imported post
I think we should add a strong civil rights argument to it. Clauses broken apart for better clarity and to add comments after each.
No person, of
any race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, yadda yadda, (although "No Person" should suffice, this sounds better to the liberal crowd, we can even add more descriptors of person...)
shall have his or her right to self-defense in a non "gun-free zone" infringed (this is simple enough--though we need a catchier name defined for non-gun-free-zone earlier in the statute.)
by a systematic policyof denying employment, housing, membership, attendance, entrance, etc.,(systematic=unwritten and/or written policies barring the activities listed--more should be added to the list...)
ORby any revocation of any of the aformentioned rights/privileges due to the possession of a lawfully carried weapon in a non "gun-free zone", whether systematically or individually,
OR, if by practice/custom/restrictive rule or condition of carrying, the person is constructively denied any of these rights in effect. (Constructive here should be looked at the same way as constructive eviction--You don't have to be told to be kicked out to be evicted, the landlord not fixing your heat is sufficient. Likewise, by the firing of lawful carriers OR the failure to provide adequate raises, or by not accepting a new member who is known to carry, etc. a constructive denial will exist when shown by facts. This is far better than having to prove a pattern or systematic denial--this is the real teeth of this provision.)
Remedies:
If a person is discriminated against in employment matters based on the lawful carrying of a weapon in a "non gun-free zone" he or she shall be entitled to compensation and/or injunctive reliefin a manner consistent with any other Title VII violation for discrimination in employment matters as enacted by statute and interpreted by applicable case-law at the time of the violation.
(Clearly we would have to add a whole bunch to the remedies section here, but it is a start, and I like the idea of having it simply tied to other existing laws. Thus, as the other civil rights laws get stronger, and more cases are hashed out over time, this law grows as well. Getting it passed would be nearly impossible, but if it did get passed, changing it be a whole lot of work to go back and deal with, so let it live and grow on its own...)
This section shall NOT apply to the following:
- Any person who cannot legally possess a firearm.
- Any person who does not have a CPL issued by any state of the union
- unless WA State drops the CPL requirement to carry concealed.
- Any person, due to the nature of his or her uniform that is reasonably required as necessary to properly fulfill his or her essential job duties, istherefore unable to adequately conceal his or her firearm,only in the case of discrimination in the workplace, so long as this is only applied in the rarest of cases where concealment is impossible to reasonably accomplish and the employee is unable to find a suitable solution to do so. This shall not apply to a company policy forbidding and class of workers from carrying, this shall only apply to an individual employee who, by the nature of a reasonably required uniform, chooses not to carry because of a reasonable and necessary dress code policy that is impossible to comply with; given that the employer has made a reasonable effort to accomodate a reasonable alteration of the dress code to allow for proper concealment of a firearm.
- Any rule/policy, in a workplace only, that requires employees to make a reasonable effort to conceal the firearm.
(OK, this section sucks, but we have to have it be reasonable and look at the other side. 1 is obvious. 2, seems easy enough. 3, this one sucks, but, honestly, if we try to argue that protected open carry in the office should be the law, we aren't going to get anywhere. Thus, throw in a workplace exception to employees on the clock. I look at this as no different than requiring a tie or forbidding sneakers, if the employer so desires... And, without the third bullet point, think of a lifeguard, or a stripper, or a ballet performer, etc. These exceptions need to be thought about before a sweeping law can be passed. As for the fourth bullet, as I said, that is only a reasonable request that an employer can choose to have his store/office employees dressed as he or she sees fit.
I know this whole section on inapplicability is not well written, I am just too tired. I pulled an all nighter studying last night and am off to bed soon!
