I think so.
I couldn't understand whatever the point the author was trying to make. Could you?
Carl Ramey: On guard against 'stand your ground'
Saturday, July 01, 2017
It's That Time Of The Year Again
This is the time when the bombs and the booby traps go off again. I hear, I react, and I say again: "It's not real, it's just people having fun".
And I'm glad they enjoy the noise and the thrills. They get to make loud rude noises, and even though it's not yet Independence Day .. it's fun!
And I'm glad they enjoy the noise and the thrills. They get to make loud rude noises, and even though it's not yet Independence Day .. it's fun!
America ... The Land Of Losers!
On June 28 I wrote an article which brought some interesting comments; among them, this:
Anonymous said...California government marches to the beat of a different drum. Folks that don't like it can always move elsewhere.
- Guess what? This is the "Elsewhere" where people moved.
- Essentially, except for the "indigenous people" which the earliest European colonists found here (and almost immediately wiped out by a combination of Guns, God and Gonorrhea .. not to mention measles) this was a land unpopulated by thriving, advanced nations. It was not necessary for the new "colonists" to take the land away from those few humans found here; they just had to breathe on them; then sit back and let nature take its course.
- You can't get more American than THAT!
- (Later, of course, there were some obscure hold-outs .. see Wounded Knee ... our sterling soldiers soon negotiated an honorable peace.)
- Americas Statue of Liberty is the host to a gift of the French People. It is the only monument to freedom which is dedicated to freedom: don't let nobody tell you no different!
- America is the progenitor of the twin documents which delineate the concept of freedom: The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution of the United States of America.
- The Declaration of Independence defines the reasons why Americans decided to separate themselves from their British founders, and the basic precepts of FREEDOM which should rightly be available to ALL men to define.
- The Constitution delineates the basic principles under which Americans have decided to live:
- (With no reference to the "foreign nation" which, by the singular virtue of having colonized it, seemed comfortable with the assumption of power to GOVERN that new land. Oh .. that would be England!)
- Unfortunately, having tasted freedom, free men are loath to give it up!
- These documents are the foundation of America; both in the original establishment of the nation, and as the enduring requirement of free men to continue to manage their own affairs, regardless of the wishes of a "foreign" nation which would impose its own laws upon them as if it were a mere "colony".
- (Britain established "Colonies"; America established "Partners". Well, nobody is perfect.)
- (Except for "Me and Thee"; and sometimes I worry a bit about "Thee".)
- I hope to examine the concept of "Independence" more thoroughly on Independence Day later this week.
- But I suspect I might be overwhelmed by pomposity by then. So don't hold your breath.
- This is as much scholarship and research as I can manage in a single week, and I may have already over-used it, You know the drill: if you're interested, do your own research. You know as much about it as I do.
- I'm just glad I don't live in Europe. Or .. well ... anywhere else.
- No man can say more for the concept of "independence", without voting Democrat.
- /snark
Friday, June 30, 2017
Are deaths caused by doctors in hospitals more common than gun deaths?
How do you categorize a murder scene IN a hospital BY a doctor WITH a gun?
And at the same time, it's sure to skew some statistics.
People have been comparing statistics about death for years, and (besides toddlers drowning themselves in a bucket of water, and other 'swimming' and 'falling" categories) the Big Three seem to be guns, hospitals/doctors, and car wrecks.
Okay, that's four. Let's eliminate the factor which isn't related: automobile accidents (which often lead to hospital visits, but let's not go there. Okay?
The Doctor vs The Redneck
How is "Doctor" more morally acceptable than "Bubba"
I don't much care for statistics (or lies, or damn lies) so I'm not going to make much of the question.
EXCEPT to say that we, as a society, hold Doctors to the highest regard where "Professionals" (College Educated To A Trade) are concerned. We don't expect much from Lawyers, and they don't give us much. Shrug
But when the people --- who have supposedly dedicated their professional lives to a Socratic oath --- go off on binge-murders, there's something more seriously wrong here than when Bubba says "Hey, Y'all! Watch This!" just before hekills seriously damages himself in front of a camera.
But we will never know, will we?
"What happens in the Operating Room Stays In The Operating Room"!
