Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Referendum idea

  1. #1
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    I propose that we gather signatures for a referendum that states something to the effect of:

    Employers shall enact no policy, procedure or take any action disciplinary or otherwise that would effectively interfere with, deny or obstruct their employees ability to exercise any and all constitutional rights enumerated by the Nevada or US Constitution and their respective amendments while employees are off duty and/or off of the employers property.
    As it stands now, very few employers allow their employees to keep, bear transport or store their firearms at work. Presenting the voters with a measure that reads as my proposal does, does not say specifically the effect on employees ability to use this law to have their firearms at work with, but it effectively would do just that.

    Barring an employee from having their firearms on their employers property basically obstructs their ability keep and bear arms while traveling to and from work with their firearms without subterfuge and risk of termination.

    I believe that the text of this statute would be sufficiently vague to be applied to many constitutionally protected activities. By not mentioning firearms in the text of the referendum, it will be less likely that voters and petition signers would see this as something non threatening and benign. To include terms that specifically articulate "firearms" would alienate many voters.

    I am not saying that this would prevent employers from enacting policies that would allow employers to be armed while performing their duties, but it would allow for employees to secure their firearms in a vehicle or locker when they arrive at work, enabling their ability to bear arms when their work day is finished, and they leave the employers property.

    No longer would an employer be able to write in their policy manual language to the effect of:

    Employers are prohibited from possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons on company property, violation subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
    The policy manual would have to read:

    Employees possessing firearms, knives or other personal defense related items of a potentially dangerous nature are permitted to do so provided that those items are reasonably secure from access while the employee is performing their assigned duties.
    Any thoughts?
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I think it it would be easier to pass and possibly more effective to have a law that said that employers were immune from any liability resulting from guns in the work place.

    I think many employers, especially for really large companies, mainly ban guns because they are afraid they will get sued out of business.

    The generic statement you propose would probably just be ignored by the businesses and the courts right now since so many people don't consider carrying a gun a right, even though the US supreme court ruled that owning a handgun is a right.

    If a company bans carry you could find another company to work for, become self-employed, or take the risk of being fired for violating company policy. Right now of course not many companies would allow employees to carry guns.

    If they can still ban carry on company property while working then being able to have it in a vehicle is not all that great. What are the odds that they would discover a firearm in your vehicle anyway? I figure if they are going to be that intrusive into my personal property I don't want to work for them anyway.


    I'd also like to see a bill for carry laws where you could carry concealed without a permit like in Vermont and Alaska. And I think we need a law like they have in Utah which forces all public universities to allow firearms. In the case of the University it is actually illegal to have a firearm in your vehicle on their property, which effectively uses the law to take away your rights even when you aren't there if you did have to go there at some time and decided to park on the property. Violating the law would result in a criminal offense, which I think is much worse than being fired at a job.

    Actually the best way to implement what I just said is to completely repeal NRS 202.350 and NRS 202.265 and all other laws relating to carry and forbid (or strengthen current laws that forbid,) any government agencies from regulating firearms. There should be no criminal offenses and no academic sanctions from public institutions.

    If there is going to be a permit system in place it should only exist for the purposes of maximum reciprocity with other states and not be a requirement for carry. I guess that isn't such a big deal though considering that we can get non-resident permits from other states.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    A friend of mine who holds a CCW permit and stores his firearm in a safe within his car while at work enlightened me as to this scenario.

    His car and/or firearm are stolen while on company property. He then has 2 options both of which are illegal.

    Option 1: Accept the loss of the firearm and not report it's theft... failing to report that your firearm has been stolen is a crime and also places him in substantial civil liability if the stolen firearm is used to commit a crime. By not divulging to authorities that his firearm has been stolen and subsequently a person is killed with his firearm, it would not be far fetched for enthusiastically motivated DA to prosecute him for criminally negligent homicide.

