HB 89 as modified by NRA

Discussion in 'Previous Bills' started by Mike from Philly, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    Its baaacccckkkkk......and early too.

    From the political insider report at AJC.com.

     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    245
    63
    Well, at least they are pushing HB 89. :D
     

  3. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Yep, you may not like the NRA in all things, I know I don't. But, it is the 800 pound gorilla and when it speaks politicians tend to notice.
     
  4. b8fish

    b8fish New Member

    360
    0
    0
    With jrm and GCO on NRANews perhaps the NRA will now give some credence and respect to the the views of our leaders re Georgia laws and methods of approaching the legislature.
     
  5. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    Well, it's not like they're completely against us. They recognize that we do a good job, and have sent their members our way for GA-specific information and help. I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA has given us more than a handful of members.
     
  6. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    I don't know who drafts the NRA bills but he/she likes complication. The bill, as it reads now, won't apply to me or my wife because of the exceptions. The bill could be as simple as:

    1) Employees may keep guns in their locked cars
    2) Employers may fire employees who posses firearms outside their locked cars on company property.

    The property rights of both employee and employer are respected. Inside my car is my property. Outside my car is the employer property.

    Eventually, Americans are going to figure out that the bad guys don't care about our gun laws, our fancy no gun signs, and our gun free zones.

    But alas is me .... I'm not the Lt. Governor.
     
  7. tace

    tace New Member

    1,981
    0
    0
    Is AJC becoming an arm of the Brady Center, now?

    Seriously, my wife read the last article last night and I was trying to explain to her that "No, we are not gun nuts who wanna be able to carry when we are getting drunk in Football games"

    I tried to explain to her how the article was chock full of mistakes but being the good journalist she wouldn't necessarily take my word for it.
     
  8. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    We're not? :?

    Oh wait, YEAH we're not!


    just kidding just kidding.
     
  9. fallison

    fallison New Member

    895
    0
    0
    While I mostly agree with you, I would argue that on my person is still on my property.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    245
    63
    So, if you are making $1.5 million annually selling Gore is Great for 2008 buttons, then your receptionist employee should be able to openly carry her firearm, and you should not be able to fire her, because he has it "on her person," even if your sales have dropped to almost zero because your customers start crying when they see her and leave, tears streaming down their faces?

    On her person is still on her property.

    And maybe she listens to Neal Boortz in the morning, too?

    :lol:
     
  11. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    That's a good one, MP. :-k

    I think they're an argument to be made for allowing folks to keep arms in their cars, but on their person, well... if you don't like company policy, you are free to change employers.

    Concealed is concealed. :)
     
  12. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    Well companies certainly can mandate a dress code & a displayed firearm that "bothers" customers could be an appearance or conduct issue which you should be able to be fired for.
    I would argue that you should not be able to be fired for CC'ing a weapon if it can't normally be seen.
    Then at some point you take your jacket off in the bathroom because your co-worker spilled coffee on it & then your boss sees that you are packing he shouldn't be able to fire you.

    Of course we should also be able to carry our weapons everywhere. Cept maybe jails & mental institutions. When visiting either of those locations I think it could be a hazard. I also wouldn't have a problem with nuclear facilities & the like being off limits either. But those places should provide secure housing for your weapon until you leave the grounds.
     
  13. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    What are you going to do with a gun at a nuclear facility? Take it over and only sell the power to your friends?
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    245
    63
    Private property. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No need for a law.
     
  15. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Just like churches and places that sell alcohol for consumption on the premisis.
     
  16. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    MP - Keep me honest and accurate with the following:

    Once you are out of your car, as an employee, you are on company property.

    If you injure yourself next to your car, your injury is covered by the company's Workman's Comp policy. If you hurt someone, the company is liable as an employee. As an employee, they can tell me not to wear my gun and to cover up my Hillary Is Hot tattoo. If I don't like the work rules on their property, then time for me to find a new job.

    However, your car is your own property even while its on company property. Thus if it is broken into or stolen from the company lot, your insurance will cover it, not the company's. If you injure yourself by driving the car into the company's building, you car insurance will cover the damages including your injuries. The company's insurance is not going to cover the accident. Its your car, not theirs.

    Bottom line, treat guns in cars like we treat cars in all other aspects.
     
  17. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    Except the law tramples the private property rights of Churches and Bars with the PG clause. I know several Houses of Worship and Bars that would like their members/patrons to possess firearms.

    Synagogues spend an awful lot of money for armed security. If their congregates could carry, then they could use that money for other religious purposes. The PG clause imposes a tax on minorities like the Jews.
     
  18. fallison

    fallison New Member

    895
    0
    0
    Concealed is concealed. Should they fire me because they suspect I might be wearing a Ron Paul button on my undershirt completely invisible to them and their customers?
     
  19. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    It is good this is being discussed again this early.
     
  20. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    We need more substantial changes than HB89 will give us.