However: such incidents seem to be extraordinarily rare, compared to the deranged employee who gets fired (usually with good cause), and comes back a few days later and goes on a rampage. People that are planning to commit mass murder tend not to follow company rules, for some odd reason. Employees who can get out to the parking lot and get a gun would actually be pretty useful in those situations, where lives are lost while waiting for the police to arrive.
More importantly, there are people who have to drive through bad neighborhoods to or from work, and these employer rules either require employees to park a long ways from work (increasing the risk that someone might break into the vehicle and steal the gun), or take their chances going to and from work. This isn't really an issue for me, even though my employer has such a rule, partly because I telecommute most days, and partly because there just isn't enough crime around here to make having a gun in the car at all times terribly compelling.
But there are people who aren't that lucky. They live in places that are a lot rougher than Boise (although Nampa and Caldwell at their worst look pretty good compared to even "nice" parts of California), or may have particular situations that require them to carry. I have a co-worker whose soon-to-be ex-wife had a schizophrenic breakdown some months back, and has made two attempts to kill him. She's being released from the mental hospital soon; if I were in his shoes, I would be upset about this rule.
In a few states, NRA has backed laws that effectively prohibit employers from imposing such rules on persons with permits to carry a gun, as long as the gun is properly secured in the car, and the parking lot is open to the public. I have never been completely comfortable with the state telling an employer what its working rules will be, and how to use its private property. (Although liberals are in no position to complain about such a law; if the state has the authority to prohibit employment discrimination, it certainly has the authority to prohibit discrimination against gun owners in the parking lot.)
My thought some months back was that perhaps the correct approach was to hold employers liable for injuries to employees suffered as a consequence of the prohibition on being armed. Now I see this resolution adopted by the Harris County, Texas Republican Party:
I think I like this approach.A resolution to address the denial of citizen's second amendment rights.Whereas: The right to self defense is absolute and granted by God. The second amendment of the US Constitution recognizes and affirms the God given right of the individual to arm themselves against aggression.Whereas: Employers have usurped their employee's right to self defense by instituting rules governing the possession of weapons on the employer's property by employees, including leaving weapons in their vehicles. Such rules impair the employee's ability to protect themselves in transit to and from their place of employment.Therefore Be it Resolved:The Harris County Republican Party calls for the passage of legislation that requires that employers that interfere with their employee's right to self defense, including weapons bans, to be held liable for any injury that befalls the employee in transit to and from his or her workplace or in the course of his or her duties for the employer as a result of their right of self defense being impaired by the employer.Be it further Resolved:That the Harris County Republican Party calls for legislation giving employers that do not restrict the possession or legal use of weapons by its employees during the course of their employment, immunity from liability for any use of a weapon by an employee. Such liability would solely rest on the employee him or herself.and Be it further Resolved:That the Harris County Republican Party transmit this resolution by email to precinct chairs, elected officials, Republican clubs and other individuals and groups listed in the databases maintained by the County Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment