather and make them do it. Make them earn their keep. If nothing else, it’ll cut down on crime when they know what they’ll be put up to once they get in other than sitting on their behinds and getting a college degree. But of course our city will be able to once again hold it’s head up and not feel ashamed of the filth. We need to all contact our city officials about these kinds of ways to enhance the look of the city that can save us money. Please don’t tell me, they’re doing enough already.