Skip to comments.Idaho: “Employer Liability Act” Signed by Governor Otter!
Posted on 05/08/2009 11:57:12 PM PDT by neverdem
|Idaho: Employer Liability Act Signed by Governor Otter!|
|Friday, May 08, 2009|
On Friday, May 1, House Bill 287 was signed into law by Governor C.L. Butch Otter (R). HB 287, the Employer Liability Act, sponsored by State Representative Jeff Thompson (R-33), will remove an employers liability for any accident related to a lawfully-stored firearm, provided employer does not adopt a policy prohibiting its employees from keeping their firearms locked in their vehicles while parked on company property. If the employer were to institute a policy that prohibits employees from storing lawfully-owned firearms in their private vehicles while at work, they will still be held liable.
Thank you to all those who contacted their state legislators during this process and be sure to check your e-mail and www.NRAILA.org for updates throughout the year.
Excellent! Very clever legislation... although it’s unfortunate that clever legislation for this sort of thing is even needed in the first place.
If that employer denies his employees the right to self-defense, then he is to some degree liable for that death.
I'd include going to or coming from work. The state is not responsible for protecting us. The Supreme Court said so!
Someone maybe like the POTUS when he lets the Gitmo prisoners out?
Was news to me.....
This bill doesn't respect the employers private property and right to enjoy it. We need to move back toward liberty and freedom of association.
This is a band-aid solution, right out of the socialist playbook.
How does this remove your ‘enjoyment’ of your property? It is still your property, and your rights are in no way negatively affected. What your are doing is trying to remove MY right to MY personal property! By telling me I cannot have MY personal property with me, YOU are the one swinging your fist.
Assuming you are not a slave (which makes the argument moot), but an employee voluntarily choosing to work for my company which of my work rules do you get to ignore? Any employer can set up work rules that don't allow you to post or have personal property at work, photos, etc. You agree that is normal and acceptable?
So now we have two rights in conflict, no? Your right to self defense (you are not claiming a right to be employed are you? You also recognize that I am not taking your property, a gun in this case, correct?) and my right to property (by default I lose my rights if I lose control of my property, agreed?).
FRiend, I swing no fist. You are still at liberty to come to work, voluntarily, and choose to either follow the work rules or not. If not, you're fired. Find other employment.
Now, you get a politician to pass a law you like that limits my exercise of liberty over my property and business. That sounds like and is socialism. The NRA is shortsighted on this one, but their purview is narrow.
It is up to us freedom loving individuals to preserve liberty. BTW, I am an NRA life member.
Now, you may set up rules that your employees must abide by, but that ‘right’ is seriously restricted by the state. You cannot demand that females come to work topless, can you? So your ‘control’ is illusory at best anyway. And I have yet to see a rational argument as to how you ‘lose control’ of your property if people have personal firearms in their personal vehicles. You are claiming sovereignty over the property of others by dint of its mere presence in your ‘realm’. Again, you are swinging your fist. Your ‘default’ that you somehow lose your property if you cannot strip others of their inherent rights is so inane it is pitiful. It is your desire to control that is causing the conflict. And I would fully back a bill that would hold employers partially responsible if they stripped their employees right to self-defense from them in the employers quest to control, and that employee is harmed by crime going to or from work. You want control? Fine. Now comes the responsibility!
It used to exist. People like you drove it out for personal convenience. The control freaks on the Left and Right are equally to blame for our current condition.
Doesn’t make it right, though. Your backing of a law that shifts blame from the perpetrator to the business owner is not better than a call for gun control by liberals.
We’ve forgotten the quintessential meaning of liberty. Sad.
If my control of my property, the product of my labor, is “illusory at best” then I am a slave, no?
I sold my parking lot as soon as they passed the law. Park on the public way and no need to report to work tomorrow, DITW.
It hasn’t existed ever, and the last vestiges of that line of legal thought was driven out with the extinction of slavery. What you advocate is liberty for you and you alone. Everyone else’s is subordinate to yours. Again, you swing your fist. Dangerous pasttime you have there.
The bill I would back recognizes your responsibility for your own action. You want to control your employees to the point that you wish to deny them rights, well, then accept what happens. But you don’t want that. You want to play Obama’s game. “I have the power and control, but its someone else’s fault when bad things happen as an indirect consequence of my actions’!
It seems you never knew the quintessential meaning of liberty. You only know it in the context of yours. Pitiful.
And you still haven’t shown how you have lost your property by someone else possessing theirs. You haven’t lost any of the fruits of your labor. But you are attempting to deny others the fruits of theirs! They did buy that firearm, remember.
So who is the leftward leaning here? Why, YOU! YOU want to deny the rights of others. YOU want to deny others their actual real property. YOU want to deny the consequences of your own actions. Absolutely pitiful!
