While I sympathesize with the goal, I have problems with laws that force firms to let their employees have guns at work. I think that firms have it wrong in that the people that they should fear are the people who are going to break the rules, not the ones who obey them. That the regulations leave victims defenseless and encourage attacks, creating safe zones for criminals, not victims. That said, I think that the best approach is to make it so that victims can clearly sue for damages if they are prevented from protected themselves and something bad should happen. My guess is that firms face a strong asymmetry. If something bad happens, they face lawsuits only from victims for the gun being there. Firms don't face lawsuits from guns not being available for people to defend themselves or others.
After six tries, the National Rifle Association has managed to get a committee in the Florida Legislature to endorse one of the worst bills filed in the current session.
In its original form, the bill would have charged business owners with a felony -- punishable by up to five years in prison -- if they prevented employees from storing guns in their cars while at work. . . .
In a "compromise" move, the NRA and its legislative stooges have revised the language to remove the felony charge and -- in theory, at least -- preserve the private-property rights of businesses. The bill now allows bans when "reasonably necessary."
The changes were apparently enough to satisfy the House Judiciary Committee, which approved the bill --despite the fact that "reasonably necessary" isn't defined.
"Nobody on the committee could even define what it means," Mark Wilson of the Florida Chamber of Commerce said. "So how can an employer?" . . .
In its original form, the bill would have charged business owners with a felony -- punishable by up to five years in prison -- if they prevented employees from storing guns in their cars while at work. . . .
In a "compromise" move, the NRA and its legislative stooges have revised the language to remove the felony charge and -- in theory, at least -- preserve the private-property rights of businesses. The bill now allows bans when "reasonably necessary."
The changes were apparently enough to satisfy the House Judiciary Committee, which approved the bill --despite the fact that "reasonably necessary" isn't defined.
"Nobody on the committee could even define what it means," Mark Wilson of the Florida Chamber of Commerce said. "So how can an employer?" . . .
Guns at work bill advances in Florida
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