    Option 2: Make a false report that the theft occurred at another location/time to avoid revealing to his employer that he in fact possessed a firearm on company property. While this is less severe than a firearm related crime, it's still serious enough to possibly be a felony charge and cost him his right to keep and bear arms.

    My goal is two fold and difficult to achieve without a degree of vagary because there is a single subject rule with regard to Nevada referendum procedure. The referendum must also appeal to a wider interest group than just owners and carriers of firearms because, in my opinion, this group is not sufficient enough to carry the measure into law.

    I would also be open to any ideas to get lawful possession and carry of firearms a viable option for post secondary students. While I believe concealed carry should be the goal, I would be satisfied if perhaps students could carry provided they open carry while on the premises of a post secondary facility. For k-12 carry, I would be satisfied if language was instituted to the effect that "Those having legitimate business on school grounds must provide advanced notice of their intent to be armed upon their arrival." This can be achieved by a simple form placed in the student's file stating to the effect that at any time the parent or guardian may be armed while visiting school grounds.

    While no minor student of a K-12 institution should be able to legally justify the possession of firearms while at school, their parents can and should; they are expected to have regular and legitimate business on school grounds on behalf of their student children.

    If we can get these ideas into articulate forms, worded such that they do not alienate the majority of the voting body, I think we could make a lot of head way.

    Idaes?
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    My goal is two fold and difficult to achieve without a degree of vagary because there is a single subject rule with regard to Nevada referendum procedure. The referendum must also appeal to a wider interest group than just owners and carriers of firearms because, in my opinion, this group is not sufficient enough to carry the measure into law.
    This doesn't just apply to gun owners. It applies to all employees and employers in the state. I'd say that's sufficiently large group.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    Yes, but the employers, largely made up of casinos, have loads of excess cash to spend lobbying to defeat such a measure, so making it sound good, even to casinos themselves is a worthwhile proposition.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    Option 1: Accept the loss of the firearm and not report it's theft... failing to report that your firearm has been stolen is a crime and also places him in substantial civil liability if the stolen firearm is used to commit a crime.
    It is a crime? Which law?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    I'm researching the N.R.S. but I'm fairly certain that there is an offense you can be charged with should you fail to report the theft of a firearm. If and when I find it I'll reply with that information. It doesn't sound to far fetched IMO.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  8. #8
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    as it turns out, neither the federal government nor Nevada has not mandatory loss/theft reporting laws, however, there are some states that do.

    I do believe that ethically, every law abiding citizen regardless of their state is irresponsible if they knowingly fail to report that their gun has been lost or stolen.

    I found http://www.lcav.org/content/reporting_lost_stolen.pdf which discussed the topic.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I'm actually glad that I'm not legally held accountable for other people stealing my property.

    I'd report a firearm stolen so I could get it back when they confiscate it from the guy who stole it. But I think its terrible if you face criminal charges for actions that are not your own. What if you never notice the firearm missing? What if you sell the firearm in a private sale and then later on someone steals it from the person you sold it to and they trace the FFL paperwork back to you? I don't want to be legally accountable for the actions of others.

    Further it is not like if a gun is stolen that it is going to be a major cause of evil. Most likely it will end up sold somewhere for drug money, and if it is used in a crime they wouldn't have had much trouble finding other weapons to use in the crime either. And if you do report it as stolen is that going to stop it from being used in a crime?

    I have a much better idea on how to prevent gun thefts than punishing people for having their property stolen... Allow people to carry guns into buildings. That way people won't leave their guns in their cars to be stolen.

  10. #10
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    Check out the AZ section. They, I believe, have passed a law that allows employees to leave firearms in their vehicles while on their employers property. They also are in the final stages of passing Constitutional carry. As I understand it, that should be law within a few weeks as they are waiting for the final Senate vote which looks certain.

    As far as a ballot initiative, it takes 97000+ signatures, and the final deadline for this election is In May for an amendment, and was last November for a statute. Ithink I have that right. It is an option for future elections however. Might be a good idea to "reinforce" state preemption.

    BG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

Posting Permissions

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