Gunman and woman dead, 6 people hurt in shooting inside Bronx hospital in New York City | abc7.com: SOUTH BRONX, New York City -- Police said a gunman and a woman are dead, and six other people were injured after a shooting inside a New York City hospital Friday.This was a horrible thing to happen, it's difficult to determine how it could have been prevented.
And at the same time, it's sure to skew some statistics.
People have been comparing statistics about death for years, and (besides toddlers drowning themselves in a bucket of water, and other 'swimming' and 'falling" categories) the Big Three seem to be guns, hospitals/doctors, and car wrecks.
Okay, that's four. Let's eliminate the factor which isn't related: automobile accidents (which often lead to hospital visits, but let's not go there. Okay?
Police said a former employee at that hospital -- identified as 45-year-old Dr. Henry Bello -- opened fire with an assault rifle, injuring six people on the 16th floor.(Might I mention that the firearm used, an AR15, is not actually an "Assault Rifle" .. unless you're a Liberal Journalist? And that I just raised the question about whether there are journalists who are not Liberals ... thereby adding one more needless complication?)
The Doctor vs The Redneck
How is "Doctor" more morally acceptable than "Bubba"
I don't much care for statistics (or lies, or damn lies) so I'm not going to make much of the question.
EXCEPT to say that we, as a society, hold Doctors to the highest regard where "Professionals" (College Educated To A Trade) are concerned. We don't expect much from Lawyers, and they don't give us much. Shrug
But when the people --- who have supposedly dedicated their professional lives to a Socratic oath --- go off on binge-murders, there's something more seriously wrong here than when Bubba says "Hey, Y'all! Watch This!" just before he
At least Bubba lacks the moral turpitude to deliberately slaughter his friends and co-workers in a rit of felous jage ... sorry that's an Inspector Clouseau momentNo, I don't think that Doctors kill people more often than Bubba.
But we will never know, will we?
"What happens in the Operating Room Stays In The Operating Room"!
Feds: Second Amendment Not A Second-Class Right
"This court recognized that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right..."
In a strange twist, a FEDERAL Judge put the spurs to Californian lawmakers.
Federal judge blocks new California high-capacity magazine ban, but fight looms | Fox News:
Californian lawmakers .... and the anti-second amendment majority of Californians who voted them into office ... will scream and shout, counter-sue, invoke their states' rights privilege, and from that point this is going to get nasty.
And very interesting.
Also, probably (for pro-second amendment folks) occasionally disappointing.
There are plenty of states which already restrict "Magazine Capacity" in their laws. To say that a federal judge with an understanding of the Constitution is going to make a difference in the nation's most populous (with Texas) state and most Liberal (can't think of one that's MORE-SO, offhand) is to say that Wishing On A Star will bring Jiminy Cricket to the rescue.
From the Constitution:
... but sadly, you would be wrong.
In a strange twist, a FEDERAL Judge put the spurs to Californian lawmakers.
Federal judge blocks new California high-capacity magazine ban, but fight looms | Fox News:
A federal judge in California on Thursday blocked a state law that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines. San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners' Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people's private property without compensation(H/T: The Gun Feed)
Californian lawmakers .... and the anti-second amendment majority of Californians who voted them into office ... will scream and shout, counter-sue, invoke their states' rights privilege, and from that point this is going to get nasty.
And very interesting.
Also, probably (for pro-second amendment folks) occasionally disappointing.
There are plenty of states which already restrict "Magazine Capacity" in their laws. To say that a federal judge with an understanding of the Constitution is going to make a difference in the nation's most populous (with Texas) state and most Liberal (can't think of one that's MORE-SO, offhand) is to say that Wishing On A Star will bring Jiminy Cricket to the rescue.
From the Constitution:
Section. 2.... which might lead one to assume that Constitutional Rights are interpreted the same by every state.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
... but sadly, you would be wrong.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
What is the Supreme Court good for?
Reciprocity!
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to concealed carry restrictions - Washington Times:
(June 26, 2017)
Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens have the same ability to do so, without facing harassment by Law Enforcement Officers? Do Californians think that by denying Constitutional rights to ordinary people, they will eliminate the use of firearms by their {HUGE!} Criminal element?
