1911Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,817 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
excellent. I have written an email to Rep Baxler, as well as my local rep.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
Thanks for the link brother... I will start my usual email and letter writing process...

Dadgum fine bill if you ask me... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Unfortunately, the local media are already settiing upon this bill with alot of zeal.. I've gotten my elected officials written.. lets hope the media and anti-gun scaremongers don't frighten the uninformed masses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,423 Posts
I think if the corporations are forced to allow guns in their parking lots, it will take the liability factor off their heads. Corporations are all about money and perhaps this will take care of one of their main concerns.

The other concern, having a gun so close to the workplace making it easier to have some nutcase go on a rampage, might not be so easily placated...

H
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,817 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Speaking of liability--here's a bill that will never get anywhere here in IL, but might have a chance in Florida--maybe some Florida residents ought to suggest this to their legislators:
Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Gun-free Zone Criminal Conduct Liability Act. Provides that any person, organization, or entity or any agency of government, including any unit of local government, that creates a gun-free zone is liable for all costs, attorney's fees, and treble damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in the gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. Defines "gun-free zone". Effective immediately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,817 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Tampa newspaper doesn't like proposed law (or the Stand your ground law, either)

It seems that the Tampa Tribune is unhappy both about HB 129/SB 206 and the law that went into effect earlier this month that removed the duty to retreat:
Gun Advocates Won't Consider Conflicting Rights
By JOSHUA HORWITZ and CASEY ANDERSON
Published: Oct 21, 2005

The National Rifle Association likes to say that the Second Amendment is America's first freedom because the right to bear arms protects all of our other rights.
The NRA's latest maneuvers in Florida, however, suggest it is ready to sacrifice our other rights whenever they come into conflict with their expansive view of the right to carry and use guns.

This month a new NRA- backed law took effect in Florida that allows individuals who reasonably believe they see a serious crime in progress to use deadly force to confront the aggressor, even if the crime could be stopped simply by calling the police or leaving the scene. The NRA has portrayed the law as a necessary protection for law- abiding citizens who may face criminal charges or civil lawsuits simply for trying to defend themselves or someone else.

The NRA is now turning its attention to pushing a bill that would prohibit private employers from banning guns in the workplace, or at least in employer-owned parking lots. Passage of a similar law in Oklahoma prompted ConocoPhillips to go to court in an effort to keep guns off its property.

Nobody can be sure whether Florida's make-my-day law will produce many cases of reckless vigilantism, and it's impossible to say whether the guns-at-work statute will lead to a substantial increase in workplace violence. What's beyond doubt, though, is that expanding gun rights has come at the expense of other fundamental rights.

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution include the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. It is one thing to uphold the right to self-defense (as Florida law did well before the make-my- day statute was adopted) and another thing entirely to encourage vigilantes, as the new law does, to take the law into their own hands even when violent confrontation can be avoided.

For example, if a bystander with a gun mistakes an undercover police officer attempting to subdue a suspect for a criminal committing an assault, the new law gives the bystander a green light to shoot first and ask questions later.

If the guns-at-work bill passes, private employers will no longer be free to decide whether their workplaces are safer without guns, violating their right to set basic rules for their employees.

Every employer has had to deal with disgruntled employees and workplace safety issues, and some - like ConocoPhillips - operate highly sensitive facilities such as oil refineries, chemical factories or nuclear plants. These employers should be entitled to decide for themselves whether to allow employees to bring guns to work.

What's happening in Florida speaks to a broader problem: For all of its talk about defending civil rights, the NRA has little respect for any rights that might be in tension with pervasive and unaccountable ownership and use of firearms. The danger of this vision is not so much that it will lead to more violence, but that it brings us closer to a society where everyone is armed and nobody is really free.


Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson are lawyers for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
Attorneys don't like these laws?

kjhof said:
Sorry--I should have mentioned that. Apparently it was an op-ed piece, written by a couple lawyers from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I hadn't noticed that at first. Again, my apologies if I misled anyone.

Not a bit surprised that attorneys in FL don't like these laws. The Plaintiff attorneys lose a potentially huge payday by not being able to sue big company for a workplace shooting and the same for any shooting on the street. I think the freedom this article really wants to protect is the freedom of Plaintiff lawyers to make a buck.

Just my opinion,
Chris
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,029 Posts
kjhof said:
Big business might be the biggest obstacle--most of corporate America seems to be opposed to guns on their property, and when corporate America and the mainstream media want the same thing, that's a pretty tough combination to beat.
Folks thought England was also in 1776.

We showed 'em.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top