Skip to comments.AZ:County supervisors vote 3-to-2 to approve employee weapon carry
Posted on 04/03/2013 9:01:06 AM PDT by marktwain
Mohave County Board of Supervisors approved employee weapon carry Monday during a general meeting in Kingman. Supervisor Gary Watson, R-Dist. 1, and Supervisor Hildy Angius, R-Dist. 2, were opposed.
The measure affects the county administration building, at 700 W. Beale Street, in Kingman. The policy will be evaluated in six months.
Im uncomfortable with the whole thing because I understand people, said Angius during the meeting.
Watson and Supervisor Joy Brotherton, R-Dist. 4, agreed.
I really feel uneasy to allow those weapons to our employees as a whole, there is a liability we have to entertain, Watson said. The county is in a unique situation and that liability is extremely huge. And a number of employees have expressed their discomfort.
Brotherton picked the lesser of two evils.
Im uncomfortable with the whole situation, too, but Im more uncomfortable with citizens coming in with guns and the employees not having the guns, she said. Im not sure I want to be a sitting duck if something happens and I have no protection.
During the meeting, eight individuals, most of who are county employees, addressed supervisors on the issue. The majority supported employee gun carry, especially if individuals are trained to handle the weapon. The few opposed cited reasons of personal safety when it comes to disgruntled co-workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at havasunews.com ...
This is a big win for restoring rights. The idea that a municipality would allow its employees to carry weapons for their own safety is an idea whose time has come.
Our own Hildy mentioned.
Actually that time had come a couple of hundred years or so ago............
Wayne LaPierre said it best and it needs to apply to every American who chooses to exercise their right and should not require permission from any government agency: “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”
Idiots. If your co-workers want to kill you, they don't care if it's legal to have the gun. On the other hand, if some of your co-workers want to kill you, it would be nice if some of the ones who don't were armed, wouldn't it?
It is amazing to me that those who worship government have a near religious belief in the efficacy of laws.
That’s a really good point.
Thats what I don’t get. Using their logic:
“We might have disgruntled employees who want to shoot us, so lets make sure we don’t have any guns to defend ourselves.”
So you have a workplace that doesn’t allow guns. So a disgruntled employee goes home, gets his gun and comes back firing upon defensless fish in a barrel.
See, my workplace allows carry. A disgruntled employee would never come here and start shooting because he knows it would be a suicide mission. He would be taken out before he got the first round chambered.
That explains how guns SAVE LIVES.
SEE LIBERALS? THAT IS HOW GUNS SAVE LIVES.
Yes. This was the most difficult vote I have had since taking office. I just wanted the rules to go back to the way they were before they were changed in 2010 for all the wrong reasons.
There is not one County that allows people to carry guns to work. Does anyone here work for a large Company that allows people to carry guns? The building in question is 500 ft. from the Sheriff’s Dept. It has armed guards patroling it. I voted my conscience, and what I thought was the right thing to do.
If any of my fellow “employees” become disgruntled, I’d be rather comforted knowing that my personal armaments are near to hand and I’d be able to defend myself and others...
Wow. He really has a lot of respect for his employees.
Thanks for responding Hildy. Hope all is well.
Sorry. She. (And she’s sorry, too.)
If any of my fellow employees become disgruntled, Id be rather comforted knowing that my personal armaments are near to hand and Id be able to defend myself and others..."
The "right" thing to do is to not get in the way of Individual Rights while making it clear the expression of those Rights carries responsibility as well.
"Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding"... "Shall not be infringed."
And yes, it really is that simple.
The same idiots that voted against carry believe someone should carry if they have a badge, as though taking an oath and putting on a badge changes those same people they distrust into superheros they do trust.
Just because your friends all jump off a bridge doesn’t mean you should.
“The same idiots that voted against carry believe someone should carry if they have a badge, as though taking an oath and putting on a badge changes those same people they distrust into superheros they do trust.”
Exactly correct. Put on a uniform, and you can open carry all day, and no one will complain. Put on a uniform, and you become one of the “priesthood” who know the inner secrets and who are to be completely trusted. Those who think like this really do worship government as “god”.