TAB opposes concealed carry, they need to be educated.
The Texas Association of Business is against the lifting of CHL carry bans, especially bans in the workplace. But the workplace is one of the most likely places where CHL is needed. One of the worst massacres in history of this sort prior to the Va Tech shooting was the 1991 Killeen Luby's attack that killed 24 people including Dr Gratia-Hupp's Parents. That was a private business. So was the mall in Utah where the Bosnian teenager started his rampage before being stopped by a off-duty policeman who was violating the mall's policy on concealed carry. He only managed to kill 5 before being stopped, but he had come with enough ammo to kill many many more.
One reason they are against this is they are afraid of lawsuits arising from shootings. Well, I have a simple solution: Lawsuit immunity for the lawful actions of a CHL holder in their employ.
Now, I'm not quite prepared to suggest that courtrooms and bars should be part of the lifting of the ban. Like Jerry Patterson said, drunk people tend to have impaired aim. But on the flip side, the CHL laws require that holders have a maximum of 0.05BAL, so being drunk and carrying, even if the person never draws the weapon, is a violation of the law and the person is subject to arrest and license revocation, and CHL holders tend to be law abiding and most don't want their license and gun taken away and a good gun is not cheap and felons can't own weapons legally. So it is entirely reasonable to think that people with CHL's could go to a bar to meet with someone, or to work, or to shoot a game of pool or darts, or even nurse a single lite beer, without problems, so that restriction could be questionable.
But courthouses are extremely emotionally charged places. People have been known to do some pretty crazy things, especially in cases of rape or murder where the defendant might be sentenced to less than the victim or the victim's family feel is deserved. So I can see the reasoning for restricting CHL's in courthouses.
One reason they are against this is they are afraid of lawsuits arising from shootings. Well, I have a simple solution: Lawsuit immunity for the lawful actions of a CHL holder in their employ.
Now, I'm not quite prepared to suggest that courtrooms and bars should be part of the lifting of the ban. Like Jerry Patterson said, drunk people tend to have impaired aim. But on the flip side, the CHL laws require that holders have a maximum of 0.05BAL, so being drunk and carrying, even if the person never draws the weapon, is a violation of the law and the person is subject to arrest and license revocation, and CHL holders tend to be law abiding and most don't want their license and gun taken away and a good gun is not cheap and felons can't own weapons legally. So it is entirely reasonable to think that people with CHL's could go to a bar to meet with someone, or to work, or to shoot a game of pool or darts, or even nurse a single lite beer, without problems, so that restriction could be questionable.
But courthouses are extremely emotionally charged places. People have been known to do some pretty crazy things, especially in cases of rape or murder where the defendant might be sentenced to less than the victim or the victim's family feel is deserved. So I can see the reasoning for restricting CHL's in courthouses.
posted by Rorschach at
5/01/2007 08:22:00 AM
3 Comments:
While I would be OK with limiting CCW in courthouses, I think they should do what the state of WA does and provide a gun check so you can be protected to and from.
A commenter that had difficulty logging in sent the following to me as a comment:
Glenn Ware wrote:
I appreciate your idea about the immunity from lawsuits for "lawful" actions by those with a CHL. I suppose, by definition, if the action was lawful, then the suit would not be successful. However, of course, the CHL holder may still face the hassle and expense of a judicial proceeding. Perhaps, there could be something similar for CHL holders to the "qualified immunity" afforded peace officers. Another approach may be to give the immunity under what is known as the "Good Samaritan Act" that helps to promote citizens giving medical aid to others by providing some protection against suits.
Thanks for your articles on weapon laws and how our society is responding to the regulation of weapons in light of the recent mass shootings. Because of the information that you have provided, I have come to have a greater appreciation for people who are concerned and active in protecting citizen's lawful access to bare arms, either for sport or for protection. The government's intrusion into all matters dealings with the rational privacy of citizens should be given great scrutiny. To work to prevent unjustified government intrusions in one area helps to protect the privacy of people from other abusive intrusions by government
Glenn, I'm glad you are coming around to my way of thinking. Here is the crux of the issue. The constitution does not give you rights, Mankind has had them all along, the framers recognized that as a fundamental truth. The constitution says that the government may not take your rights away. Far too many people start with the idea that the constitution bestows rights upon them, as if you had no rights unless the government choses to give them to you. That path leads to despotism. Therefore, US v Miller, the case that started the whole thing, fundamentally violates the 2nd amendment because while the 2nd says that the congress "may make no law...The right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed", the first part of the 2nd amendment is really only one of many justifications for the second half, it is not however a modifier or limiting factor, only one of many justifications. any tax or permit is an infringement.
The problem is that the executive and the legislative branches serve as checks on each other, but the supreme court, while it serves a vital purpose, has no real check upon it. If the court so decides that the text of the constitution really does not mean what it says in black letter law to mean, there is little anyone else can do to change that. And since the supreme court can pick and choose what topics it wants to address and it takes so long for appeals to work their way to the court to begin with, the supreme court then has ultimate power over our lives and liberties. And these men and women serve for life. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a dictatorship, dictated to us by a panel of 12 people who rule for life. We just THINK we live in a democracy.
As to the lawful action immunity, I'm thinking I may not have gone far enough, because after all, the employer is generally not worried about a CHL holder's lawful actions causing him to be sued, he is concerned about the possible UNLAWFUL actions, real or imagined. People sue for all sorts of reasons, heck there's one guy suing for 64 million dollars because a dry cleaner lost his pants for crying out loud, and he is a judge and should know better. A frivolous suit still costs money to defend.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home