Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: In the paper...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Going to type it out, since I can't find it on the Idaho Press-Tribune website. They have an opinion section, and an area where politicians express their views about a topic of their choice. My local paper has 8 state representatives, and a senator area. Anyhow, down to the article, from Monday, the 13th of April.

    "An individual's 2nd Amendment right to own and psosess firearms is sacred to most Idahoans and to me as your state representative. That's why I am supporting House Bill 287, which provides immunity for employers when an employee stores a firearm in their personal vehicle on an employer's business property. The bill protects employers from civil damages from the lawful storage of firearms by employees.

    I voted for legislation last week in the House State Affairs Committee, and I will be proud to support this bill this week when it comes to the House floor. Like the good people of District 13, I very much support tough laws dealing with the unlawful use of firearms. But let's not trample on the rights of citizens who want to protect themselves.
    "

    The more I read about this guy the more I like him. The more of us show our support for him in and his stance on matters like this, the better. He's doing a great job, pleasedon't hesitate to let him know.


  2. #2
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    They passed similar legislation down here in Louisiana a couple years ago. A lot of business owners still didn't like having to let their employees have guns in their cars, but it does give them some relief from the screams of their insurance companies, who are the real reason for the "no guns on company property" policies.

    And makes us employees feel a whole lot better about what we were doing anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  3. #3
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Im not sure this bill says that, though. This looks more like an "optional" thing for employers, and they are just immune if something went wrong.

    It doesn't look like (to me) a parking lot bill that would require employers to let employees on the premises with a firearm locked in their car.

    link here:
    http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/leg...2009/H0287.pdf

    But thats only what I get out of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Even if it doesn't require it, and I don't really think it should (it is private property after all), merely removing liability from them might make it easier to get them to ease up on restrictions for keeping a firearm in your vehicle-which is a great step in the right direction.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    Even if it doesn't require it, and I don't really think it should (it is private property after all), merely removing liability from them might make it easier to get them to ease up on restrictions for keeping a firearm in your vehicle-which is a great step in the right direction.
    So is your vehicle private property and your right to self defense is part of the Right to Life which is the highest and first enumerated right in the Declaration of Independence.

    This bill will have absolutely no effect other than make a few people feel good. History has proven many times that employers will not change their policy simply because they have no civil liability if they do.

  6. #6
    Guest

    Post imported post

    yeah, I read -in the paper- on friday, that there's been 7 gun bills go through the Idaho legislature so far this year. I read, and 5 of them (all were discussed on these forums) were weak, watered down, and did little if anything to really help out the common person.

    of course, Now, say Im in Virginia; I guess I can purchase my new shotgun; but YYY when its cheaper over here, anyways?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    Even if it doesn't require it, and I don't really think it should (it is private property after all), merely removing liability from them might make it easier to get them to ease up on restrictions for keeping a firearm in your vehicle-which is a great step in the right direction.
    So is your vehicle private property and your right to self defense is part of the Right to Life which is the highest and first enumerated right in the Declaration of Independence.

    This bill will have absolutely no effect other than make a few people feel good. History has proven many times that employers will not change their policy simply because they have no civil liability if they do.
    Disagree. Today it's getting the liability lifted from employers for their employees having firearms in their vehicles. Maybe next it'll be having their liability lifted for employees exercising their rkba, after a bit of (unshocking) time that it doesn't cause a major issue. When employers are no longer liable, it will be easier to convince them individually to allow it. Heck, walmart follows state law, who knows, maybe the guy rounding up shopping carts in the parking lot will be openly carrying if such a law were to pass.

    Every step in the right direction is a good thing, in my opinion, even if it's not a single jump to the finish line. Regardless of if it's enough or not, it's still something. Something > Nothing.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    Heck, walmart follows state law, who knows, maybe the guy rounding up shopping carts in the parking lot will be openly carrying if such a law were to pass.

    Every step in the right direction is a good thing, in my opinion, even if it's not a single jump to the finish line. Regardless of if it's enough or not, it's still something. Something > Nothing.
    Walmart follows state law for customers, not employees. Employees are strictly prohibited from carrying, nation wide.

    True, anything is better than nothing, but this bill doesn't even make up for the loss incurred in S1112 let alone what you stand to lose if S1024 passes.

    Having grown up in Idaho, it makes we want to cry when I see how far the people have allowed the state destroy your rights. I remember kids carrying a rifle down the halls of my high school and keeping it in their locker all day so they could have it to go varmint hunting after school. See how far you could get with that one today.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Walmart follows state law for customers, not employees. Employees are strictly prohibited from carrying, nation wide.
    They also currently have liability nationwide. Not that I expect Walmart to be breaking major ground, but rather I was illustrating how employers will tend to follow the law as far as company policies.

    The whole mess makes me sad too. Every little bit of progress helps though...with enough progress we'll get to where we were years ago.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •