For all of those employees who are receiving pink slips in the recession, the Texas legislature has moved toward guaranteeing them that they can bring their guns to their last day at work. The Texas Senate unanimously passed legislation to protect the right for workers to pack heat with your ham sandwiches at work.
Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, introduced the legislation to bar businesses from adopting gun-free zones for their employees. The law would allow employees to store legal firearms and ammunition in their locked vehicles outside their place of work. The law mirrors a controversial law in Florida. Arkansas, however, recently moved to guarantee the right to pack heat in church.
Hegar explained that “People like their firearms in Texas, and if they want to bring them to the workplace, they are going to do it whether there is a policy or not.”
That was certainly the case two years ago at the Johnson Space Center in Houston when an engineer brought a handgun into a NASA office building – in violation of NASA policies – and shot and killed another engineer. He then killed himself.
On the serious side, the denial of the right to carry firearms in vehicles may now raise some constitutional questions in light of the ruling on the second amendment last term (which I supported as a matter of constitutional interpretation). States will have to shoulder a high burden to support restrictive laws. However, the Court did say that restrictions would be allowed on this constitutional right.
There was one clarifying moment. Before voting for the measure, Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, said he was concerned that the law might allow dynamite or another explosive to be brought to a workplace. Hegar, however, clarify that (at least for now) “you are not able to have dynamite in your car. Dynamite is not ammunition.”
That will lead to an objection from the National Dynamite Association. After all, dynamite does not kill people, people kill people. Personally, I use dynamite to entertain my children at birthdays and to protect my home. I find that tossing a stick of dynamite out the window has a far greater impact on burglars than waving some wimpy handgun. I also like to use dynamite to hunt deer and ducks. It is also ideal for fishing — resulting in hundreds of fish gently floating to the surface after the concussion.
The question is when Texas liberals are going to stop blaming those of us who use dynamite responsibly and allow us to enjoy the same rights as other sportsmen.
For the full story, click here.
I always enjoy your fishing tips, JT.
I dont think you can make a back handed slam against guns using dynamite as an example. the vast majority of gun owners are safe and responsible citizens. I know everyone loves to slam Texas, but if I lived in Texas I would probably bring my rifle or pistol to work once in awhile to go hunting or shooting after work. I dont think people are going to run get their gun after getting a pink slip and go on a shooting spree. And if they did I would want a bunch of armed buddies waiting for the guy.
The first humans clubed each other to death with rocks and sticks, the last humans will use photon death rays (or be back to sticks and stones).
I havent seen dynamite used for fishing but I used to work as a crewman on a siesmic survey boat in the Gulf of Mexico and we used comressed air to cause the shock wave, the fish would float to the surface in large numbers and the seagulls would go wild.
Bron98
1, March 26, 2009 at 8:56 am
….the vast majority of gun owners are safe and responsible citizens.
Bron
That’s a pretty weak defense. The vast majority of us don’t committ murder, but we have laws governing the activity. It’s not the vast majority that are the problem.
“…I would probably bring my rifle or pistol to work once in awhile to go hunting or shooting after work.”
I don’t think the workplace bans–particularly in Texas–are concerned with that hunting rifle one has in the trunk of their car for after-work hunting (Now, I admit I’ve never been hunting, but I don’t recall hearing any my friends who hunt talking about heading out to the woods after work to kill their dinner) or pistol practice range shooting. They just don’t want the potential of accidents or gun violence that can result from an employee that might NOT be among the “safe and responsible”. How is it NOT an employer’s right and responsibility to establish safe work environment?
Texas.
A study in violence loving sociopathic greed and excess since 1845.
RC:
Actually if the employer wants to ban guns from their property that is their right to do so, I dont think the legislature should be involved.
I did not like the back handed slam using the dynamite analogy and that was what my response was about.
I guess I just dont understand what all the issues are concerning gun control. People die by doctors, cars, airplanes, they are stabbed, clubed, they drown in swimming pools, they are hit by trains, they die in work related accidents and no amount of government control is going to change that. Why the focus on guns? We on the right look at gun ownership as some sort of ultimate/end protection against the power of an out of control government and as protection for our homes if the police are not available and of course and by far the main focus is that it is fun to go hunting and shooting. I personally am not so much into hunting but target shooting and trap and skeet are good fun.
