|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MI: Can employees have guns in their cars? Commissioners say no
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a close vote Thursday evening, Missaukee County commissioners rejected a more lenient employee gun policy.
It came down to an issue of liability, according to commissioners who voted against the proposal.
“If an employee of the county did something untoward, who is going to be responsible?‘ Pamela Niebrzydowski said. Even an employee acting with good intentions might injure an innocent person.
"I feel pretty strongly about this liability thing," she said.
For other commissioners, it was more personal.
They know the employee who requested a policy revision and trust him, they said.
And some commissioners were concerned about personal liberties.
"We keep whittling away at our rights," Hubert Zuiderveen said.
|
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(1/7/2019)
|
| I wonder who is going to get sued if an employee is attacked and injured and unable to protect themselves because the employer prevented them from doing so (in their own vehicle?) Talk about a double edge sword. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