Here is a Case Study, and I swear I am not making this up:
Joe Bfetznikcke (pronounced: "Brown") from down the block isn't the one who is robbing passers-by with a pistol. He has a clean record; no arrests, and he mows the lawn in front of his suburban home every week, rain or shine. He's a good citizen and a good neighbor.
He also mows the lawn of his next door neighbors: Scherputz (pronounced "Frank" who hasn't worked in 20 years but buys a case a beer every day and when the wind is right the air reeks of chemical funes; and Judi (pronounced "Scheuddinskiavich") who has a lot of boy friends who only seem to visit her once a week. Each. She has no visible means of support, but drives a Mercedes.
Joe has other neighbors who are not quite as "socially aware", and who all have a criminal record; he wants to defend their families, but he's not "physical". So he mows their lawns, too.
Joe's a schmuck. But he's OUR SCHMUCK!
Joe works in one of those business park buildings in a computer development business, and he's a geek. He lives on potato chips and ZAP! Cola, and couldn't fight himself out of a paper bag.
In fact, if a paper bag wanted to take his (unsecured) parking spot at his place of employment, Joe would back out and park his 1997 Ford in the "NoseBleed" section of the parking lot.
He parks his car in the company parking lot before dawn, and leaves after dusk. He is a hard worker, a good family man.
He is entirely defenseless, and the Bad Guys know this. They have robbed and assaulted his co-workers regularly, and Joe is only thankful that he hasn't been targeted. Yet.
But he can't get a permit to own and carry a firearm (even though he has taken all the 'right' courses, and he feels vulnerable). Why? Because he has "No Good cause " to be awarded a Concealed Handgun license.
He has never been personally threatened, the police haven't arrested anyone for assaulting his co-workers (which doesn't mean they haven't been assaulted, robbed, beaten, battered, abused and raped) but it was not JOE who was the target. Yet.
Joe would like to carry a gun. He has bought a pistol, taken the classes, works out at the range AND the gym on a weekly basis, but since he has not received a specific threat, he can't legally carry a gun.
Despite several applications which Joe has submitted, the local Sheriff has not yet decided that Joe has "Good Cause" to carry a gun. And since the sheriff is the sole arbiter of who does or does not "deserve" a license to carry, Joe is defenseless.
So what's Joe going to do? Wait until he gets mugged? Or should he break the local laws because he's pretty sure it's just a matter of time because he lives in a BAD NEIGHBORHOOD where crime is unstoppable by the police.
California is one of the "Hold Out" states which cleave to their ant-gun gods .... liberal assemblymen and other politicians who hate the idea that law-abiding citizens might legally carry firearms in protection of themselves, their families, their community and their property.
The sheriff in his county is a "May Issue" kind of guy, and he cannot imagine any reason why Joe might want to carry a gun. That's his personal opinion. Of course, the sheriff carries a gun, and he works in an office where everyone carries a gun .. including his sultry blond secretary, Schuerrienaughe. (Pronounced: "Jill"; she's Irish).
But the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare that a standard of responsibility which works for 'most' states might be permitted in 'all' states, is reluctant to dip its collective toes in the boiling pot of political acid which is the Gun Control/Gun Rights controversy.
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to concealed carry restrictions - Washington Times:
(June 26, 2017)
Second Amendment advocates stung by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up a closely watched gun rights case vowed Monday to pursue litigation as long as it takes to get the justices to affirm the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public.I'm a bit conflicted, personally, about this issue. Second Amendment aside, I am aware that criminals (and those with criminal intent) will carry a firearm any time, any place, and for whatever reason suits their purpose.
Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens have the same ability to do so, without facing harassment by Law Enforcement Officers? Do Californians think that by denying Constitutional rights to ordinary people, they will eliminate the use of firearms by their {HUGE!} Criminal element?
Here is a Case Study, and I swear I am not making this up:
Joe Bfetznikcke (pronounced: "Brown") from down the block isn't the one who is robbing passers-by with a pistol. He has a clean record; no arrests, and he mows the lawn in front of his suburban home every week, rain or shine. He's a good citizen and a good neighbor.