I would like to know why there is so much dislike for guns on the left and why there needs to be further laws restricting gun owhership and use. Currently there are over, what some 25,000 laws on the books. Or at least thats the propaganda on the right. Any way I am very curious about this, I honestly dont see the issues on your side of the aisle or I dont think they have merit.
I think that we can all agree that accidental shootings are a great tragedy and that small children should be kept away from guns.
Forget the 2nd Amendment for a second. With all the problems that the country and individual States face, what does it say about this legislature that this is considered an important issue to legislate? To me it says that it is controlled by a pack of venal idiots, who in a better world (or State) wouldn’t be allowed to have any governmental responsibility.
Remember, I believe that the right to bear arms is protected constitutionally, but if its’ my business property I should have the right to limit my employees from carrying weapons.
Bron,
The problem with your comparison to other dangerous things is that guns are just a weapon. They have one purpose and only one purpose, to kill something (you can use a gun just to hurt something, but let’s be honest, guns were designed to make killing things easier). Sometime killing things is appropriate (hunting for food comes to mind).That is the key difference between a gun and a car, or a gun and a saw: the others can kill someone if misused, but a gun is meant to kill someone. Heck even sticks and knives have other uses.
That’s why the focus on guns. They are not just occasionally deadly, they are by design and nature ONLY deadly.
Gyges:
yes guns were designed for war but they have other uses as well, hunting and recreation come to mind. A bow and arrow is just as deadly as our ancestors found out.
I dont think that is why the focus is on guns. As far as being deadly they are only deadly when used, depending on the situation, either correctly or incorrectly, eg. soldier or accident.
I think it is something more that just what you are saying.
Bron,
Not all guns are suitable for hunting and you know this. You know I’m a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, but handguns have only one design function and that’s killing people. Unless it’s a shotgun or some standard, e.g. not fully automatic, rifle design then killing people is it’s only design function. The problem with talking guns is the the same as it is talking about drugs – not all are created equal. Now pistols I personally have no use for, but it’s the toothpaste out of the tube on that issue. You should be able to buy pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles with a fair amount of ease and you can. If I want a new Mossberg 500, I can go buy one today. But I am for reasonable restrictions and controls. No one needs an MP5 or a .50 caliber anything for hunting or defense. But I can go out to several shops here in town and get something that can be made into a high powered fully automatic tactical assault weapon with very little or now modification today if I want to spend the money. I shouldn’t be able to do that nor should anyone else. To me limiting sales of certain types of weapon is no more an abrogation of your 2nd Amendment rights than the restrictions on inciting riot or panic are to your 1st Amendment rights. As you pointed out, they can all be deadly. But so can a generator. I can buy gas generators all day long, but I expect someone to get concerned if I’m trying to buy a nuclear reactor. It’s all a matter of scale. It’s possible to retain the freedom and create better safety mechanisms that don’t require blanket prohibition (which as we all know is an invitation to disaster no matter what product is being prohibited).
There is no valid reason that I can find in my mind to see a justification for assault rifles and such being in the public’s hands, unless someone is planning armed revolution.In that context I’ll bet on the government ant time. If you need an assault rifle to enjoy target shooting than you are really a sick person. I’m not even a gun person and I’ve enjoyed target shooting with a rifle and handgun. Assault rifles are way too over the top and no one can convince me that using it in hunting game is necessary.
Florida has already adopted a version of this absurd legislation. These proposals all appear to coincide with the election of Barack Obama and the subsequent surge in firearm sales around the country. And who said Democrats can’t produce a boost to the economy? Besides, John Beck and others have made it clear that we must now be prepared for anything, and the march of socialism will likely inspire armed resistance.
I meant Glenn Beck. I have no idea who John Beck is. Maybe I confused him with John Galt.
Mike A.
My immediate thought was John Birch (Society)…
Now this young girl gits her ‘guns’ to deter future BF abuse:
___________________
Rihanna Gets A Gun Tattoo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/rihanna-gets-a-gun-tattoo_n_179454.html
Bron,
Hunting is killing something. I even pointed out that sometimes killing something is warranted.
As for the bow and arrow thing, they are not as deadly as guns. If they were, Guns would never have become as widely used as they are today. Guns have a much longer range, a faster rate of firing (generally), do more tissue damage, and are easier to shoot accurately. There’s a reason why bow hunters get to go earlier in the season; they have a lower success rate than rifle hunters. Anyway, bow and arrows (and crossbows) are regulated as deadly weapons in most places.
