The Chickenshit NRA
If the NRA had any guts, this fight would be at 25 paces with 9 millimeter handguns.“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791.
The NRA are a bunch of pikers. Their proposed legislation would do nothing for Georgia’s gun owners who want to use firearms for self defense. Their vaunted bill would only let gun owning employees park on company property with weapons locked in their vehicles. What good would this do an employee when a criminal, a mentally disturbed gunman, or the estranged husband of his girlfriend comes gunning for him on the job? Nothing! While his guns are locked up in the company parking lot, the weaponless gun owner would be hunted, cornered, then shot full of holes. The pusillanimous NRA would leave God fearing, patriotic, arms bearing Americans defenseless when they are most in need of their firearms. One can only picture the pitiful creature, mortally wounded, crawling over to his locked F-150 or Chevy Silverado, bleeding from multiple gunshot wounds, clawing fruitlessly at the locked door, as he slowly slumps to the ground, moribund.
If the NRA had any guts, they would craft a bill that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons at work, in public places, in government buildings- including the State Capitol, and in schools, churches and ashrams. That way, when the bad guys start shooting, we can be sure that a lot of people will be firing back. Just don’t get caught in the crossfire.
posted by James Finkelstein (Ga.) at 9:56 PM
1 Comments:
The Georgia Chamber of Commerce is one of the leading opponents of the "guns in the workplace" legislation. This is the text of an email they sent out to encourage their membership to contact our State Senators before a vote that they predicted would come as early as January 16th:
Two years after the Georgia General Assembly strongly re-affirmed its strong commitment to private property rights by strengthening protections for property owners against unjustified government exercises of eminent domain, the legislature is poised to shift course and pass legislation that would undermine the right of businesses to keep guns off their property if they deem necessary.
A vote on the NRA-backed government grab of property rights could come up for a vote in the Senate Rules Committee as early as WEDNESDAY.
***Your calls and emails and personal meetings with Senators are needed NOW.***
If the pending proposal were offered by any other group than the NRA -- labor unions, for example (and the bill is supported by organized labor in Florida and certainly reads like a bill labor would offer) -- the measure to take away the right of employers to determine whether or not to allow firearms on their premises certainly would be overwhelmingly rejected. The NRA/big labor "workers rights" bill expressly forbids an employer from having policies requiring no guns in their parking lots.
But the NRA can be a scary organization, threatening Senators will political retaliation and "F" grades on campaign scorecards if they don't follow the NRA line. It's time for our Senate to stand up to these threats, assert their independence of the Senate from such tactics, and vote down a really bad bill.
Senators, your business supporters, the majority of gun owners in Georgia, we got your back.
All private entities and property owners have the right to decide whether or not others may bring guns onto their property. An individual has no more right to bring a gun onto another's property over the objection of the owner than an individual has the right to stand on another's property claiming the right to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech over the objections of the property owner.
Other than to please the NRA, what possible need has been demonstrated for this kind of dramatic change?
In Oklahoma, where the NRA first muscled its bill through, the law was immediately stayed, never put into effect, and later overturned by a judge. Only one other state's legislature has passed the bill. More than a dozen other states have rejected the idea!
The issue is simple: should a private business have the right to determine whether or not to allow guns on their premises? The obvious answer is yes.
There are good reasons why some businesses don't want guns at work. A single gun shot fired accidentally, for example, at work sites with highly explosive materials could literally jeopardize an entire community. Others may choose to welcome employees and guests to bring guns onto their property, into their parking lots. But that, simply, is a decision that is best made by those who are responsible for the safety and success of the company.
Overlooked by many in debate over the bill is the fact that the legislation the NRA is pressing includes "public" employers, meaning government, leaving all state and local entities powerless to decide whether or not employers can bring their guns to their jobs in areas not specifically prohibited under current law.
Call your Senate contacts today. Tell then NO to the NRA parking lot power grab.
-----------------------------------
I would like to assure your readers and all the members of the Chamber of Commerce that received the email above: Labor in Georgia, in part or as a whole, has taken “NO OFFICIAL STANCE” on HB 89, at this time, despite the attempts of the Chamber to paint a picture as such. This is NOT a "NRA/big labor 'workers rights' bill" as the Chamber has suggested to its members. I admit that I personally know a few Teamsters that pack heat, even on the clock, to protect themselves and their loads from hijackers, but I know just as many non-union truckers that do the same. Key management people in the transportation industry are aware of the practice and turn a blind eye to their "official" company policies because the shipments are being protected, not just insured. There is a difference. Federal Homeland Security is also aware of it and they don't seem to mind should a trucker foil the attempt of a terrorist hijacking. For these reasons and numerous others, I tend to agree with the ultimate conclusion of this article.
Moreover; I would argue against the Chambers’ strongest point in respect to the property rights of the business owner. THE VEHICLE OF THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE BUSINESS OWNER SIMPLY WHEN PARKED UPON THE PREMISES OF THE BUSINESS. There is no transfer of title ownership, lean holder obligation, insurance responsibility, ad valorem tax responsibility, etc. by merely punching in and conversely off the clock while upon the employer’s property. It is absurd to propose such an arrangement in an employee-employer relationship. The employee has property rights with respect to property ownership of their vehicle. If we fully extrapolate the position advocated by the Chamber; the need for Local municipalities to provide public parking lots will become necessitated. The sales tax revenue derived from the disposable incomes of gainfully employed citizens will outweigh the need for the business owners to allow themselves to be armed but not those that they employ. It is irresponsible to place such a property tax burden on the very business owners that, coincidentally, are Chamber members. A property tax increase would be the only way to fund the land acquisition and construction cost of such public parking areas for the gainfully employed citizens that wish to invoke their right to arm themselves immediately after they have completed an honest days’ work. HB 89 prevents such a situation from developing.
Post a Comment
<< Home