TexasCHLforum.com

barres wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Owens wrote:Confession: I didn't read through the whole thread swo maybe this was stated erlier.

I don't see a solid reason why this can't be as simple as what is set up for say, schools, courthouses and the like.
You can carry UP TO the front door. Parking lots and sidewalks are public. Where does the private begin? At the

door. Thats where the 30.06 begins.

Whats so hard about that?

I know...what seems simple usaully isn't. I guess there are some that are more equal than others. Well, and lawyers.

Parking lots can be posted 30.06 too.

Anygunanywhere

He's saying 30.06 should be modified so that it has no effect on parking lots, just like sidewalks and parking lots are excluded from the premises of schools. The only problem with that idea is that it only protects employees from prosecution. The usual gist of "Parking Lot" bills is to protect the employees not only from prosecution but also from being fired.

I did not read that in his post. My interpretation neurons must not be firing.

Anygunanywhere

Owens wrote:Confession: I didn't read through the whole thread swo maybe this was stated erlier.

I don't see a solid reason why this can't be as simple as what is set up for say, schools, courthouses and the like.
You can carry UP TO the front door. Parking lots and sidewalks are public. Where does the private begin? At the

door. Thats where the 30.06 begins.

Whats so hard about that?

I know...what seems simple usaully isn't. I guess there are some that are more equal than others. Well, and lawyers.

Parking lots can be posted 30.06 too.

Anygunanywhere

mr.72 wrote:It's completely ridiculous to think that a CHL holder is likely to go on a shooting spree at his place of business.

It is way beyond ridiculous to think that a CHL holder who has decided to go on such a shooting spree, but will be convinced not to do so because of the employer's no-guns policy and their risk of being fired for possession of a firearm while at work.

This notion is patently absurd. Quite simply the law needs to be changed. We need legal protection so that no employer can prohibit any employee from the legal possession of any item or object which remains concealed and undetected, does not impede the employee's normal work, and does not impact any other person's free exercise of their own rights. I don't care if it is guns in cars, your inhaler or glasses, Bible, a lucky rabbit's foot you like to carry on your key chain, a picture of your grandpa, your lunch, a pocket copy of the Constitution, whatever inanimate thing that you can have on your person or in some other container that belongs to you, which remains concealed and does not do any harm to any other person.

No special law for guns, or pocket knives, pepper spray, or anything else. Across the board, if it's legal to own and carry on a public sidewalk, it is legal to own and carry at work.

Period!

Excellent.

Anygunanywhere

Furyataurus wrote: huh? I have no idea what your train of thought is. Did you read the rest of my post? I want CHL holders to be able to arm themselves regardless of what their employers say or have them sign or businesses that have a "no guns" sign that prevent CHL holders from conducting business just because they have a firearm.

I too want CHLers to be able to arm themselves.

Your post stated:

Employer's/Private property owners just don't want the liability of one of their employees going on a shooting spree.

I was not disagreeing with you. The fallacy of banning firearms from the workplace only creates victim zones.

Anygunanywhere

Furyataurus wrote:IMO, this has nothing to do with property rights or privacy rights at all. Employer's/Private property owners just don't want the liability of one of their employees going on a shooting spree.

Since when have gun ban policies that prevent individuals from defending themselves ever prevented any individual from going on a shooting spree?

Anygunanywhere

bdickens wrote:My own personal "workplace violence program" is that if anyone attacks me at work, I'm gonna get violent in return.

How violent is that?

Anygunanywhere

WildBill wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Where in my post did you see "same level of protection"? We just want employers to not strong arm us into being defenseless when their demands in no way make the workplace safer.

This quote was from CompVest's post.

WildBill wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Where in my post did you see "same level of protection"? We just want employers to not strong arm us into being defenseless when their demands in no way make the workplace safer.

This quote was from CompVest's post.

Now that I have adequate caffeine and food intake (I overslept) I am up to speed here.

Although I can not speak for Compvest, an individual can not ever truly rely on their employer for protection in the workplace. Workplace violence is one of the leading causes of on-the-job deaths and injury. OSHA requires a "workplace violence program" to make employees feel better. It kind of reminds me of gun free zone laws because that is essentially what it is.

Me, my opinion is that my employer will not keep me safe from violence just like my employer can not keep me safe from all hazards on the job. I am responsible for my safety. I am responsible for my lost time injury earlier this year. I am responsible for my safety from violence. If I believe I am in danger I will respond accordingly. I have acted affirmatively during scenarios where my life and others were in danger from workplace hazards.

I have been the pallbearer for a friend who died on the job from an "accident". Workplace safety should be first and foremost on our minds as an issue in the next legislative session.

I am a strong supporter of all things 2A. I support everything we plan on doing. I f concessions must be made, if we focus on schools, universities, and the workplace, I can do without OC until the revolu....er-umm...next legislative session.

Anygunanywhere

WildBill wrote:
BTW, what kind of protection from your employer would satisfy you? What would consider to be "the same level of protection" that you could give yourself?

The issue we are discussing here is focused on employers banning posession of firearms in personal vehicles. This act reduces an individual's ability to defend themselves to and from their place of employment. It has absolutely nothing to do with protection while in the workplace. My employer allows firearms in vehicles in the parking lot. We can not bring them onto the premises.

Where in my post did you see "same level of protection"? We just want employers to not strong arm us into being defenseless when their demands in no way make the workplace safer.

Employers use the "hire at will" excuse to intrude into our personal lives way too much. What I do at home or on my way to and from work is irrelevant to how I do my job. My employer should only be concerned with my personal life or habits when it interferes with my job performance or safety.

Anygunanywhere

WildBill wrote:

CompVest wrote: I don't believe an employer should be able to tell me I have to come to work unarmed and NOT provide the same level of protection I am capable of giving myself.

An employer can't "tell" you to come to work. Whether or not you go to work is your decision.

With attitudes like this nothing will ever change.

WildBill wrote:Since the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens, drawing this conclusion would be a very long leap.

I do not find it hard to make that connection. We are responsible for our own protection and I can think of very few here who rely on LEO for protection. We do rely on our own abilitites. Employers who force their beliefs on their employees and disarm them with strong armed extortion like tactics should themselves suffer the consequences if their employees are injured by their direct demands.

Aygunanywhere

bdickens wrote:I started a whole multi-page thread on this very issue a few months ago and got thoroughly jumped on by the "property rights" crowd.

I am with you, bdickens.

Anygunanywhere