TexasCHLforum.com

That list of stuff the company wants to know is wildly intrusive, and I wouldn't put up with it. But I also am in a position I don't have to. It is certainly more invasive than I remember getting into the military was, or getting a security clearance.

Given the unreasonable attempt to punish (via nonhiring or firing) clearly law abiding people who might exercise their self-defense rights (I don't think they are asking CHL info so they can pat him on the head), I would not be adverse to seeing the Legislature weight in on this a bit.

But the Leg will need to fix a couple other things. I suspect an even deeper reason for this invasion of privacy (other than general hostility to firearms people) is the fear of liability. Because of the general legal principle that whoever-has-a-big-checkbook-must-be-liable-for-whatever-happened-to-my-idiot-client, corporations are very skittish about even tiny amounts of probability in certain areas.

For example, a couple years ago in Indianapolis a would-be robber took hostage an unarmed "security" guard in a Kroger grocery store. The store assistant manager shot the would-be robber, killing him. Good shoot legally...but it was against Kroger's policy to have a gun. Because of community reaction, Kroger held off firing the manager, but after awhile he "resigned" on "good terms" with Kroger, which to me says they probably asked him to leave with some severance pay and maybe some health insurance for awhile, making it clear he was going no where in the Kroger system.

Subsequently, the robber's mother sued Kroger (and I think the manager) because Kroger failed to enforce its no-gun policy and that caused the death of her son. Her would-be robber son, who also had a hefty criminal record if I recall correctly.

Then the "security guard" also sued Kroger and the manager for the emotional trauma she suffered because she witnessed the death of the would-be robber. Yes, the "security guard" who was supposed to be guarding the store and its employees, and whose bacon was saved by the store employee. (I think someone should take a hard look at her and possible connections between her and the robber; when the smoke cleared it turned out the robber had no gun, had grabbed the security guard and stuck something in her back and was bluffing. The manager did not know it was a bluff, so good shoot, but sounds awfully fishy to me.)

Both of these are idiot lawsuits, but they were filed by plaintiffs with lawyers, and Kroger and the manager had to deal with them in court, costing them time and money better spent elsewhere. Indiana has a civil immunity provision somewhat like Texas, but still the manager has to go to court, and I don't think it applies to Kroger. I believe from reading various articles that Kroger had a good case based on precedents in Indiana law that would mean they are not liable even if they weren't enforcing their own policies, but they still have to jump through the hoops.

Thus if we require businesses to not generally disarm their employees, we should also render businesses free of liability if one of those employees does in fact legally defend himself.