He also mows the lawn of his next door neighbors: Scherputz (pronounced "Frank" who hasn't worked in 20 years but buys a case a beer every day and when the wind is right the air reeks of chemical funes; and Judi (pronounced "Scheuddinskiavich") who has a lot of boy friends who only seem to visit her once a week. Each. She has no visible means of support, but drives a Mercedes.
Joe has other neighbors who are not quite as "socially aware", and who all have a criminal record; he wants to defend their families, but he's not "physical". So he mows their lawns, too.
Joe's a schmuck. But he's OUR SCHMUCK!
Joe works in one of those business park buildings in a computer development business, and he's a geek. He lives on potato chips and ZAP! Cola, and couldn't fight himself out of a paper bag.
In fact, if a paper bag wanted to take his (unsecured) parking spot at his place of employment, Joe would back out and park his 1997 Ford in the "NoseBleed" section of the parking lot.
He parks his car in the company parking lot before dawn, and leaves after dusk. He is a hard worker, a good family man.
He is entirely defenseless, and the Bad Guys know this. They have robbed and assaulted his co-workers regularly, and Joe is only thankful that he hasn't been targeted. Yet.
But he can't get a permit to own and carry a firearm (even though he has taken all the 'right' courses, and he feels vulnerable). Why? Because he has "No Good cause " to be awarded a Concealed Handgun license.
He has never been personally threatened, the police haven't arrested anyone for assaulting his co-workers (which doesn't mean they haven't been assaulted, robbed, beaten, battered, abused and raped) but it was not JOE who was the target. Yet.
Joe would like to carry a gun. He has bought a pistol, taken the classes, works out at the range AND the gym on a weekly basis, but since he has not received a specific threat, he can't legally carry a gun.
Despite several applications which Joe has submitted, the local Sheriff has not yet decided that Joe has "Good Cause" to carry a gun. And since the sheriff is the sole arbiter of who does or does not "deserve" a license to carry, Joe is defenseless.
So what's Joe going to do? Wait until he gets mugged? Or should he break the local laws because he's pretty sure it's just a matter of time because he lives in a BAD NEIGHBORHOOD where crime is unstoppable by the police.
California is one of the "Hold Out" states which cleave to their ant-gun gods .... liberal assemblymen and other politicians who hate the idea that law-abiding citizens might legally carry firearms in protection of themselves, their families, their community and their property.
The sheriff in his county is a "May Issue" kind of guy, and he cannot imagine any reason why Joe might want to carry a gun. That's his personal opinion. Of course, the sheriff carries a gun, and he works in an office where everyone carries a gun .. including his sultry blond secretary, Schuerrienaughe. (Pronounced: "Jill"; she's Irish).
The court opted Monday not to hear Peruta v. California, letting stand a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a California law requiring a gun owner to show “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs.
But the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare that a standard of responsibility which works for 'most' states might be permitted in 'all' states, is reluctant to dip its collective toes in the boiling pot of political acid which is the Gun Control/Gun Rights controversy.
The state law left the authority to decide what constitutes “good cause” up to local authorities such as sheriffs or police chiefs. Gun owner Edward Peruta, of San Diego County, brought the case after he sought to carry concealed firearms for self-defense but was denied a concealed carry license in 2009 because he was unable to show good cause.Yes I wiped myself thoroughly when I finished this parable.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
TRUE VALOR!
I don't want to talk about fake history. ... although Shakespeare is a master ..
.
Shakespeare's Saint Crispin Days Speech from Henry V.
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day
But I don't want to talk about an imaginary "Band of Brothers", either, seem they ever so real.
I want to talk about a real man, an true American Hero, a man who is unknown today:
I want to talk about a man who is the epitome of True Valor: Green Beret MSG Roy Benavidez.
Actually, I want you to hear his 1991 speech. You will wonder if you are among those ...... gentlemen in England
I know you will be inspired. I was there, if not then, and I am inspired.
H/T: Spectator
.
Shakespeare's Saint Crispin Days Speech from Henry V.
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day
But I don't want to talk about an imaginary "Band of Brothers", either, seem they ever so real.