Don't like my policies, don't work for me. You have your liberty under my system, you've removed mine under yours.
It should be patently obvious to a free man.
You work for government and possibly this has tainted your reasoning.
If I own something it is mine to do with as I please. If I choose not to allow your car, firearm or non-steel toed shoes on my property that is my right, whether it is my home, business, etc. It is simple. You don't have to work for me, visit with me or associate with me.
Freedom of Association is fundamental to liberty. That it has been taken away by affirmative action or big government conservatives like you makes not difference to me.
What I propose respects your rights, you've bulldozed mine using the power of the state. That you post here and don't get that is scary.
We have an original Bill of Rights consisting of ten rights. The 2nd, however important (for me it is the thumbtack), doesn't overrule the rest. Understand?
Liberty means everyone gets liberty. You and the NRA have turned Idaho business owners into 3/5 of a person.
Do you believe in the liberty of contract?
I work for a private contractor who has a government contract. I am not banned from having a weapon in my vehicle subject only to the post commanders rule that it be unloaded and not reachable from the drivers seat. So my thinking isn’t tainted by being some sort of government operative, as you seem to think. And I definitely wouldn’t work for you on a bet.
You have not been able to articulate exactly what right you have lost, what fruit of your labor you have lost, or what property has been seized. What liberty have you lost? You still own that business, still make money from it, and can still tell your employees that they must do the work assigned by you. You haven’t lost a dang thing.
What you are now claiming is soveriegnty over others property, denying them the use of it. You don’t own your employees guns, cars, or lives. You invite them to work for you by extending employment. They don’t have the right to that employment, but neither do you conjure up the right, nay, power to deny them their rights, which you seem to think.
I am going to ask again. What liberty have you lost? And control of your property isn’t the answer, because you still control it in all aspects. Your business, your fruits of labor. No one has come demanding that you personally take some action that affects you in any manner.
What you propose doesn’t respect anyone’s rights but your own. No one has seized control of your property (which means using it for their own purposes, by the way, not what you seem to think it means).
As far as liberty of contract, sure. But you can’t force someone to sign away rights in that contract.
It is very obvious that you have no concept of what liberty is. Especially since you think you can strip it from someone because you happen to employ them.
Private property where the public is invited is not the same as residential private property nor private property where the public is not invited.
Contact me when you own your own business. We can discuss then.
In other words, you can’t answer the question. I see.
You like laws that force other people to do what you want. I don’t.
What else do we have to discuss?
What am I forcing you to do? Not a damn thing. You aren’t being compelled to take any action at all! What you are doing is what is the problem. It is employers like you that allowed the unions to take hold. YOU loosed the Democrat tools upon us, and you are now claiming aggrieved status.
You are right. We have nothing to discuss. But if one of your employees are hurt going to or from work in a criminal act that a weapon could have prevented, I hope the jury awards him/her both ears and the tail. That is all.
I am always fascinated when people type out vulgarities. Does it seem more mature typed than spoken?
And that you guessed that I am long-time lurker George Meany. Incredible! But, how did you know I have a tail?
But if one of your employees are hurt going to or from work in a criminal act that a weapon could have prevented, I hope the jury awards him/her both ears and the tail.
Someday I hope you get the chance to run your own business with your own money. I really do.
This is great law.
If they allow for the possibility that the employee can defend themselves, they are not liable.
If they prevent the employee from defending themselves, they are liable.
“Now, you get a politician to pass a law you like that limits my exercise of liberty over my property and business.”
No such thing... You still don’t have to allow firearms in your parking lot and nothing changes for you. You simply have the same liability as you had before.
What’s your beef?
Uh, no. Your right to private property doesn't negate my right to self-defence.
Business liability, private property rights, freedom of association.
I do like Idaho House Bill 65A, though.
And that's the way it should be. An employer's private property rights do not negate the right to life and self-defence that the employees have. Simply because someone agrees to work for you doesn't mean you have the right to put their lives in jeopardy if some nutjob comes on site and starts shooting people down.
Uh, no. Your right to self defense doesn’t negate my right to private property. Which is the whole point.
Actually, MI Dude is right.
Frankly, if your negligence and infringement upon your employees' right to life and self-defence results in one or more of them being injured/killed, then you're negligence makes you (or should make you) liable because you are partly at fault.
Guess what? The right to private property doesn't give you an unlimited right to the disposition of any and all people who may happen to be on your property, especially if they're there with your permission (like employees).
Sorry, but life trumps property. Even the Founders and Locke thought so.
“Hi! Eric Stratton, rush chairman! Damned glad to meet you!”
You’ve not moved the argument forward. The bill is overreach, excepting the part about parking on a public way with your firearm in your vehicle.
