search
top

Parking Lot Law

Looks like the federal courts aren’t going for it. I really don’t like this reason:

The federal district court bought their argument that the state law conflicted with the federal 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires employers to minimize workplace risks.

The Supremacy Clause reigns, I suppose. So now the OHSA requires employers to ban guns in the workplace? That’s what this would appear to be saying. Someone needs to explain to me what all this has to do with interstate commerce again.

13 Responses to “Parking Lot Law”

  1. gattsuru says:

    Wow.

    That’ll be fun to overturn. I wish I could say it won’t survive an appeal, but unless the defendants are allowed to bring new facts up, the law is pretty much toasted. I just don’t see how they proved guns locked in a parking lot were detrimental to workplace safety. Reality has shown the opposite pretty often.

    As for the Herpes clause, same as the way someone who builds a machine gun with parts entirely made within the state, and never crosses state lines with it would be covered — employees usually cross borders or purchase items which have.

  2. straightarrow says:

    but, but, but , Sebastian, no governmental entity would ever expand broadly written and interpreted law to achieve goals not outwardly stated within that law. You know that, because you have said it wouldn’t happen with 2640, and these are the same governmental entities. So I’m sure it’s all ok.

    Just chill.

  3. Sebastian says:

    Touche straightarrow ;)

  4. Sebastian says:

    Actually, I wouldn’t argue that we can never get screwed by the courts. That’s always a possibility. But if you take that attitude, then it never makes any sense at all to alter a law so it’s more beneficial to gun owners, because the courts could always read the benefits to mean nothing. If that’s the case, we’re stuck where we are and won’t ever move forward.

  5. Michael says:

    This is something I am watching very closely, seeing Georgia had a bill that died on the floor, but came back for this year’s session. They are HB173 and SB 43. Last year big business had them killed and they’re trying to do it again.

  6. emdfl says:

    I would say that based on their past performances we are more likely to be screwed by the courts then not these days, heh.

  7. Robb Allen says:

    What really singes my ass hair is that the logic is so faulty as to nullify any perceived safety. We’re in the same boat here in the Gunshine state.

    However, I’m a CCW holder. If I wanted to go on a shooting rampage, I can just go down the road, buy a new Glock, a few magazines, and 20 boxes of ammo and walk right out. So telling me I can’t have a gun in my vehicle does abso-fu(king-lutelu nothing. Well, it violates my rights (the inside of my car is MINE, not my company’s), but that’s par for the course.

  8. Sebastian says:

    What really singes my ass hair

    That one is a keeper.

  9. Sebastian says:

    The real purpose of those policies is CYA. It’s not meant to mold reality. When the SHTF, the HR department can pull out the policy and say “See! We tried to help you, so now you can’t sue us.”

  10. Robb Allen says:

    CYA would be lovely except we had an employee several years ago threaten to kill a few people (he was serious). So, they fired him and for a few days hired a security guard.

    An unarmed security guard*.

    Now, should Mr. Crazypants decide to follow through on his threats, how will HR cover their rears when he mows down the security guard on his way to his intended targets?

    *Personally, though, I think people who accept jobs as unarmed security are fools.

  11. Sebastian says:

    Oh, they don’t care about actual security, only the illusion of security. If he were an armed security guard, he might shoot an attacker, which would mean the company is guaranteed a lawsuit. Best to just provide the illusion of security, and not risk being sued. So what if a few employees die, at least no one will blame HR!

  12. straightarrow says:

    We all know why companies do it. Greed.

    Explain why judges and prosecutors abuse the law and the constitution. Something I have been told not to exect.

  13. Clint says:

    “*Personally, though, I think people who accept jobs as unarmed security are fools.”

    You’re working on a common misunderstanding. I know a few guards, both armed and otherwise. The two jobs are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I don’t want to hijack the topic (too much) so without going into too much detail; unarmed guards are NON-confrontational. They chase off homeless people and vagrants, lock the doors and make sure the building doesn’t burn down (although it appears busted water pipes cause a lot of damage.)

    Now an UNarmed guard at say, a bank? That IS foolish but lasted I checked (iirc) banks either have armed guards or no guards.

    Don’t confuse a screwdriver with a hammer.

top