In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Options for work banning CPL

Nightmare_ScenarioNightmare_Scenario Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
Hey,

New member, sorry to drop in and drop drama.

My workplace just updated the employee handbook to include a new section on workplace violence. This new section bans the possession of firearms, weapons or other dangerous items while on the office campus. I asked the Human Resources department if it was possible to get a waiver or sign a hold-harmless agreement of some sort. The HR VP replied, in plain English, "No, we won't compromise on this and my lawyers tell me it's legal to ban firearms here."

I live in Washington State, have a concealed pistol license and carry a Glock 19. I walk to work and prefer to be armed when passing by the several dumpsters between my office and apartment as they are often raided by vagrants. Some of these vagrants have been arrested for murder, car theft etc and one pulled a knife on my father-in-law last year.

Is anyone familiar enough with Washington state law to give me some options around this ban? Thanks.
«1

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,128 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Does Washington law matter?

    If the property owner does not want something on his property, what right is it of yours to make demands or get 'around the ban'?

    Not trying to be argumentative, but I do not see how your desire to carry trumps his rights of ownership.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Nightmare_ScenarioNightmare_Scenario Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    Does Washington law matter?

    If the property owner does not want something on his property, what right is it of yours to make demands or get 'around the ban'?

    Not trying to be argumentative, but I do not see how your desire to carry trumps his rights of ownership.


    Mostly I'm more concerned for my personal safety that I am for his preferences. You're right, of course.

    When I posted I was more concerned with getting my own way that being fair-minded. I still am, but I'll probably get over it. It seems that the owner isn't trying to be fair-minded with a no-compromise ban. But again, he doesn't have to be fair, it's his office. I wouldn't owe explanations to anyone who worked for me either.

    Darn you for being reasonable.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Yep ; Don nailed it.

    The ugly fact is that an individual can ban weapons on his property.

    'Sahll Not Be Infringed' is directed at the GOVERNMENT...not individuals.

    Find another job, and tell the screwball why you are leaving...YOUR personal safety trumps his hoplophobia.

    Welcome to the forum, and thanks for instantly recognizing a fact when it was pointed out to you. Not a common occurance, any more.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,128 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Nightmare_Scenario
    Mostly I'm more concerned for my personal safety that I am for his preferences. You're right, of course.

    When I posted I was more concerned with getting my own way that being fair-minded. I still am, but I'll probably get over it. It seems that the owner isn't trying to be fair-minded with a no-compromise ban. But again, he doesn't have to be fair, it's his office. I wouldn't owe explanations to anyone who worked for me either.

    Darn you for being reasonable.

    I do not understand why an employer would put forth such a decree. We prohibit sales on our premises, but have no policy, nor will we ever, on carrying. I personally do not see it as any of my business as an employer.

    Best of luck to you, and please stick around.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Briansims8Briansims8 Member Posts: 40
    edited November -1
    In some states you can leave your carry in your car regardless what the boss says, but I don't know about WA. I know you said you walk but this may help.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    Find another job. Private sector should mean private rules. Just as you can make the rules of your house so should they be able to set the rules on their property.
  • BackpackerjasonBackpackerjason Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Does the business receive any government money? Do they prohibit people from entering the premises based on race, religion, or similar?
  • milesmiles Member Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There are guns other than a glock 19 that you can carry and if your careful,no one will know unless you are forced to use it and if that happens,then it really doesn't matter who known then does it.
    Someone said"get another job"..Yeah,right...There are so many jobs now that employers are just begging for employes.
    Do what you must to protect yourself but be cool about it.Get some little mouse gun if you must.Do what you have to in order to protect yourself.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by miles
    There are guns other than a glock 19 that you can carry and if your careful,no one will know unless you are forced to use it and if that happens,then it really doesn't matter who known then does it.
    Someone said"get another job"..Yeah,right...There are so many jobs now that employers are just begging for employes.
    Do what you must to protect yourself but be cool about it.Get some little mouse gun if you must.Do what you have to in order to protect yourself.
    ok so using your logic you suggest he break the policies of the company that could result in his termination? If you go to work for a company you accept the restrictions put on you by that company.
  • BackpackerjasonBackpackerjason Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by miles
    There are guns other than a glock 19 that you can carry and if your careful,no one will know unless you are forced to use it and if that happens,then it really doesn't matter who known then does it.
    Someone said"get another job"..Yeah,right...There are so many jobs now that employers are just begging for employes.
    Do what you must to protect yourself but be cool about it.Get some little mouse gun if you must.Do what you have to in order to protect yourself.
    ok so using your logic you suggest he break the policies of the company that could result in his termination? If you go to work for a company you accept the restrictions put on you by that company.