Also, no matter how many time you try “it’s the people who use guns that make them deadly” argument, it still won’t make a bit of difference. Meth requires a person to use it too, but it’s still illegal.
Bron said:
“I did not like the back handed slam using the dynamite analogy and that was what my response was about.”
__________________
Bron:
Professor Turley’s comment was largely tongue-in-cheek, similar to the liberties he takes with the titles. This blawg would be very depressing without such wit and humor.
No need to worry; guns are forevermore in the USA.
Where does one begin when it comes to just about anything Texas decides to legislate on? Here we have the legislature trying to take away the right of employers to keep their employees safe from guns or any other weapon. I thought Texans were all about personal freedom. Why doesn’t the employer have the right ro say no? It is also no surprise that my other fascist state, Florida, is the first on the block to allow guns at work. I agree with Prof. Turley in that we should not stop at guns. I was thinking the briefcase nukes that the Bush regime was trying to build should also be allowed.
And no license, skill or safety course required – right?
“The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths — murders, suicides and accidents — among the world’s 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia. ”
Darwin?
Doglover,
The handgun is the reason. The easily obtained, deadly handgun is makes us look like the Wild West to the rest of the world.
The year 2009 version might be: Don’t Take your guns to work, Jerk…
__________________
“Filled with rage then
Billy Joe reached for his gun to draw
But the stranger drew his gun and fired
Before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor
The crowd all gathered ’round
And wondered at his final words
Don’t take your guns to town, Son, leave you guns at home, Bill, Don’t Take Your Guns to Town”
Johnny Cash
#1 1959 Country Charts
#32 Pop Charts
Former Fed,
Amen!
If I am not mistaken, this bill does not take away an employer’s right to ban gun in the workplace, it just allows people to keep guns in their cars. Here in Colorado, this is already a right, as your car is considered an extension of your property. If you are a valid law-abiding concealed weapons permit holder, and you are going to enter a building with a no-guns policy, here in Colorado you can leave your gun in your car. I think that is a completely legit option. It allows people to exercise their self-protection rights and still obey the law. The heart of the 2nd amendment is the idea that you have a right to self defense. In the 21st century, we have many different types of weapons than existed back in the 18th. But with all of the new inventions, nothing is more effective than a firearm. Tasers? These are fine if you: have only one assailant, are in a position to get away quickly, the assailant isn’t heavily dressed, and you hit them correctly with your one and only shot. Pepper spray? This is fine if you: aren’t in a close quarters position with your attacker (where you could be affected too), your attacker isn’t high on one of the various drugs that might make them immune to the pain, your attacker is not holding a gun or knife such that they can still fire at/slash you after you spray. Handguns? They are not the answer in all situations, for sure, but nothing stops a determined attacker like deadly force. You could be armed with a gun and still die. You might not be able to get to it, your gun might jam, you might shoot and miss, you might hit them but not stop them. Training is essential part of self defense, that goes for any type of defense, and guns are no different. For me, a handgun is only one part of a personal protection plan for me and my family which includes pepper spray for my wife to carry, martial arts for myself, basic self-defense moves I have taught and plan on continuing to train with my wife and kids, and common sense avoidance of high-risk situations (when possible). I take self-defense seriously, and I believe that is my right. The Constitution is not something that grants rights, but rather something that protects inherent rights that all people should enjoy. It is by no means an exhaustive list of human rights, but a good solid foundation to build upon. I do not have all of the answers. I know that somewhere between a slingshot and a nuclear bomb there exists a line that should be drawn to restrict the weaponry that the common person should be able to possess. Absolutely I believe that most guns fall on the permissible side of that line. Do I believe that fully-automatic weaponry should be among them? In most situations I tend to say no. Should a semi-automatic rifle be allowed? I believe, yes. In the end, there is almost no situation where you can use a bomb for self defense, therefore I am ok with regulation of bombs. It’s hard to make the case for civilian ownership of 50-caliber weapons. How often are these impractical weapons used for self defense? On the other hand, how often are they used in crimes? The answer to both is probably almost never. This is an incredibly complex issue and both sides have good points to be made. I believe the middle-ground is the common-sense regulation of guns. Neither a total ban nor complete de-regulation is practical. I believe that there are (extremely limited) limits to free speech. I also believe that there are limits to the right to bear arms. The question is where do we draw the line? There is no one answer that will work for everyone. In the end, I believe we should exercise judgment, but err on the side of individual rights. This is my favorite quote on the subject of civil rights… I have quoted it often, and I believe it goes to the heart of the idea of civil rights in general: “Defending the Constitution means defending all of it. It means defending speech, even if one disagrees with it. It means defending one’s right to believe or to not believe in God. It means defending one’s right to bear arms, even if one is not inclined to own one. It means demanding warrants for searches of all types, including wiretaps. It means demanding due process, even for those who seek to do us harm. It also means maintaining a balance between the branches of government and reserving as much control as possible for the state governments.”
- Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, USAF (Ret.)
Adam C,
Thanks for your balanced reply, but to me it smacks of fear.
Lt. Col. Hal,
Thanks for your service, but can you stand down, just a little from preparing to be personally assaulted or victimized?
s/b
Thanks for the intellectually balanced reply,
Adam,
I’m hard pressed to come up with a situation where having a gun stowed safely in your car would be useful for self defense. I’d like to point out, that like every other person who paid attention in hunter’s safety class, I don’t consider having a loaded gun in a car as safe.
For simplicity’s sake let’s exclude holstered pistols. Those fall much more neatly into the class of “on your person,” even if that person happens to be in a car at the time.
CCD: “Thanks for your balanced reply, but to me it smacks of fear.”
I can appreciate that not everyone takes the same view on it as I do, and I respect the fact that you may not want to take it to the same level that I do. Several years ago I was fairly anti-gun, mainly because that’s the way I was raised. A few years ago I began to reconsider my stances on a lot of subjects because I realized that on some things I felt that I took a certain position on issues because I just always thought certain things were “right” and others “wrong”. When i forced myself to sit down and reconsider my positions on things in a more rational way, my personal politics began to shift. On some issues I am decidedly “left”, and on others, I am more center-right.
I always considered gun rights to be a right-wing issue, and pretty much dismissed them. During the Bush years I found myself in a situation where I felt that our country was moving in the wrong direction in respect to civil rights. I began to have long talks with people who felt that it was ok to stifle our rights for the sake of keeping us safe. I had a lot of involved conversations with people who genuinely believed that it was ok to throw people in jail forever with no due process if the government said it was necessary. This selective application of civil rights made me sick to my stomach. During one of these discussions it really dawned on me that people’s perceptions had really changed so much that while a large number of people disagreed with Bush’s tactics, a lot of them seemed to think in the back of their mind “what if he’s right?” It really dawned on me that we now live in a world where it’s acceptable for a president to get on TV and proclaim that the first duty of the president is to keep Americans safe. This is simply not true. the first duty of the president is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Elected officials simply do not have the option to ignore it when they deem it to be a nuisance. Limiting our rights in the name of security is a dangerous game. It was during this time in my life when I began to look at the bill of rights, and really think about the protections it provides. I took a fresh look at the second amendment, and realized that I no longer felt that gun bans were constitutional. I have been interested in self defense for awhile.. initially as a way to get in better shape, but increasingly important to me when I became a family man. Over time, my initial blind resistance to firearms a thing of the past, I began to want to at least learn how to use one. This led to me becoming a gun owner myself. I provide this background because i want you to understand where I am coming from… I am not someone who was raised with guns, quite the opposite. I am not someone who believes that anyone should be able to own any gun. If you have committed violet felonies, I think you forfeited your right to have a gun, just as you likely forfeited some of your freedom by being sent to jail. But I do not believe that someone who has done nothing wrong should lose their right to own a gun just because some others have used that right to do harm. In fact, the reality that there are crazies out there should reinforce the right of law-abiding citizens to carry. I can respect your opposition to guns, because I used to be there, but even if you choose not to own one, I hope you can accept that I have the right to make up my own mind. — As a side note, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack was the Democratic candidate for the US House from Colorado’s 5th district. While he has had a distinguished career, he is not fresh from combat, needing to “stand down”. He was explaining his position on civil rights, and how we can not decide to selectively apply them when we feel in danger. This quote sums up a lot of what I have come to believe about just what the Bill of Rights promises.