I want to talk about a real man, an true American Hero, a man who is unknown today:
I want to talk about a man who is the epitome of True Valor: Green Beret MSG Roy Benavidez.
Actually, I want you to hear his 1991 speech. You will wonder if you are among those ...... gentlemen in England
(I'm linking to the original SPECTATOR article because it provides some .. background to what I think you would be better served to see.The author of the article deserves the presentation although his introduction is buried deep in the comments section of a ... not entirely noteworthy SPECTATOR Article:
To clear my mind of this article I have gone back to my all time favorite Medal of Honor recipient now on Youtube. Green Beret MSG Roy Benavidez. He gives incredible speeches and if you have time watch-if limited goto the 5min mark and listen to his remarks. Perfect for this Memorial Day and will clear your mind of this article.To make it easier for you to follow the thread here is the speech: (25 minutes)
I know you will be inspired. I was there, if not then, and I am inspired.
H/T: Spectator
The 200 round arsenal
Scalise upgraded as gunman James Hodgkinson had 200 rounds of ammo in storage unit, FBI investigators say | Fox News:
Second, what's the big deal with JimmyThe Arseman having 200 rounds of ammunition in a STORAGE locker? What has that to do with anything?
And third, if that was intended as the "Shocker Line" ... I've got over 200 rounds of ammunition on my kitchen counter at this moment; that's the leftover .45 caliber ammunition * I didn't shoot up when I went to the range this morning.
I've also got 3500 bullets in .45 and 10mm calibers sitting by my reloading bench; every one of them will be used to poke holes in cardboard targets.
Let's see you make a headline of THAT, Hoplophobia America!
* (Thanks again, Ammoman; those .45 samples you sent functioned flawlessly in my 1911!)
Meanwhile, FBI officials said leftist gunman James Hodgkinson had more than 200 rounds of ammunition at a local storage unit when he attacked Republican lawmakers as they practiced for the annual Congressional baseball game.Three things: Along with most Americans, I'm pleased to hear that Representative Steve Scalise is no longer on the Critical List. "Fair Condition" sounds very encouraging.
Second, what's the big deal with JimmyThe Arseman having 200 rounds of ammunition in a STORAGE locker? What has that to do with anything?
And third, if that was intended as the "Shocker Line" ... I've got over 200 rounds of ammunition on my kitchen counter at this moment; that's the leftover .45 caliber ammunition * I didn't shoot up when I went to the range this morning.
I've also got 3500 bullets in .45 and 10mm calibers sitting by my reloading bench; every one of them will be used to poke holes in cardboard targets.
Let's see you make a headline of THAT, Hoplophobia America!
* (Thanks again, Ammoman; those .45 samples you sent functioned flawlessly in my 1911!)
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Australian Gun Confiscation: "It's Complicated"
NRA-ILA | Nationwide Firearms Turn-in Not Enough for Australia’s Gun Haters:
I had to read this latest article several times to get the sense of it. In the end, it DID make sense .. in a sort of Alice in Wonderland manner of speaking ... but it still reeks of governmental arbitraryism:
In other words, it's not so much that the firearms are being confiscated because they are "bad" per se; it's that they have not been registered! Therefore, they must be confiscated.
These guys are serious about registering EVERY firearms; unregistered firearms are BAD not because they are BAD GUNS but because they have NOT BEEN REGISTERED!
But wait! There's a "Good Side"!
The guns which are not BAD but are UNREGISTERED must be confiscated. Without compensation. But then the guns can go onto the open market .. and can the owners then redeem the firearms from the dealer?
Well .. yes. They can BUY their guns (back) from the dealer. You know, those dealers who have paid the Government (elected) who confiscated the guns, without compensation to the original owners; but the dealers will receive full compensation from the buyers (previous owners).
You know; the guys who have no choice in the matter at all, because "Government".
Government:
The people they elected" government. The servants of the people.
Is this the image that our politicians see for us?
I had to read this latest article several times to get the sense of it. In the end, it DID make sense .. in a sort of Alice in Wonderland manner of speaking ... but it still reeks of governmental arbitraryism:
Unlike the confiscatory scheme that followed Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement, which banned most ownership of semi-automatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, the 2017 amnesty is not coupled to any new restrictions on the types of firearms an individual may own. Further, under the current amnesty, firearm owners will not receive any compensation for the firearms they relinquish.