    Do you think there are any limits to the what whims a company can impose on it's employees?
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Backpackerjason
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by miles
    There are guns other than a glock 19 that you can carry and if your careful,no one will know unless you are forced to use it and if that happens,then it really doesn't matter who known then does it.
    Someone said"get another job"..Yeah,right...There are so many jobs now that employers are just begging for employes.
    Do what you must to protect yourself but be cool about it.Get some little mouse gun if you must.Do what you have to in order to protect yourself.
    ok so using your logic you suggest he break the policies of the company that could result in his termination? If you go to work for a company you accept the restrictions put on you by that company.


    Do you think there are any limits to the what whims a company can impose on it's employees?
    in the private sector free market it should be up to the individual to be able to agree, or not to a companies demands, otherwise it is government controlled, or union, either or are dispicable imho
  • BackpackerjasonBackpackerjason Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:
    Do you think there are any limits to the what whims a company can impose on it's employees?
    in the private sector free market it should be up to the individual to be able to agree, or not to a companies demands, otherwise it is government controlled, or union, either or are dispicable imho


    So you wouldn't have any problems with companies barring blacks from entering the premises, or at least requiring them to use the back door?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,128 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Backpackerjason
    So you wouldn't have any problems with companies barring blacks from entering the premises, or at least requiring them to use the back door?
    An interesting, though diverting question.

    The simple and Constitutional answer is yes, a private property owner should be able to dictate who enters his premises.

    This does not extend to government buildings and functions for obvious reasons, but private owners do not have the power of government and thus do not have the same responsibilities.

    It makes no sense, IMO, to close your doors to anyone, but it is wrong to insist that privately owned businesses open their doors to anyone and everyone through government decree.

    The simple fact is that the U.S. Constitution prohibits racism by governmental entities. It does not and cannot prohibit private racism.

    True respect for freedom requires that we accept that people can and will choose to live their lives in a manner we find wrong and even disgusting. Insisting that a private business serve someone they wish not to serve is a justifiable, though unconstitutional, invasion of their freedom.

    Likewise, demanding that an employer accept concealed carry in his workplace is counter to his perception of being secure on his own property, and is thus unconstitutional.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • BackpackerjasonBackpackerjason Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Backpackerjason
    So you wouldn't have any problems with companies barring blacks from entering the premises, or at least requiring them to use the back door?
    An interesting, though diverting question.

    The simple and Constitutional answer is yes, a private property owner should be able to dictate who enters his premises.

    This does not extend to government buildings and functions for obvious reasons, but private owners do not have the power of government and thus do not have the same responsibilities.

    It makes no sense, IMO, to close your doors to anyone, but it is wrong to insist that privately owned businesses open their doors to anyone and everyone through government decree.

    The simple fact is that the U.S. Constitution prohibits racism by governmental entities. It does not and cannot prohibit private racism.

    True respect for freedom requires that we accept that people can and will choose to live their lives in a manner we find wrong and even disgusting. Insisting that a private business serve someone they wish not to serve is a justifiable, though unconstitutional, invasion of their freedom.

    Likewise, demanding that an employer accept concealed carry in his workplace is counter to his perception of being secure on his own property, and is thus unconstitutional.




