Take Your Gun To Work Day: Texas Legislature Moves to Bar Businesses from Enforcing No-Gun Policies

Texasthumb_weapon_gun_smith_and_wesson_hand_ejectorFor 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.

39 thoughts on “Take Your Gun To Work Day: Texas Legislature Moves to Bar Businesses from Enforcing No-Gun Policies”

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. I meant Glenn Beck. I have no idea who John Beck is. Maybe I confused him with John Galt.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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).

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Texas.

    A study in violence loving sociopathic greed and excess since 1845.

  15. 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?

  16. 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.

Comments are closed.