To participate in the amnesty, gun owners will have to bring their unregistered firearms to a drop-off point designated by state and territorial authorities. In an improvement over the 1997 confiscatory turn-in, gun owners in many cases will be able to choose the final disposition of their unregistered firearms.
In other words, it's not so much that the firearms are being confiscated because they are "bad" per se; it's that they have not been registered! Therefore, they must be confiscated.
"Hi, you're Alice? I'm the White Rabbit and I'm going to make everything just PERFECT for you, and ALL will be returned to the way it was before you fell into the Rabbit Hole.-----------------------------------
Of course, it's not ... going ... to ... come ... to ... you ... for ... free ......-----------------------------------
These guys are serious about registering EVERY firearms; unregistered firearms are BAD not because they are BAD GUNS but because they have NOT BEEN REGISTERED!
But wait! There's a "Good Side"!
So .. they can "turn over" (GIVE?) their gun to a dealer, and then "retain possession of their gun" later. RIght? It looks really good on paper, but it doesn't look good on Video?An individual that has an irrational animus towards guns can choose to have their former firearm destroyed. Those turning in firearms eligible to enter the lawful stream of commerce may also be able to sell the firearm to a licensed dealer. Firearms license holders who turn over a firearm they are eligible to own will be allowed to register and retain possession of their gun. Of course, given Australian history, some gun owners might prove justifiably reluctant to make the government aware of their unregistered arms, lest they be targeted in some future confiscation effort.
Of course, that 'retain possession of their gun" thingie ain't free. But then .. neither are you. They've taken your guns, so what are you going to do. Whine? Be a little bitch? No ... just Bend over and beg for it. We OWN you!"
The guns which are not BAD but are UNREGISTERED must be confiscated. Without compensation. But then the guns can go onto the open market .. and can the owners then redeem the firearms from the dealer?
Well .. yes. They can BUY their guns (back) from the dealer. You know, those dealers who have paid the Government (elected) who confiscated the guns, without compensation to the original owners; but the dealers will receive full compensation from the buyers (previous owners).
You know; the guys who have no choice in the matter at all, because "Government".
Government:
The people they elected" government. The servants of the people.
Is this the image that our politicians see for us?
(What? They just got their guns stolen by the government and are then permitted to BUY them back? How gracious of the government which they voted into office to steal their stuff "without any compensation"), and then allow them to buy it back!)Yes. That government. You expect better from American Government?
[To learn more about the details of Australia’s National Firearms Amnesty, including the specific rules for each state and territory, visit https://firearmsamnesty.ag.gov.au.]
Here's The Good News:
....the entire Australian Plan is a piece of crap, and everyone knows it.
To continue:
In the U.S., researchers and gun rights advocates have long agreed that turn-ins are ineffective policy. This fact is not lost on all Australian politicians. Liberal Democrat Senator from New South Wales David Leyonjelm, recently said of the 2017 amnesty, “It’s purely for appearance purposes. It won’t do anything to address guns on the street, they’ll end up with grandma’s rusty old shotgun or rifle. Which was never going to be used in crime in the first place.”
This is the "Australian Plan" which Hillary, in November of last year (2016) proposed as "Something we should look into"
(Or if not an exact quote, is close enough for government work. Her government.)
Okay, I've done my bit. I told the story, took the side-streets, trolled the alleys and hinted at federal crankiness which might be echoed by our government as much as has been by the Australian government ... the folks we reckoned to be fair cobbers. Until now.
What you do with it is your business,
Me? I'm going to sleep now. Pleasant dreams!
2nd Amendment at Work: Gun in POV
Should workers be allowed to leave guns in cars at work?:
Dayton Daily News: June 22, 2017
machiavellian
By depriving this employee of the right to leave his secured gun in his (locked) car at work, he is depriving the employee of the right to carry the gun during the trip to and from work.
Which is a clear infringement of the employee's Second Amendment Rights. Especially if the employee has a Concealed Carry License.
It's not as if the employee is asking to carry his firearm into the workplace; he only asks that he be able to leave it stored. secured. in his private auto at the terminus of each trip to and from work.