    Now what happens when a business accepts various governmental funding, otherwise known as corporate welfare?

    And why is it justifiable for government to force private businesses to service blacks, Irish, Chinese, blondes, midgets, or anyone else?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,128 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Backpackerjason
    Now what happens when a business accepts various governmental funding, otherwise known as corporate welfare?

    And why is it justifiable for government to force private businesses to service blacks, Irish, Chinese, blondes, midgets, or anyone else?


    You would have to be more specific concerning 'corporate welfare'. There is little direct funding outside of agriculture, transportation and green energy that receive direct funding.

    You make a good point regarding my inarticulate use of justifiable, however.

    It is not, IMO, justifiable for government to force private business to service anyone. My meaning was that an individual can justify holding a private business to any standard they wish. I would not patronize a business that had a 'blacks not welcome' sign in the window, and do not patronize businesses that prohibit concealed carry. I can justify this through my moral code, and insist upon compliance to my moral code through the withholding of that patronage.

    It is not Constitutionally justifiable (and thus it is not justifiable) for government to force private businesses to service blacks, whites, the Chinese, blonds or midgets if that business owner wishes not to service them.

    It is, of course, justifiable for government to force any and all businesses to service the Irish.
    [:)]
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • chaoslodgechaoslodge Member Posts: 790 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I say carry anyhow and be discreet. Like someone else said, the worst that could happen if you are breaking the rule is you get fired. Why would they know whether you are carrying in the first place?

    As far as ethics go, my personal safety, self respect and responsibility as a parent trump any crappola company policy. They want to make a policy then they can be responsible for enforcing it. Do they have metal detectors? If not, how serious are they about this policy?
  • cabnetmancabnetman Member Posts: 242 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Briansims8
    In some states you can leave your carry in your car regardless what the boss says, but I don't know about WA. I know you said you walk but this may help.
    Yes, in Washington State you can now leave your gun in your car at your place of employment.
  • cabnetmancabnetman Member Posts: 242 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Where have you been Don. If you own a resturant, you or your customers can no longer smoke in the resturant. How's that for our government telling you what you can and can't do.

    As far as carrying concealed; never tell anyone that your carring, then there's never a problem.
  • BackpackerjasonBackpackerjason Member Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    You would have to be more specific concerning 'corporate welfare'. There is little direct funding outside of agriculture, transportation and green energy that receive direct funding.

    Those aren't the only things, but when we play the same game with stock welfare and ignore crack whores, crazies, and several other criteria we can claim there is not much of that variety either.


    These are from the 90's and I am sure the numbers are much, much higher now.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa225.html
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,128 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Where have you been Don. If you own a resturant, you or your customers can no longer smoke in the resturant. How's that for our government telling you what you can and can't do.

    As far as carrying concealed; never tell anyone that your carring, then there's never a problem.

    Sadly that law has closed a large number of smaller community / neighborhood bars and restaurants, cabnetman. It should be unenforceable, but it has obviously not yet been successfully challenged.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • cabnetmancabnetman Member Posts: 242 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    Where have you been Don. If you own a resturant, you or your customers can no longer smoke in the resturant. How's that for our government telling you what you can and can't do.

    As far as carrying concealed; never tell anyone that your carring, then there's never a problem.

    Sadly that law has closed a large number of smaller community / neighborhood bars and restaurants, cabnetman. It should be unenforceable, but it has obviously not yet been successfully challenged.
    Well I totally agree that it should be unenforceable and shouldn't be a law. Let public opinion determine where the smoking areas should be. The only place you can legally smoke in Washington State is in a Indian casino. That shouldn't be. If you can smoke there, then there should be alternatives in the public arena.
  • AlfredJonesAlfredJones Member Posts: 120 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm not sure what the laws are in Washington, but in SC when you get your CCW they teach you that if a business does not have the correct signs (i.e. if they have hand made signs or non-offical state signs) banning concealed weapons then it is still legal to carry in that business.

