|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 7, 2009, 09:29 PM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
Muslim woman can sue to wear veil in license photo Muslim women sue and win case against UPS over dress code dispute Imams removed from plane sue US Airways AirTran Airways apologized Friday to nine Muslims kicked off a New Year's Day flight to Florida after other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security.
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
|
January 7, 2009, 09:35 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Show me the numbers.
Concealed carry is legal on campus in several states. Show me how college students, faculty, and members of the public on campus in these states have been endangered or harmed by lawfully carried concealed weapons. Show me the blood running in the streets and the lives destroyed by lawfully carried weapons in these states. Show me how deadly the lack of restrictive laws has been for the folks who live in states where concealed carry on campus is legal. I want facts, not emotions. Show me the numbers. It is right that the burden of proof be placed upon those who would limit or outlaw a certain behavior, not upon those who would maintain the natural state of freedom. pax |
January 7, 2009, 10:11 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
|
|
January 7, 2009, 10:15 PM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 119
|
Some Interesting Developments
I've been away from the post for a few days. It sure sparked some interest.
Here are a couple of addenda to my original thoughts:
Quote:
Finally, a nod to the young vets who contributed to the thread. I returned back to campus after one year in Kuwait and Iraq in the first rotation and the invasion. I am now seeing a large number of combat vets in my classes. I would LOVE to have them around if someone starts trouble. We'd fire and maneuver his butt into oblivion. |
|
January 8, 2009, 11:12 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I would like to return to my example of a male wearing ladies' underwear.
It is concealed. Some folks might think wearing ladies' underwear is predictive of a risk to society. It is a behavior. Does the boss have a right to ban a male from wearing ladies' underwear and demand the right to inspect you to see if you do such (as they might to detect a concealed weapon)? As Pax says, the risk of concealed carriers going berserk is very low. It is probably as low as the risk of males wearing ladies' underwear going nuts and nailing you with the stapler. So by suggesting that concealed carry per se is a significant risk, we negate the argument for allowing it anywhere. As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 8, 2009, 11:58 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Fortunately, in my state the Legislature has not granted state-owned and funded colleges and universities the authority to make such policies regarding CCW.
|
January 8, 2009, 05:49 PM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
|
|
January 8, 2009, 05:58 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The legislative process can inform the business as to this.
I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose). The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 8, 2009, 06:23 PM | #84 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
January 8, 2009, 07:00 PM | #85 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Rosa Parks example doesn't fit since she was publicly trying to show the evils of racial discrimination. If disguising herself to save her own life was needed, she would not be dishonest for doing so. Some people will say: "Get another job!" "Go to another school!" "Move!" but in my CCW class I had 12 out of 15 in class who happened to be female. They were getting their permits (all of them) because at some point they had been threatened by ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands. As long as those guys were after them they weren't safe ANYWHERE. So, if a school says no carry and the ex comes in and kills the women on campus who cannot carry because she "follows the rules" , how does that seem?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 8, 2009 at 07:10 PM. |
||
January 9, 2009, 10:53 AM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
One core issue against my view seems to be that preventing discrimination is acceptable as color is unchangeable. But that doesn't hold for religion - one can change one's religious behavior quite easily. Go to a different place or no place. However, we decide that for some behaviors (religion) they should be protected as a class. I opine that the basic right of self-defense should be protected and not alterable by an employee except for technical reasons. The rights of the property owner (who opened for business) do not trump this as the risk argument is not empirically supported. So I equate self-defense as a right equal with religious beliefs and ethnic/racial identifiers for being protected from the vagaries of employers who only care about their bottom line. If you disagree with that view, then that's it. The equating is crucial to me. Being a FOG, I do recall my mother telling me of having to lie about her religion to get a job in the Depression. I supposed if we had the Internet. then, the businesses would have some philosophical blather about why private property rights gave them the right to only have White Christian males at work (not bashing that group - but that's the truth of that time).
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
January 9, 2009, 12:17 PM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
January 9, 2009, 12:40 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
TG - pardon me for being a professor. For a project, I have read tons of stuff on what defines moral and pro-social behavior from various philosophical and social-cultural perspectives (blah, blah)!