The issue is whether the employer is legally permitted to deny the employee the right to carry during the transition period.
The employer is not. If the employee is legally empowered to possess a firearm on the public highway, that extends the right to keep it safely stored at the terminus of each transition.
The "personal property" rights of the employer do NOT trump the constitutional rights of the employee. In fact, the relationship between the employer and the employee are not a factor.
The lawyer is right in one point, though: this is NOT a "Concealed Carry Issue".
It's a constitutional issue, and this lawyer is being payed WAY too much to fight the issue, if he uses the "Employee Rights" claim to fight the Constitution.
At best, the lawyer should fight to require that the firearm be "safely secured" while on private property. But then he would have to hire a security consultant to define the term "safely secured".
He MIGHT convince a convivial judge that the employee should fit the bill to have his POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) guarded while at work. But given the big pockets of any corporation, vs the small salary of an employee, that would also be deemed Unconstitutional in a Supreme Court decision (not that they would touch this case!)
What do you want to bet that this lawyer didn't finish first in his Law School Class?
NOTE" This kind of contretemps has been fought between Colleges and their employees several times over the past few years; the ultimate result has almost universally been found for the employee.
On the other hand, if the Attorney can show a single incident when the care has been 'irresponsibly' left unlocked, it might turn the case.
how much do you think the Lawyer would have to pay to find a petty crook to jimmy the door of the employee's POV?
Dayton Daily News: June 22, 2017
machiavellian
Business groups are fighting an Ohio Senate proposal that will open them up to civil lawsuits by employees and others who bring handguns on to company property. “For us this isn’t a concealed carry issue as much as this is an employer rights issue,” said Chris Kershner, vice president, public policy & economic development for the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce. “Employers should be able to manage the actions in their private business on their private property, period.”I love this. I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme court.
By depriving this employee of the right to leave his secured gun in his (locked) car at work, he is depriving the employee of the right to carry the gun during the trip to and from work.
Which is a clear infringement of the employee's Second Amendment Rights. Especially if the employee has a Concealed Carry License.
It's not as if the employee is asking to carry his firearm into the workplace; he only asks that he be able to leave it stored. secured. in his private auto at the terminus of each trip to and from work.
The issue is whether the employer is legally permitted to deny the employee the right to carry during the transition period.
The employer is not. If the employee is legally empowered to possess a firearm on the public highway, that extends the right to keep it safely stored at the terminus of each transition.
The "personal property" rights of the employer do NOT trump the constitutional rights of the employee. In fact, the relationship between the employer and the employee are not a factor.
The lawyer is right in one point, though: this is NOT a "Concealed Carry Issue".
It's a constitutional issue, and this lawyer is being payed WAY too much to fight the issue, if he uses the "Employee Rights" claim to fight the Constitution.
At best, the lawyer should fight to require that the firearm be "safely secured" while on private property. But then he would have to hire a security consultant to define the term "safely secured".
He MIGHT convince a convivial judge that the employee should fit the bill to have his POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) guarded while at work. But given the big pockets of any corporation, vs the small salary of an employee, that would also be deemed Unconstitutional in a Supreme Court decision (not that they would touch this case!)
What do you want to bet that this lawyer didn't finish first in his Law School Class?
NOTE" This kind of contretemps has been fought between Colleges and their employees several times over the past few years; the ultimate result has almost universally been found for the employee.
On the other hand, if the Attorney can show a single incident when the care has been 'irresponsibly' left unlocked, it might turn the case.
how much do you think the Lawyer would have to pay to find a petty crook to jimmy the door of the employee's POV?
In other words:
PS: Boyd said the business groups hope the provision will be removed in the final version of the state’s two-year budget that is being discussed now in a 6-member conference committee made up of members of the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives. The House version of the state budget does not include the provision.“Looking at this new amendment we think it just exacerbates the problems of 199 by creating a new way to file a lawsuit against employers and private property owners,” Boyd said. “It’s a step backward for Ohio’s legal climate.”
Screw the citizen it's gonna be bad for business. Besides, we got the State on our side .. so screw him twice!! Who does he think he is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)