This is what we need

Via Wayne LaPierre:

Montana’s Castle Doctrine bill also contains a provision stating that if companies forbid employees from legally and lawfully carrying a firearm, and an employee is a victim of a crime, then the employee can sue his or her employer for failing to protect him (or refusing to allow him to protect himself).

This is wonderful! We need more of this.

One of my first firearms students was a lawyer and suggested something I have never had the courage to try. His suggestion was that employees who are otherwise legally able to carry a concealed firearm but are prohibited by company policy should have their lawyer send the employer a letter. This letter would state the employee would obey the company policy. But should a situation arise where the lawful possession and use of a firearm in the work environment could have saved the life or prevented serious injury to the employee or others that the company was on notice that it would be held liable because of the company policy.

If I was ever in a position where the job just didn’t matter that much I might try that as a means to change company policy. But in most situations I figure it would just result in the company putting you at the top of the list to get rid of should there be a real or imagined downturn in business.

In my list of BHAGs with the PNNL lawsuit is to make it such that having a “no guns” policy is direct evidence of an anti-gun bias. Hence if a gun owner gets fired the no guns policy lends credence to the claim it was his gun ownership that was the real reason. Just as separate bathrooms or drinking fountains for blacks would be evidence that a company had a bias against non-whites. We need to make the cost of anti-gun bigotry as high as we can and I am going to do my best to enable others to inflict a cost on other bigots.


One thought on “This is what we need

Comments are closed.