One dividing point is whether: 1. Following the tenets of one's own conscience is the highest level of morality 0r 2. Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle, despite your own belief, is most moral. Then, if you choose to disobey the principle in #2 - and there is a touch of self-interest, is your action moral or purely venial? Blah, blah! So the heck with the property owner who opens for business! They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business. Or go live on an Island with the Professor, Skipper, Ginger ,etc.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 9, 2009, 05:40 PM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
The problem is the right to carry firearms is not the same as the right to self-defense. You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so (although they can be very useful for that).
For lawsuits about those harmed while their ability to carry was denied, I can see that. I would hold the party who disarms a victim partially responsible for injury sustained within their jurisdiction and if the victim was disarmed due to their law/policy. I can also see how property rights would allow privately owned locations to ban certain items. Public universities should be subject to state pre-emption laws on firearms. They receive taxpayer money and operate as a governmental/public organization. They should fall under the same rules. (i.e. I agree with the basis of the Utah ruling.) I don't think the government should necessarily regulate privately run schools the same way, due to property rights issues. From a logical standpoint, if a person can carry at other public, unsecured locations, a college campus should be no different. The state "trusts" them to safely carry at the supermarket, why not on campus? |
January 10, 2009, 12:30 AM | #90 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW Glenn, I always preferred Maryanne. Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||||
January 10, 2009, 02:38 AM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 16, 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 269
|
Quote:
I keep researching the number of permit (CCW or whatever else they are called around the country) holders who are arrested for shooting up a building or going on a shooting spree. The stats I can find appear to be so rare, I don't even count them and rarely find one I could count to begin with... Where's the blood bath? Where are all of the permitees playing Superman and rushing to the defense of others? It doesn't happen. Those are bogus counter-arguments to the carrying of firearms. IMO, 99.9999% of the folks who carry guns in accordance with the established laws in their location are indeed law-abiding citizens. They are mature people who behave maturely. |
|
January 10, 2009, 03:53 AM | #92 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
After reading through I conclude that..
the general consensus is
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so. that if property owners prohibit firearms, you can be sked to leave, but there should be no legal action taken against you if you comply. that universities who accept public money should not enact policies more restricive than general law. that the public access nature of colleges does not make them any kind of special case, and so no law or policy more restictive than general law is acceptable. that there is a great deal of confusion over the legal roles and responsibilities of CCW holders, particularly among those who do not CCW. and for Glenn, I do agree that employers should not be allowed to fire, or otherwise discipline employees for anything other than actual job performance issues. However, Glenn, the employer's looplhole is in the employment contract, and we all have one somewhere. There is almost always somthing in the contract that covers something like "actions of the employee that are detrimental to the public image of the company". Ususally listed somewhere in the employee handbook, or company policy rules. Govt laws only prevent firing for certain specific reasons, age, sex, religion, race, etc. Anything else is up to the company. So, if the company thought that you were presenting them in a bad light by wearing women's underwear, they are within the law (if not within good sense) to fire you for that, because you signed a contract with them, allowing them that authority over you. These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs. They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 10, 2009, 07:25 AM | #93 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
||
January 10, 2009, 08:03 AM | #94 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets. Last edited by Webleymkv; January 10, 2009 at 09:19 AM. |
||
January 10, 2009, 10:02 AM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
|
January 10, 2009, 01:52 PM | #96 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is a legal term for this waiver stuff that relates to contracts but I can't remember what they call it. When I was in insurance lots of people I insured thought that if they got signed waivers from people who used their facilities or rode their rides were protected by that waiver. They weren't and got sued if somebody got hurt and their insurance almost always paid. One lawyer told me, you can't waive your own responsibility.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
January 12, 2009, 12:31 AM | #97 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
CCW the new gay. Keep it in the closet, and all's fine. :barf:
|
January 12, 2009, 01:02 AM | #98 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
Perhaps we should say something like "effective defense," since not many people can easily win over an armed attacker without some sort of weapon. I'm an advocate of carry rights. (Currently, I limit my advocacy to "unsecured" locations.) |
||
January 12, 2009, 01:24 AM | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
January 12, 2009, 08:16 AM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
|
|
|