    However, with the ban being in the employee handbook other laws may apply.
  • wittynbearwittynbear Member Posts: 4,518
    edited November -1
    If WA has a law that says you can keep a concealed weapon in your car on company property then who cares what the boss says drive to work and keep it locked in your car. If they fire you for doing as the law says you can do sue the piss out of them, put a nice size dent in their wallet and they will get the idea.
  • Doug the MugDoug the Mug Member Posts: 13 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hi, Regarding the carrying of a lawfully possesed handgun on an employers premesis. I can see with all the concern over gun violence in public facilities and private work places, that poeeseeion of a handgun would concern an employer. I can see that an employer can draw up rules for dress code, drug testing, attendance, or even smoking on the premesis because those things directly effect the preformance of people in his work environment. understanding that all these rules have to be applied to all workers equally across the board, I would say that although an employer may have a right to make a no-gun rule, I would suspect that he doesn't have the right to search your person to ascertain if you have a lawfully owned concealed weapon. Of course if he did discover the presence of a weapon he could terminate your employment. It's a tricky question, where the State of Washington says you have a right to carry a weapon concealed on your person, and your employer feels that he can nullify a state statute while on his property. Several years ago I was a police officer and ran a motorcycle repair shop. I was told by our insurance company that I had to sign a waiver agreeing not to use the off duty gun that I was required by my department to carry if my shop should ever be held up. I contacted the State insurance board, and they ruled in my favor. Of course the bottom line for that insurance company was their potential for being sued, not my safty. Good luck with a touchy situation.
  • Doug the MugDoug the Mug Member Posts: 13 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had some additional thoughts regarding an employers banning of employees carrying a concealed weapon on their premesis. I can see where there is a sort of contractual relationship formed between you (the employee) and your employer when he hires you. In short-you've sold him 8 hours of your day for the purpose of performing a function or service for him in return for your pay. Yous employer has a right to set rules for your conduct during those 8 hours, but in most cases,(other than an outright criminal act w/ an arrest) your employers only way to enforce his rules is through his ability to be able to discipline or ultimately fire you.

    NOW, what I wonder about is: In view of the fact that your employer in writing (the employee handbook)-took away your ability to protect yourself- Would it be possible to lodge a punative civil lawsuit against him for failure to protect you. In other words does he now have an obligation to provide a safe work environment.

    I realize that you can sue a ham sandwich if you can get it into court these days, but winning is another thing. Years back I believe the city of Meridan, Conneticut got sued for several million dollars for "failure to protect" a woman when her ex-husband showed up repeatedly and beat her up. The police showed up each time and sent him on his way,(no arrest),until the day came that he showed up and stabbed her to death. Her family sued and the courts ruled that the first time the police were called and made aware of the problem, a "special obligation to protect her came into existance"

    Even though its not domectic violence, my point is: By removing your ability to protect yourself (and documenting it in the handbook)),do you think an employer would be leaving himself open to a similar lawsuit. Doug the Mug
  • cabnetmancabnetman Member Posts: 242 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:By removing your ability to protect yourself (and documenting it in the handbook)),do you think an employer would be leaving himself open to a similar lawsuit.
    As an employer, that does raise concern for me. I don't have any rules as to employees carrying or having guns in their cars and hope that I don't have to make that decision. I'm not sure how I would rule. I have a ccp and do carry, but am not sure how I would feel about having all my employees armed. I would hope that I would give them the same rights that the constitution has given me with the 2nd ammendment. [?]
  • miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
    quote:Originally posted by miles
    There are guns other than a glock 19 that you can carry and if your careful,no one will know unless you are forced to use it and if that happens,then it really doesn't matter who known then does it.
    Someone said"get another job"..Yeah,right...There are so many jobs now that employers are just begging for employes.
    Do what you must to protect yourself but be cool about it.Get some little mouse gun if you must.Do what you have to in order to protect yourself.
    ok so using your logic you suggest he break the policies of the company that could result in his termination? If you go to work for a company you accept the restrictions put on you by that company.
    In my Honest Opinion I think the man's safety far out ways the Company owners but still has the right.

