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”.
Nice to see you here and commenting. I am glad that you are a freeper.
Did you know that when Wisconsin passed its long overdue “shall issue” law in 2011, part of the law removed employers legal liability if they allowed their employees to carry?
That sounds like a good reform for the Arizona legislature.
Here is a story about a company in Wisconsin that allows its employees to carry. It has more than a hundred employees. How many employees does Mohave County have?
Name me one Corporation, anywhere, that allows its employees to carry weapons into the workplace.
It’s not the AZ legislature, it is ONLY Mohave County. There is no other government building, as far as I am aware of, in all of Arizona that allows its employees to carry weapons. There were insurance issues as well. The building in question had an metal detector. One of the first things we did as a board was to get rid of the metal detector. We are a right to carry State. That was put in place in 2010 and it was put in place as punishment for people who spoke against the County. We voted to take that out. The building is about 3-500 ft. away from the Sheriff’s Dept. and has armed guards roaming it. They are the safest building in the County. This is a complicated issue. Again, please name me one Corporation that allows their employees to bring in weapons. Again, I was torn with this vote. I knew it was going to pass, but I just don’t think we had all the information we needed right now.
Locally to me, most gun store employees carry as a matter of course. Closer to you, the Scottsdale Gun Club allows their employees to carry in accordance with AZ State law. News stories from several States are cropping up where school Districts are allowing their staff to carry personal armaments.
Still more info here and on just about every gun forum...
So yeah... We're in the minority, but that doesn't make the practice wrong, insane, silly, or inadvisable. Quit to the contrary, we need to do everything we can to get responsible folks carrying everywhere and anywhere.
Sorry that I was not more clear. I was suggesting that the reform that was put in place in Wisconsin would be a good reform for the Arizona legislature to put in place. I realize that you are not a member of the Arizona legislature.
"There is no other government building, as far as I am aware of, in all of Arizona that allows its employees to carry weapons. "
I believe you are correct. It is always scary to be a pioneer. Still, I think your County board did the right thing.
You now have the link about the story in Wisconsin where Blair Hardware (which is a corporation) is allowing its employees to carry. Thank you for your service. It is not easy serving as a public servant. I think that six months from now you will be supporting this position.
Again, the devil was in the details. I did not feel comfortable with the way this motion was written. It left out a whole bunch of building that really do need, in my opinion, to be able to have weapons. IT was narrowly focused to this one building with hundreds of employees and I didn’t feel I had all the information on liability, etc. But it did pass. And now that we are letting this particular building carry guns, I think it’s only fair to allow the building in outlying areas, that really do deserve and need to have them, be allowed to have them. I will work towards that.
“IT was narrowly focused to this one building with hundreds of employees and I didnt feel I had all the information on liability, etc. But it did pass. And now that we are letting this particular building carry guns, I think its only fair to allow the building in outlying areas, that really do deserve and need to have them, be allowed to have them. I will work towards that.”
I am so glad to be hearing your side of what happened. You are absolutely correct. How many of your employees work in remote areas on roads or other projects, a long, long way from any response from the Sheriff?
Thank you again for taking the time to give us the inside story.
I remember my father working as a State surveyor for the State Highway Department in the 1960s. They routinely carried a gun or two among them, and there was no problem. All of these prohibitions have been slowly pushed onto us to demonize the ownership of firearms over the years.
Heck, I even brought a pistol to a federally funded crew that I was working on about 1970. We worked out in the woods and had informal target contests (where I won back my poker losses) at lunch. No one said “boo”.
I just found out that Supervisor Johnson put this back on the agenda for our special Board meeting on Monday. I bet that’s what it’s about. I will keep you posted.
You mean allowing all county employees the same rights as those in the one building?
Thanks for the update!