Re: Anti-Gun Democrats DEFEATED, Again - Alabama “Worker Protection” Bill Successfully Passes the House!

On May 15, 9:41 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 01:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On May 12, 8:31 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 00:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On May 9, 9:28 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2009 07:20:36 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh <cookl...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On May 9, 7:01 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4844
Alabama: “Worker Protection” Bill Successfully Passes the House!
Friday, May 08, 2009
House Bill 362, sponsored by State Representative Craig Ford (D-28),
passed the House without any exemptions. The exemption for railroad
companies was successfully removed.
HB 362 would protect your right to lawfully transport and store
firearms in a privately-owned and locked motor vehicle while parked in
publicly accessible parking lots controlled by your employer or a
business you frequent.  HB362 now heads to the Senate for assignment.
Please contact your State Senator and respectfully urge them to vote
in favor of HB 362.  To contact your State Senator by phone, call
(334) 242- 7800.  For further contact information on your Alabama
State Legislators, click here.
This sounds a little dangerous.
"Freedom" doesn't sound dangerous to me except to those who would wish
to deprive others of theirs...
You can have any so-called "freedom" you want, but that won't make you
or anyone else safer.
Every single woman in America with the Freedom to own and carry a
handgun, who has exercised her responsibility to get trained and to
practice, IS SAFER than every other unarmed woman...
The fact is that any gun in the home leads to a higher incident of
death. You can't just consider the bearer of the weapon. If more
innocent people are killed by guns, that must be taken into
consideration.
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/the-gun-lobby-s-myths

That was OPINION.  That was NOT Fact.

If you ONLY have Opinion that PRETENDS to be Fact then you have
NOTHING.

Read the study. It is not my opinion.

Freedom is just that, it's the ability to make
choices and act responsibly on your own. When I speak of danger here,
I mean bodily danger, such as when the IRA tries to pass laws that
make it difficult for employers to protect their employees. It's like
playing with fire.
You're talking from a Fantasy Perspective.  The protection of
employees has NEVER been the purview of employers.  Local, State, and
Federal Laws protect employees as they are OBEYED by employers. Local,
State, and Federal Law Enforcement protects The Law as per Supreme
Court decision.  There exists NO LAW IN AMERICA that assigns the
personal protection of employees to employers BEYOND what I described
above.
Well yes, the laws for personal and corporate responsibility, such as
workplace safety laws. They are the laws of America, too. Also the
body of jurisprudence that proves that employers are responsible for
providing a safe place of work.

Your OPINION will not pass here.  "Workplace safety laws" DO NOT
require ANY EMPLOYER in America to protect ANY employee ANYWHERE in
America from Civil Crime.

It's true that workplace safety laws are there to protect workers from
employer's negligence, and may not specifically force employers to
protect workers from civil crime. However, that's a mere technicality.
If employers provided a dangerous place to work, no matter what the
reason, that could violate an employee's right to work safely. I'm not
just inventing opinions, here. I'm just trying to persuade you with
logic.

Additionally, (with the possible exception of contractually obligated
bodyguards) Law Enforcement AT EVERY LEVEL in America IS NOT OBLIGATED
to protect employees or people.  Law Enforcement AT EVERY LEVEL in
America IS ONLY OBLIGATED to protect and enforce the Law.

It's true that law violation usually triggers law enforcment action,
but Law Enforcement Agencies also are often generally protective and
are usually held responsible for preempting anti-social behavior, and
crowd control, among other examples. Workplace safety, like law
enforcement is a government concern and responsibility. Employers,
like individual home owners, can be held to be out of compliance with
the law.

Talk about opinions, you certainly have plenty of them.

The arguement that the "worker" is
protected, needs to be weighed against the need for the employer to
protect all of his "workers".
No.  The employer has no such "need" defined by law.  The employer has
various obligations and regulations and reguirements described by all
manner of local, state and Federal law HOWEVER the 'protection' YOU
are suggesting DOES NOT EXIST.  
The issue is: Does a Constitutional Right trump a Private Property
Right?
The Supreme Court has already defined, affirmed and reaffirmed the
individual's Constitutional Right (to keep and bear arms).
The Private Property Right is another matter.
What courts and legislatures have been determining is:
a. Exerting the Private Property Right in the form of "YOU may not
park here - because I said so" is legal.
b. Exerting the Private Property Right in the form of "You can park
here BUT I'll then violate your Constitute Right" is NOT legal.
A business owner is is already entitled to protect all of his property
and its contents, that means the employees too.
No. It DOES NOT include employees.  See above.  There is NO SUCH
entitlement defined by law ANYWHERE in America.
You WISHING it was doesn't make it happen...
It's not an entitlement, it's a responsibility.  Your ignorance of the
law doesn't help you out here; talk about living in a fantasy world!

I await your CITE...

No CITE = You're completely WRONG.

Citations aren't necessary. To me its only logical. (I'm saying you're
illogical, in case you don't get it.)

The right to keep
firearms is not the only right we enjoy. I don't see any positive
court outcome for your position here, since the argument for a safe
workplace and environment supports the owner's right to control his
property (parking lot - whatever).
The outcome (so far) has been a compromise.  
The "argument for a safe workplace and environment" FAILED in court
every time.
However, where exceptions have been granted they were granted based on
LARGER considerations.  Such as a flammable chemical distributor who
demonstrated a LARGER safety concern (to property, to more than one
employee), and a fireworks manufacturer who did the same.
This is why the outcomes (so far) has been a compromise.  
Your argument here rests on your idea of a reasonable judgement. But
the facts are many sided.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/workplace/

No, not really, not in the Courts anyway.

What do you mean, "not in the courts". Do you mean courts don't
consider many faceted facts? That doesn't sound particularly logical.

Are the legislators glibbly accepting NRA money
Are you making an uncited, unreferenced, accusation OR were you
wanting this to be the first time today you made a fool of yourself in
public?
OK, the "fund to reelect bad politicians money" now comes from the IRA-
PVF because of McCain-Fiengold. What the hel!. The IRA is still a
great gun education club and a terrible lobby.
If they're such a "terrible lobby" then why did both Sen Reid and Rep
Pelosi say NO WAY are we gonna consider a new Assault Weapon Ban?
Because they thought it was "politic"? Am I supposed to be surprised
that they're "bought"? Opposing new Assault Weapons Ban, if that is
true, is not exactly the same as supporting the kind of legislation
currently being pushed by the NRA.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/forced-entry-report.pdf

Feel free to think the NRA is a "terrible lobby" while we continue to
win all across America and even at the Supreme Court, and you continue
to lose...

I don't think the NRA has done all that well. Most decisions and
legislation is 2-sided, since the right to keep and bear arms needs to
be cautiously balanced with public safety. Some of the NRA sponsered
legislation doesn't seem to recognize this need.

Cormagh
.

Relevant Pages
Loading