Gyges: “I’m hard pressed to come up with a situation where having a gun stowed safely in your car would be useful for self defense.” I agree that if you have to go somewhere where you need to leave your gun in the car, that gun isn’t terribly useful to you. I would prefer that the safety courses and background checks you have to pass to get a concealed permit entitle you to keep that firearm “on your person”. The point is that if I am carrying a concealed weapon (with a permit to do so) and I then have to go somewhere where they are not allowed (government building, school, a workplace that doesn’t allow them) I should be allowed to leave this firearm in my car while I am at one of these places (ideally in a locked case out of view in your locked car). Thankfully in Colorado I would be permitted to do this… if you can’t do this, you are faced with a situation that is almost a back door way of banning lawful gun carry. If you are a law-abiding citizen, with a lawful & valid carry permit, you are still prevented from carrying without a law like this, since you can’t take the gun with you, and you can’t leave it in the car. i think that allowing a gun to be stored in the car is a common-sense compromise between the rights of the citizen to carry and the right of the private property owner to restrict their carry.
Talks with people who felt that it was ok to stifle our rights for the sake of keeping us safe. I had a lot of involved conversations with people who genuinely believed that it was ok to throw people in jail forever with no due process if the government said it was necessary. This selective application of civil rights made me sick to my stomach.
We are in 100% agreement.
It really dawned on me that we now live in a world where it’s acceptable for a president to get on TV and proclaim that the first duty of the president is to keep Americans safe. This is simply not true. the first duty of the president is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Elected officials simply do not have the option to ignore it when they deem it to be a nuisance. Limiting our rights in the name of security is a dangerous game.
Again we agree completely.
Yes, we are currently living in a country where people are being held with out charges. There is now an active military unit on U. S. soil. The NSA can get into whatever personal records and conversations we have.
Quoting my friend BIL, above, “Handguns have only one design function and that’s killing people.” Living and raising a family in Chicago where the reality is innocent people are murdered with guns way to often does not persuade me to train and arm myself.
I appreciate all the context and background you provide. Often and I’ll hunt this down if you ask me to, but hand guns are used against people who more often than not know one another.
I’m an advocate of house hold tranquility. As a father you are too, I’m sure. So the risk of an accident or mishap at home breeching the tranquility out weigh the benefit of being prepared to defend myself against someone I’ve never met.
Allow me jump off the deep end here for a moment. Each of us is creating our own reality and sharing it with those we interact with. Don’t we reap what we sow? Why would I want to create a situation where I would need to defend myself with deadly force? To me the hand gun owner who may be trained or not creates a template of behavior out of fear.
With over 75 relatives living in the Chicago metropolitan area we’ve had cars stolen, bikes stolen, homes broken into. So I understand some people NEED that stuff more than we do its part of the game. There are economically depressed parts of my home town where you walk with your head on a swivel during the day and do not visit after sundown. It is what it is!
The connection of you training and arming yourself because our civil liberties have slipped?
Forgive me but I don’t understand. You feel the need to prepare to defend your self and family from martial law?
“Handguns? They are not the answer in all situations, for sure, but nothing stops a determined attacker like deadly force. You could be armed with a gun and still die.” Yes true amen!
Adam you post reasonable/agreeable replies, please don’t pose hypothetical situations. My task is to live and create in the present. It’s no good asking me what if. Can you own and conceal carry a weapon? Sure it’s the law we the people agree to.
>>Living and raising a family in Chicago where the reality is innocent people are murdered with guns way to often does not persuade me to train and arm myself.
That is certainly your choice to make. In that situation I would advise at least some pepper spray, but if you’re not comfortable with whatever weapon you carry, it’s probably better to carry nothing at all.
>> I’m an advocate of house hold tranquility. As a father you are too, I’m sure. So the risk of an accident or mishap at home breeching the tranquility out weigh the benefit of being prepared to defend myself against someone I’ve never met.
The possibility of a gun being misused in a home is certainly a real one. I have a very strict set of procedures for the firearm, including a trigger lock plus a steel case. I have practiced trying to get to it as quickly as possible, and that double-lock setup certainly doesn’t make it easy. But in the end, I will not make it more accessible than it is. Depending on the situation, in a home invasion scenario I may just need to rely on a baseball bat or hand-to-hand combat. I am prepared for either of those as well. It would not be an ideal situation, but you can’t rest your safety on one weapon or plan. For me a gun is a tool, but certainly not the only one.