    This man describes the condition's were he feels unsafe and I would look at all options from finding a place near your work that will hold your firearm for your trip back home. Even a gun shop owner might oblige.

    Ask your employer if a gun safe could be used to store your legally owed gun and also would he have any remorse for his decision should you be killed on your way home from work that could have been prevented.

    I'm a Business owner and work with my Employees for their safety. I also understand the Employees liability but like all issues that face us all, there are option's so everyone wins.

    How about a requirement that all guns must be turned into the office and place in a safe unloaded during your working hours?

    Offer to set up a program or pitch in for a safe for the gun's.
    Or find a local Business.

    Other option as mentioned Smaller gun No one knows about. May even save your life and the owners life someday.

    Not wise to Boost or tell anyone about a concealed Carry permit
  • cabnetmancabnetman Member Posts: 242 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I just had the State Labor & Industries thru my plant (again). I wonder how they would feel if all my employees were packing? Maybe the next time they come, I will have all employees do an open carry while working. Now that would be interesting.......[}:)][:0][:p][:D]
  • miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cabnetman
    I just had the State Labor & Industries thru my plant (again). I wonder how they would feel if all my employees were packing? Maybe the next time they come, I will have all employees do an open carry while working. Now that would be interesting.......[}:)][:0][:p][:D]
    I know for a fact its is entirely Legal here in the Sheeples Rublik Of Califlower.
  • cabnetmancabnetman Member Posts: 242 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yep, it's totally legal up here in the great "Communist State of Washington" also. Remember: USE IT OR LOOSE IT
  • miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by melkor
    U and some friends go down to the dumpster and beat the vagrants like seals, and inform them this is your turf, get lost ! For Gods sake be a man ! U don't need a GUN ! U need some balls and a pipe ! [B)] Christ we were beating the stuffing out of each other in Elementary school over turf. Put your sissy gun down and give and maybe take a beating. Watch FIGHT CLUB a few times and American X then go Pummel ! [:D]

    I suggest U bring a baseball bat, with a glove and ball each day past that dumpster and thump anyone who even looks at U. [B)
    If U have no balls at all, your local Skinheads [8D] will do it for a small donation, with glee [:)]
    Your post has no merit and is a lashing out of a man with an Hosest situation only seeking answers to a situation.

    Your assumptions do not consider this mans abilities or handicaps.
    It is a Mindset that is Fundamentally flawed to assume a pipe be considered a weapon if a situation arises of a .357 Mag Pointed in his face.
    Assuming all people who stand up to their right to defend themselves would associate them selves with skin heads, You really don't understand The second amendment or the ones who stand by it.

    You say grow some balls! I say you need to stop thinking you have some.
    BallPark Frank envoy at its finest display and immaturity. Grow beyond yourself because you really are not as great as you think you are, It shows.

    I ask You This!
    Do You support and defend the constitution of the United States of America?
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Nightmare_Scenario
    Hey,

    New member, sorry to drop in and drop drama.

    My workplace just updated the employee handbook to include a new section on workplace violence. This new section bans the possession of firearms, weapons or other dangerous items while on the office campus. I asked the Human Resources department if it was possible to get a waiver or sign a hold-harmless agreement of some sort. The HR VP replied, in plain English, "No, we won't compromise on this and my lawyers tell me it's legal to ban firearms here."

    I live in Washington State, have a concealed pistol license and carry a Glock 19. I walk to work and prefer to be armed when passing by the several dumpsters between my office and apartment as they are often raided by vagrants. Some of these vagrants have been arrested for murder, car theft etc and one pulled a knife on my father-in-law last year.

    Is anyone familiar enough with Washington state law to give me some options around this ban? Thanks.