You exaggerate the risk and need for a firearm on my property. Although I understand the insurance aspect of carrying a firearm, its actual use is quite low.
If they are there with my permission then they are there at my disposition, no? May I rescind my permission or place limitations on their staying?
You needn’t work for me or visit my store. You decide, not some law lobbied by a lobby you happen to like.
This law removes my choice. It is intentionally coercive, and in this case populist. How is this different than liberal mob rule? You just happen to like this particular law as it doesn’t infringe on your rights.
Of course, I would still support your 2nd Amendment rights even if there wasn’t a majority behind it.
Who wouldn’t waste property to save a life, that is the Founders argument, but they noted carefully that your property is your life and your use of it your liberty. To lose either is to infringe on liberty.
That is what this law does.
The original Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property, was simply too limited and was changed to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (self-defined).
The possibility of an accident with a “properly stored” firearm, should you ban it but it comes on your property just the same, is also quite low. Doesn’t this result in a verdict of “de minimus non curat lex” when approached from either side?
Both probabilities (encountering and countering a crime with a gun; it accidentally going off) are very low events, I agree. The issue is how the law behaves. It doesn’t provide the option of choice to the business owner, just the appearance of it.
My understanding is that if you choose not to allow your employees to store their firearms on your property you are open to greater liability than if you do. It is manipulative; like affirmative action or the ADA. (correct me if I am wrong, this is from news reports)
For my part I would not care if my employees were at work armed all day. The issue is the continuing encroachment on individual liberty, in this case both private property and freedom of association.
As conservatives we must be especially careful not to pick government interventions of convenience because we happen to agree with them.
TN just passed a law that allows CC in bars or restaurants that serve alcohol. That is a move toward liberty, although I don’t drink or go to bars. In this case the owner may, at their discretion, ban firearms from the premises.
Given that these are concealed weapons how would the owner of said business know? There would at worst be a civil settlement (in or out of court) banning said customer. More likely, and the event that Americans should prefer, is the owner of said establishment judges the violation for what it is. Weighing the customers intentions with the owners personal and economic interests, either providing an exception or asking the patron never to return (or at least not armed).
I would not patronize any establishment (a restaurant, a bank, a publisher, etc.) that is against my values in the first place, but nor would I force my values upon them by act of law.
What ID politicians have done is create a populist “show law” to help their chances with reelection. This is the opposite intent of the American Revolution, no?
This bill doesn’t respect the employers private property and right to enjoy it.
Or do you think a ban on Bibles (or Koran) in cars is fine, too?
Assuming you are not a slave (which makes the argument moot), but an employee voluntarily choosing to work for my company which of my work rules do you get to ignore? Any employer can set up work rules that don’t allow you to post or have personal property at work, photos, etc. You agree that is normal and acceptable?
Does your parking lot have spots for visitors (thus being open to the public?)
Is there alternative parking for employees who prefer not to be disarmed on their entire commute and other errands?
If my control of my property, the product of my labor, is illusory at best then I am a slave, no?
You exaggerate the risk and need for a firearm on my property.
Both probabilities (encountering and countering a crime with a gun; it accidentally going off) are very low events
Your concern for the liberties entailed in the 2nd Amendment, though admirable, are myopic and have made you, like many liberty loving conservatives, mind blind to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
You, me, every American gets the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, plus any not even mentioned that you can dream of. Though there is some debate about it, they are not ordinal, but cardinal, that is the 2nd Amendment is not greater than or more important than the 3rd.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit government power, federal initially, then later logically extended to the states and localities.
Your right to self-defense not enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, though perfectly real, is not better than or more important than my right to private property. Now you likely did not read the whole thread or else you did not understand it.
So we have two rights, equally important, in conflict. What is the proper course if you really believe and want to practice individual liberty? Do you go to the state and demand a law enforcing your right and subjugating mine? Or do you simply use your power of choice to choose to either work for me or not?
You could submit to my rules (not really my rules - you can bring your gun by any time and if you bring ammunition too I'll even be happy to shoot it for you) or not. Your choice. We could contract for your interests and mine, wholly free of government interference or force, no? We might even become friends as our interests intertwine so well - you a willing worker and me a willing employer.
Yet, you prefer politics and control to the above scenario. You can see my distress for my liberty and, eventually yours because someday a politician will find a majority who doesn't agree with one of your rights and he'll take it away by law - nice and legal and all.
This particular example in ID is particularly egregious in that how on earth would an employer know you have a gun in your locked car? If you used it in a crime, you'd be fired. If you used it to save a life you'd be a hero. Can you see why this is such a dumb law?
Please read this post through a couple of times before you reply, OK? I don't mind discussing it, but I've been through it more than once and I hate to pay for the same real estate twice.