>> Why would I want to create a situation where I would need to defend myself with deadly force?
I will likely never need my gun to protect myself. If I could somehow know for certain that I wouldn’t ever need it, I probably wouldn’t own one. But the reality is that you don’t know where life is going to take you, or who you are going to come in contact with. If someone wants to mug you, they will mug you. You might be at the grocery store parking lot (has happened at 2 different Wal-marts here recently), you might be checking the mail, you might be minding your own business at work, or even sitting in church. You don’t have to be walking alone in an alley to be confronted. It’s not your “fault” if you find yourself in a situation where someone has decided to attack you. It’s not a situation that YOU create, the attacker unfortunately gets to choose the time and place. You could be as nice as you want to be, hand over absolutely everything you have, and they can still shoot you, just to eliminate a witness. Maybe they’re just a sociopath… or hey, maybe they’re a genuinely nice person who feels like they have no other choice. I am not willing to trust the person who would attack. When they decided to rob you, they rolled the dice, and they are betting that they can overpower you either emotionally or physically. If they lose that gamble, and you end the situation with deadly force, you did not create that situation.
>> There are economically depressed parts of my home town where you walk with your head on a swivel during the day and do not visit after sundown. It is what it is!
Unfortunately, as the overall economic situation deteriorates, the old distinction of “good neighborhood” and “bad neighborhood” will likely become fuzzier. If we slide into a full-blown depression (I would consider this only a mild depression at the moment… but we haven’t hit bottom yet), things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. My neighborhood has been a solid working-class section of town for several decades. Even now, I already see the changes in the area. Reading the paper, a lot of bad things are moving in our direction. Home invasions are becoming a common occurrence around town. In reference to the last point above… you simply can’t say “it would never happen here”.
>> The connection of you training and arming yourself because our civil liberties have slipped? Forgive me but I don’t understand. You feel the need to prepare to defend your self and family from martial law?
The Bill of Rights is something that I always had taken for granted. I knew there were 10 of them… I knew the basic outline of what they were all about. But I hadn’t actually read them since high school, and in my day-to-day life, the only one that ever felt under attack was the First Amendment, what with the constant censorship battles we have in this country. I took the rest of the protections in the Bill of Rights for granted. I completely dismissed the Second Amendment as outdated and stupid, because that’s how I was raised. I never knew any gun owners (actually, I did, but didn’t know it until I got older… I never suspected, because they were just regular folks, not the raving nuts I always expected). I didn’t really give any thought to the merits of such a bill. After the serious erosion of our rights during the Bush years, I “rediscovered” the Bill of Rights, and viewed it in a much different light. When I was younger, it was easy to dismiss the rights, because they didn’t seem novel “obviously they can’t just haul you off without a trial”. Once it became apparent that, yes, they CAN haul you off without a trial… unless you stand up against it, I began to take the Bill of Rights more seriously. No longer did it seem to be just a common-sense set of rules that the government would obviously follow. it became a life raft to cling to, to really read and understand. THIS is what makes us great. THIS is what defines us. I really felt an awakening. During this time, I decided to actually read what the Second Amendment was talking about, and not just dismiss it. I approached the subject without any preconceived notions. When I objectively looked at it, what I found was that I ACTUALLY believed that it really did protect the right to keep and bear arms. Not just for militia use. The first part seems to give a rationalization, an example of why guns might be needed, but nothing in it states that it is the ONLY reason to own guns. the second part is extremely clear “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s a powerful statement. Nothing in the first part negates the power of the second part. Imagine that it read: “As fur trappers may need guns out in the wild, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Would this mean that only fur trappers can keep guns? No, I don’t believe so. If you wanted to convey THAT meaning, you might say “The right of fur trappers to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.” THAT says that only fur trappers have that right. If the Second Amendment read: “The right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Well, there you go. To make a long story short(er), I was no longer absolutely opposed to gun ownership. I came to believe that the Second Amendment did, in fact, protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I didn’t go out and buy a gun the next day. After my mind was opened to that fact, a lot of the mental barriers in my mind began to break down. I decided that if I was ever in a situation where knowledge of how to use a gun might be important, I wanted to know. Even if that just meant learning how to make sure it was unloaded. Once I began to look into the matter, and really learned how a gun actually worked, even more of my previous disdain began to dissolve. At some point, I decided “I want to own a gun”. A for martial law, I don’t think it will come to that, but who knows. If someday law & order DO break down, well then I’d rather have a gun than not.
