search
top

Georgia Gun Issues

According to this article, NRA is heading down to Georgia to talk about H.B. 89, the bill to allow people to have firearms in their vehicles while on company property.

As I covered a few days ago, there is another bill that’s really worth looking at in Georgia. Georgia has among the worst carry restrictions in The South, and it’s high time we looked at getting rid of some.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t agree with the NRA on the pursuit of H.B. 89, because I think they are an infringement on the private property rights of employers.  This expands government regulations into areas they have no business interfering with.

18 Responses to “Georgia Gun Issues”

  1. Robb Allen says:

    See, I disagree here. Inside my car is not my employer’s property. Just like what’s inside my wallet isn’t their concern either.

    As well, when I leave my employer’s property to go home, I shouldn’t be put in harms way for no legitimate reason.

    Besides, isn’t is telling that an employer will fire an employee for carrying a gun in his car because of the danger it supposedly causes yet they don’t fear it enough to… you know, not piss the former employee off and give them a reason to use it? Maybe because there really isn’t a danger?

    Another point, especially for me, is that as a CCW holder, if I were to go on a rampage, I could just go 3 miles down the road, buy a new firearm, and come right back. There’s no logic in that.

  2. GeorgeH says:

    I am usually strong on private property rights, but does an employer have a right to search a locked car parked in the company lot, or an employees person? Not for cause, but just because they feel like it?
    If you have a firearm in your hand on company property, then I agree they have the right to fire you if they are that leftist.

  3. Rather than the H.B. 89 approach, I would much rather see the NRA revisit H.B. 31 (that was introduced in 2003).

    (b) Any person, organization, or entity or any agency of government that creates a gun_free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun_free zone if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined or adversely affects a disabled person, a senior citizen, or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.”

    I think such legislation might both be more easily passed, and shows greater respect for property rights.

  4. Sebastian says:

    I sympathize with that notion, but yes, I do think an employer has a right to ask an employee to give them access to their vehicle for a search. I think the employee has a right to say no, as I would if asked by my employer. Based on that, the employer has the right to fire the employee.

    Sucks, but that’s a personal disagreement between private parties, and not something the government ought to be involved with. I wouldn’t work for an employer that treated my property and privacy with such wanton disrespect.

  5. Sebastian says:

    I also like the HB31 approach.

  6. Robb Allen says:

    Would you be OK with an employer firing all the white people? I mean, it’s his or her business, why shouldn’t he or she be allowed to hire and fire people based on their skin color? Or sexual orientation? Or require them to vote Democrat?

    Can the converse apply? Can an employer require that you keep a Koran in your car and that they reserve the right to search it at any time to ensure you have it facing the right direction?

    I understand where you’re coming from and to a degree I respect it, but unfortunately there are two levels of property here. In a way, it’s a moot point – just like you can quit without any penalty, your employer can fire you on the spot for any reason. I just want the employer to be responsible for anything that happens to their employees due to requirements on their part. So I guess I’d prefer the other law.

  7. J Ault says:

    Say your employer bans other things from your car,umbrellas, frying pans, flashlights or whatever your employer dislikes. A legally owned item is a legally owned item.

  8. Sebastian says:

    I think they have a right to make silly requirements like that. The employer/employee relationship is a private relationship, that the government I don’t think should interfere with, for the most part. I barely even accept government interference to prevent discrimination, so, while I would agree it’s absolutely silly to do something like, say, ban brightly colored air fresheners in vehicles, I think they can do it. I can also choose to not work for a company that does such things.

  9. VariableFeedback says:

    “Would you be OK with an employer firing all the white people? I mean, it’s his or her business, why shouldn’t he or she be allowed to hire and fire people based on their skin color? Or sexual orientation? Or require them to vote Democrat?”

    Yes. Yes. Yes. If that employer only wanted to hire gay, black, Muslims, that would be fine with me. If enough people were offended the market would force that business out of business. Freedom of association should also include freedom FROM association.

  10. Sebastian says:

    I do, but barely, accept the government interfering in employment relationships for the sake of halting discrimination, and yes, there’s not much of a logical reason to favor the government doing that, but not favoring regulating firearms on company property. My general principle is not interference in private relationships. I’ve made one exception because I think it’s important for unpopular minorities to be able to get employment and participate in society. I’m very much less inclined to accept more government interference with private affairs for the sake of a behavioral issue that the employee can help.

    Yes, it’s stupid to ban guns on company property. It also might be stupid to ban silly ties, but an employer has the right to do that if they want to make issue of it.

  11. Robb Allen says:

    That’s actually an incorrect view of the free market. Many businesses would survive just fine even if they did things like that. Hell, the NY times is still in business even though their reporting is slightly less than that of The National Enquirer.

    Sure, they wouldn’t probably thrive to become multi-billion dollar industries, but many a mom and pop would do just fine.

    It’s a mistake to assume the market will punish bad behavior out of existence, especially considering what’s bad behavior for you isn’t necessarily bad for me. If Company X found that only hiring Muslims allowed them to make Widget Y for half the price of Company Z, people who wanted Widget Y would pay half price gladly. Milton Friedman talks about that in his pencil example. Even though people may hate each other, they will gladly take their money.

    I understand the market and free association point. I agree with it (I am playing devil’s advocate on many points here). My company has the policy in place. If it ever came to that, they could bite my little brown ass – they’re NOT searching my car.

  12. Sebastian says:

    I’m subject to the same rule as well, but I don’t think I’d ever be asked for my car to be searched. If I ever was asked, I’d tell them to go to hell. If they fired me, so be it. I don’t work for assholes.

  13. Alcibiades McZombie says:

    If it were the federal government, I would agree, but State governments have always had more leeway in these issues. Just as they can set rules for CCW, they can create rules for the employer-employee contract.

  14. Indiana passed the same law right before we moved here, and I was conflicted about this for quite a while. What toppled me off the fence was this: By requiring that you not have a firearm in your vehicle, the business is also requiring that you not have one in your vehicle on the way to and from work. And that is not the employer’s private property, nor within their rights.

  15. Micheal says:

    They invited NRA members only to come down for the press confrence to hear about HB89. Take notice they did not invite the GCO down to talke about it, just NRA members. I wish they would announce support for HB 915, also know as SAPA. But, not expecting to hear anything like that.

  16. straightarrow says:

    Ok Sebastian, then you must be in favor of your neighbors deciding what you may have or do in your home. Right?

    I mean after all your property is surrounded by theirs. Just like your property at your employer is surrounded by his. With the exception that your employer invited you to his property and your neighbors didn’t, ergo, their surrounding property rights should most definitely trump yours and with much more force than than the entity that invited you.

  17. Sebastian says:

    So you’re saying you agree with NRA and disagree with me? :)

    I think you all have good arguments, I just think employment relationships are voluntary. I can tell you no employer will ever search my vehicle, but I think an employer has a right to decide to longer associate with me, and that doesn’t require too much in the way of justification.

  18. GunGeek says:

    Part of the castle doctrine law here in SC includes the statement that your car is an extension of your residence. I believe that the SCOTUS has also stated so much. So if your car is not only your private property but also your residence, whose private property rights should prevail?

    Should your employer be able to dictate what you can and can’t possess at home? If not, why should they be able to control your possessions in your extended home?

    Given the fact that your car is your property and your residence and that you can’t be gun free on your employer’s property unless you are gun free on the way to and from, they should have no right to prohibit a gun in a car.

    At my place of work, the rules says we can be disciplined, up to and including dismissal, for having a weapon while we are at work. Once I punch the clock, the restriction goes away. Now that’s a reasonable restriction for an employer that’s stupid enough to want gun free employees.

top