    I share your displeasure with the company rule. While I agree with private property rights (but not restricting legal guns safely stored in an employee's vehicle in the company parking lot) I find it interesting that so many anti-gun, anti-self defense people will go to great lengths to restrict the peaceful, lawful gun owners, yet those same anti-self defense people never seem to get around to hammering on the actual criminal elements.

    If it were me, I would just buy a Ruger LCP in .380 and keep it hidden in my pocket and nobody will ever know. Or, make an arrangement (pay them?) with a co-worker to store your firearm in their car parked outside the building.
  • txjackasstxjackass Member Posts: 191 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    tr fox you are big nra and you tell someone that???
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by txjackass
    tr fox you are big nra and you tell someone that???


    I see no conflict in that.
  • 4406v4406v Member Posts: 317 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Doug,You raise a very interesting point.I have asked a similar question on another post.Seems most people think the employer has a "right" to deny an employee the "right" to be able to defend themselves with a firearm should the need arise.I am not worried about people carrying firearms who have a legal permit to carry concealed I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE LAWBREAKERS CARRYING ILLEGAL FIREARMS!!! THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LET "COMPANY POLICY" DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO ENTER THE PREMISES ARMED.
  • IfticarIfticar Member Posts: 58 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Perhaps you could negotiate with your employer.

    Explain you that you are licensed and that you have a legitimate reason for wanting to carry. Explain that you would like to find a way to both carry to work and be disarmed while at work.

    One possible solution is a lock box in your HR office. You deposit your gun in the box when you arrive at work. They lock it and retain the key. They unlock it and deliver the firearm to you when you are leaving the campus. Or maybe, you retain the key but they keep the box.
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    Nothing like a bunch of people proclaiming to be for rights discussing how to disregard the rights of a property owner.

    Look at it how you may but you are on someone elses property you do not have the same rights you do on your own property, or public property. You are limited by what they deem acceptable behavior just as you have the right not to step foot on their property.

    It amazes me with how heavy handed some wish to be in disregarding a pretty sacred right that is one of the very foundations of our country. Take responsibility for your own actions and quit trying to force others to bend to your will when they have no desire, or requirement to.

    Carrying a firearm on private property is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Then, Mr Friendly, I assume that you would have no problem in me suing you for your eye-teeth if I am shot or attacked while on your property disarmed ? OR while driving home to pick up a weapon ?

    Naturally, given a jury of 12 informed, aware Constitutionally minded Americans, I should be able to collect, handily....
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Then, Mr Friendly, I assume that you would have no problem in me suing you for your eye-teeth if I am shot or attacked while on your property disarmed ? OR while driving home to pick up a weapon ?

    Naturally, given a jury of 12 informed, aware Constitutionally minded Americans, I should be able to collect, handily....

    No sir, by accepting my terms, you have made the choice to enter at your own peril.

    That is the beautiful thing about this country, you are given choices and you either accept, or decline, and move on your way.

    If someone goes "haywire" and attacks you THEY, and THEY ALONE are responsible for the damage inflicted. I, by not allowing you to carry a firearm on my property are no more responsible for their act than YOU are for accepting the terms, and giving up what you deem to be your right to protect yourself.

    You can weight the variables, and make the decision for yourself whether or not you desire to put your safety in anothers hands. If you choose not to do so, you move on to the next opportunity. Your life, your freedom, your liberty, your choice.

    You, a self proclaimed constitutionalist, individualist and spokesman for individual freedom should acknowledge that anything less that what is written above is nothing more than thinly veiled collectivism.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    If my family is hungry, and you have the only job in town, then that makes you ruler.ehhh ?
    I reckon I will continue to ensure MY OWN safety.and not depend upon you to do so.

    I can go along with nearly ANY `personal property' argument.

    EXCEPT THIS ONE.
    I have come to believe that personal defense and `Shall Not Be Infringed' trumps hopolophobia.


    If I am wrong..at least I will be alive to admit it.
Sign In or Register to comment.