>>Adam you post reasonable/agreeable replies,
Thanks
>>please don’t pose hypothetical situations. My task is to live and create in the present. It’s no good asking me what if.
I’m not 100% certain what you are referring to here, but if you are talking about “What if you get mugged” type of situations, I think it’s a legitimate question. I’m not asking “What if men from Mars shoot you with laser beams”. I’m posing real-world questions that happen every day all over the country. it’s a question you may well have to answer. I am very much a “be prepared” sort of guy. I carry various tools, flashlights, whatever with me everywhere, just in case. The first aid kit in my car looks like something you would find on an EMT. I have freakin’ toilet paper in my emergency car kit… because who would want to get stranded without THAT! I take what a lot of people would probably deem “extreme precautions”. The desire to be armed probably falls under that… When you say that my desire to be armed “smacks of fear”, I guess you may be right… it’s not that I fear criminals at every step, however, it’s just a general overall fear that I might not be prepared for something. In that case, I’ll just be prepared and satisfied rather than unprepared and uncomfortable. An friend of mine saw my first-aid & emergency supplies and asked if I felt dumb for having that stuff and never having a need for it. On the contrary, just like an airbag or a seatbelt, I hope I NEVER need it. That would be cool.
I wonder how many people will ever read this far into this thread……….
Adam,
Your points are accurate. The contingencies and scenarios you are equipped for far exceed my needs. We live in a terrific country with rights that confer to each the power to create our own comfort level. And the toilet paper roll in the zip lock bag kept in the trunk, that’s SOP!
Adam,
I’ve read this far into the thread and I must say you make a reasoned case for your position. I’m a defender of 2nd Amendment Rights also, but from my perspective I wouldn’t own a gun, no do I feel particularly threatened. That of course doesn’t mean I can’t be murdered tomorrow, but since most murders come from people you know I feel reasonably safe. My former job took me into all of the supposedly most dangerous areas of NYC, both by day and late at night. I have never been threatened, but then I’m the type of person who is always very aware of my surroundings and through the years I’ve a run scenarios in my head of what to do in given situations. This includes home invasion. I actually think a handgun would make me less safe, because it might well cause me to not be cautious in a given situation. That is my sense and I can see you have a different one and who am I to dictate to you what you comfort level needs.
To me though the fly in the ointment is the NRA which is over-vigilant of gun-owners rights and is financed in large part by the gun industry. Their positions do not help their cause because they are to extreme.For instance, if I wanted a rifle I would want a semi-automatic for the convenience of loading. By the same token there is no need to have either and automatic rifle, or pistol, other than the rush someone might get from shooting it. Target shooting can be fun and hunters of the right mindset are fine. Getting high powered machinery for the rush of using it is not only somewhere over the line, but is dangerous to us all.
Adam C, I read ‘em all and the level of debate was excellent. Regarding TP in your emergency kit:
Add an extra roll, a 2lb metal coffee can with its plastic lid and a couple of extra bottles of Isopropyl alcohol. If you’re stranded in winter put a roll in the can and add a bottle of the alcohol and light it up, the TP acts like a wick but doesn’t burn if you keep an eye on it. Warm up your car and then put the plastic top back on the can to extinguish the flame. It lasts for hours. It’s a clean flame so you won’t poison yourself with partially burned hydrocarbon vapors. A friend that did a lot of winter camping and hunting passed that on to me after he saw my ’stranded in the winter’ car kit which also had TP and paper towels.
As for the guns, it seems that a major concern is that the new law would trump the employers right to ban guns from their parking lot.
I wouldn’t presume to add more bona fide scholarship to an already well argued debate but I will add a personal comment re my employment history. I did a lot of work as a labor advocate and walked more than one employee out the gate after they were fired. Many were fired wrongfully and we corrected some of that on appeal. More than one employee that was fired was non compos mentis and known to be so at the time of their inappropriate acts and firing due to PTSD, alcohol/drug abuse etc. and they ended up with a voluntary retirement or medical retirement on appeal.
