No Handgun! - Who is responsible?

[Zombie]

If I were a victim or family member of a deceased victim, I'd damned sure sue them for failure to ensure the safety and security of people on their property!

I agree. I am also one of the people here that I know for a fact has been begging for a rewrite of policy and such to switch it to no illegal weapons or something allowing those licensed and obeying the law to protect ourselves.

 

[inactive]

Private property rights do not usurp individual rights.

But, they do. Many of our individual rights can be limited when you are on someone else's property. We choose whether or not not we want to go there. I can prohibit guns, or pink shirts, or blue trucks from being on my private property if I so choose.. I can limit your speech, limit religious expression, even discriminate by age race or gender.

Of course an employer has different standards on the race, age, gender thing... but they still have authority over their private property.


But I am in agreement that the employer should be held responsible for not ensuring the safety of the employees. But as to whether they should or should not be able to ban firearms, sure.. let 'em. It's stupid, but you can choose to be stupid. I think we are on the same page, but with different semantics regarding rights.

 

[cinman14]

The local and federal government is already taxing companies to death... Okla just announced they are moving from the lowest unemployment tax bracket to the highest (what happened to somewhere in the middle)..

Why not just move ahead and have governments start telling private employers that they can no longer decide if employees can carry a gun while at work...

Lets not stop there.. Make it mandatory that all companies allow legally licensed citizens that make deliveries to their business legal to carry as well... That way if I'm there delivering and "something goes south" I can be armed as well...

Yeah, that's the answer...... Make companies liable for the actions of others... What a great idea.....

 

[Stingray]

Private property rights do not usurp individual rights.

But, they do. Many of our individual rights can be limited when you are on someone else's property. We choose whether or not not we want to go there.

I agree completely. If any person has a problem with a "no guns" rule, they have the option of not going there. On my property I make the rules. On your property you make the rules. I have no problem with that. If I have a problem with the rules at any given location, gun related or not, I'll just not go there.

-S

 

[Glocktogo]

But, they do. Many of our individual rights can be limited when you are on someone else's property. We choose whether or not not we want to go there. I can prohibit guns, or pink shirts, or blue trucks from being on my private property if I so choose.. I can limit your speech, limit religious expression, even discriminate by age race or gender.

Of course an employer has different standards on the race, age, gender thing... but they still have authority over their private property.


But I am in agreement that the employer should be held responsible for not ensuring the safety of the employees. But as to whether they should or should not be able to ban firearms, sure.. let 'em. It's stupid, but you can choose to be stupid. I think we are on the same page, but with different semantics regarding rights.

I mostly agree with you. I just don't think it's ethical to restrict another's right to defend themselves based on another's prejudices. If you're willing to accept the duty to povide protection for them, then I agree that the property owner has the right to restrict them and has met the ethical standards to do so without civil jeopardy.

 

[Glocktogo]

The local and federal government is already taxing companies to death... Okla just announced they are moving from the lowest unemployment tax bracket to the highest (what happened to somewhere in the middle)..

Why not just move ahead and have governments start telling private employers that they can no longer decide if employees can carry a gun while at work...

Lets not stop there.. Make it mandatory that all companies allow legally licensed citizens that make deliveries to their business legal to carry as well... That way if I'm there delivering and "something goes south" I can be armed as well...

Yeah, that's the answer...... Make companies liable for the actions of others... What a great idea.....[/QUOTE]

Who said they should be liable for the actions of others? We're talking about holding them liable for their failure to act (provide a safe and secure environment).

 

[Glocktogo]

I agree completely. If any person has a problem with a "no guns" rule, they have the option of not going there. On my property I make the rules. On your property you make the rules. I have no problem with that. If I have a problem with the rules at any given location, gun related or not, I'll just not go there.

-S

I agree with your premise. But if the property owner is inviting the public onto their property and restricting their right to defend themselves there, do you agree that they may be held civilly liable if the public is injured or killed? I believe it's unethical to disarm the public on your property, and then fail to provide for their protection. This is no different than providing for their safety in my opinion.

 

[redmax51]

Where is JB when you need him?

I saw him chasing an ambulance down the street.

 

[Schuster]

I have been thinking about this scenario for a while now. For my job I can't carry, so if something happens I feel that my employer has now taken responsibility for my safety by not letting me carry and if something ever does happen this would be my stance. It shouldn't matter in any case whether private or public, it is the same for if someone gets hurt on your property you are responsible.

 

[ruckerduck]

I f someone is on a company's property and the injured by, let's say a broken toilet, they are liable. Why wouldn't they be if you are injured on their property by a bullet?