TexasCHLforum.com

TX Rancher wrote:Many employers who really don’t have a stance either way on firearms in the parking lot will lobby against this legislation simply for principle…basically they will fight against anything that smacks of the state deciding what goes on in their business and on their property.

Now I’m all for citizens being able to store weapons in their vehicle while at work, whether they have a CHL or not…heck, I’m for carry anywhere and don’t think I should have to have a CHL or any other permission from my employer or government … but it is what it is.

I just bring the point up since I think it adds another angle to the whole issue…it’s not just guns vs no-guns…businesses see it as an infringement of their rights and will fight the bill no matter how its wrapped.

That doesn’t mean don’t go after it, just be prepared for the business lobbies to put on a full court press.

Furyataurus wrote:Why doesn't TX have something like this? Or do we? IMO, that would solve a problem of businesses posting those stupid 30.06 signs.

mr.72 wrote:

WildBill wrote:I was responding to one line that you posted. My point is that there law restricting our possession of certain items that do no harm to others and people accept these laws.

You mean, like guns.

mr.72 wrote:

WildBill wrote: Your possession of the asthma inhaler, critical to your health, does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but you have to get permission from the government to possess it. Our society seems to be okay with these restrictions.

I don't see how that bolsters the point you seem to have been making, or how it has anything to do with this discussion.

One can legally possess four items (which I pointed out), possession of which do not interfere with any other person's rights: a Bible, eyeglasses, an inhaler, and a pistol. Only one of these items can an employer ban you from possessing on their property without retribution.

Let's level the playing field.

mr.72 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

mr.72 wrote:As a society, we wouldn't stand for the banning of any property which is necessary for our basic human rights, whose possession does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but we do so with guns.

You just gave two perfect examples. Why does our society stand for requiring citizens to have to pay someone so that they can get permission to buy health-critical implements such as a pair of glasses or an asthma inhaler?

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.

mr.72 wrote:As a society, we wouldn't stand for the banning of any property which is necessary for our basic human rights, whose possession does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but we do so with guns.

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.

anygunanywhere wrote:

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

anygunanywhere wrote:

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. Aygunanywhere

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.

Out West wrote:In other words, if the no weapons rule made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves, doesn't the protection of the employees become the obligation and responsibility of the company?

mr.72 wrote:Nearly everyone agrees with private property rights. Not everyone agrees with your right to own a gun. But most will agree with your right to self defense, certainly when you are not on private property. So I hope we can begin to craft our side of the debate in terms of our right to self defense while en route to our employer's property.

mr. 72 wrote:In short, I think if my employer wants to post a 30.06 sign, they need to provide employees the right to store their guns on site safely. They need to allow the employee to bring in their own locker or safe, and then allow the employee to store a secured firearm on the premises.