From the other thread a quote from the VCDL Legislative Update:
"HB 2380 - Delegate Pogge - gives certain civil immunities to businesses which allow their employees to store guns in their private vehicles on company property - VCDL Strongly Supports - was modified and passed out of subcommittee with new wording and heads to full committee on Monday.
In subcommittee today some lobbyists for businesses were complaining that their clients who ban guns in employee's vehicles also want the same immunities. The decision that Delegate Pogge made was to offer immunities to all employers, whether they allow guns to be stored in employees vehicles or not.
Now bear with me on this: the idea of doing so isn't actually bad (I had to chew on this one myself for a while). Many businesses that do not allow their employees to store guns in their vehicles only do so because they don't want to be civilly liable if something goes wrong ("Gee - it wasn't our fault that the vehicle was broken into and the gun stolen and used in a crime, we have a policy against employees having guns in their vehicles in the first place"). This bill would remove any advantage to having such a "no guns in vehicle" policy. Since all businesses would be equally immune, some businesses might therefore be more amenable to not barring employees from storing guns in their vehicles. The bill puts the blame for the misuse of a firearm on the criminal and not on any business owner."
I do not agree at all with the VCDL stance on this and I believe if this is passed it will be noose around gun owners necks for years to come. With this change this has gone from a bill which provides potential financial incentives to employers who remove some of the restrictions on people's human right to self defense to a bill that is utterly worthless for protecting worker's human right of self defense (at least going to and from work) and is just a way to give businesses a protection without regard to worker safety. Although Phil's wording talks about ensuring businesses are not held liable for misuse of a firearm on company property it also provides them blanket liability protection if one of their workers is mugged or killed in a case where that mugging or death may not have occurred if an employee could've had their firearm at the ready in the car.
For a realistic note on how a bill that provides liability protection to employers regardless of company policy toward employees keeping their firearms in their cars, how about asking Ohioans how similar protections have helped them in ensuring they can keep their firearms in the cars. Being a former Ohioan I can comment on this. IT HASN'T WORKED. In fact because employers have no incentive to change their policy Ohioans are now pushing for a bill that will force the hands of employers to make them permit employees to keep guns in their cars.