I also sat in as an employee rep in several disciplinary inquiries for the employers guard division and everybody was armed but the Personnel rep and myself. Some of those meetings got so tense and heated between both management and the employee (and fast, things just went off the rails in a matter of seconds) that the number 1 job of the Personnel rep. and myself was to end the meeting until things cooled down. We got a policy put in place where such inquiries were weapon free, much to our relief.
There was more than one occasion that I was glad people weren’t allowed to have weapons in their car on the base and I hoped they didn’t come back to visit anytime soon because fired employees were allowed back into the base on more than one occasion. These were universally people with security clearances, pretty good pay and all the background checks and security interviews those positions entail. Some of them still scared me and I was known as a cool-headed, professional person to deal with. I was not known as a wuss and had waded in to break up more than one fight also. But ome folks at work just plain scared me.
I can only imagine with horror working someplace where you have low paid, at-will employees that have an unknown history (and that includes employees in the management ranks) that legally have a firearm in their car on the parking lot. Bad idea IMHO.
lottakatz: Thanks for the tip on the alcohol “candle”, I’ll definitely check that out! That’s quite an interesting perspective on handguns in the car. There are a number of unique aspects of the situations you described, but the “employee gets fired, goes to his car and gets his gun” situation is certainly one that could be faced in the civilian world as well. I would still say that a law like the one in question here is a good thing. The question in my mind is still “at what point do you not let the potential illegal acts of some restrict the freedoms of others”. What is the concealed carry citizen to do? The mere presence of firearms does not mean violence. Just because someone has a gun doesn’t mean that they will go on a rampage when they get fired. In all of the situations you describe, how many of those tense meetings ended in shooting? I don’t claim to know the correct answer here that will keep as many safe as possible, but still protect our rights, but I think allowing people restricted from carrying at work to leave them in the car makes sense. On the flip-side… let’s say that someone DOES start shooting… It would be a good thing if others in the building were armed as well, and they didn’t need to wait the 5-10 minutes for police response before getting any backup. Your situations you describe were different, but maybe one of the reasons that shooting didn’t erupt in those tense meetings was that the employee in question knew that (almost) everyone else in the room was armed as well. In the end, I think my earlier point is valid… if you can’t take your weapon in, and you can’t leave it out the car, that has a chilling effect on carry rights. You would force people to choose between exercising their rights and following the law.
Adam,
Sorry about the delay in the reply. My main problem with your stance on this is that MY rights don’t over-ride your rights. My right to swing my baseball bat ends where your face begins. To apply it to this situation: because I have the right to own a gun doesn’t over-ride anyone else’s right to say “I’d don’t want you bringing your gun (or anything else for that matter) to my property.” I simply don’t see how the parking lot is any less the business’s property than the building proper. Now if we were discussing a city gov’t. banning having a gun in a car parked on the street, I’d be much more sympathetic to your view.
As for the rest, something has always rubbed me wrong about having a lethal weapon for self “defense.” In my opinion it’s just an extension of the philosophy that the best way for a country to be safe is to have a strong standing army, and we could discuss the various merits of that philosophy some other time.
As an aside to BIL and others: While you’re right about MOST pistols being made to kill people, there are pistols designed for other uses: some states allow for hunting large\small game with pistols, and there are guns designed for this; There are also special handguns modified to fire bird-shot, these are used for pest control in warehouses. I just hate to see blanket statements.
I drive to work every day with a loaded gun. I rent a small storage unit for about $50 a month so that I can store my gun there while at work.
About half the people I personally know that have been murdered or assaulted had this happen to them going to or from work.
While the Texas legislature is legendary for its pugnacity, where I come from (Texas) thats a GOOD THING.
As to the quip about Texas being a violent place since 1845, darned tootin.
And God Willing it will stay that way.
Just like hearing things you would prefer to not hear is the price of free speech, in part, so to is the price of liberty that one has to live around people who might do things you think rude or dangerous.
The presence of high levels of violence is a demonstration of how much freedom people have to do what they want, like DEFEND themselves against criminals instead of simply knuckling down to them and getting turned into victims or corpses.
Dont like my carrying my gun? Too damned bad, and mind your own frigging bidness.
“As to the quip about Texas being a violent place since 1845, darned tootin.
And God Willing it will stay that way.”
My. How very Christian of you. Isn’t that the 11th Commandment? Thou shalt kick ass? Yeah. Jesus would be real proud of Texas and all your fake piety. And by “proud” I mean you guys would be screwed if He came back within the next ten minutes.