• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

In the paper...

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Going to type it out, since I can't find it on the Idaho Press-Tribune website. They have an opinion section, and an area where politicians express their views about a topic of their choice. My local paper has 8 state representatives, and a senator area. Anyhow, down to the article, from Monday, the 13th of April.

"An individual's 2nd Amendment right to own and psosess firearms is sacred to most Idahoans and to me as your state representative. That's why I am supporting House Bill 287, which provides immunity for employers when an employee stores a firearm in their personal vehicle on an employer's business property. The bill protects employers from civil damages from the lawful storage of firearms by employees.

I voted for legislation last week in the House State Affairs Committee, and I will be proud to support this bill this week when it comes to the House floor. Like the good people of District 13, I very much support tough laws dealing with the unlawful use of firearms. But let's not trample on the rights of citizens who want to protect themselves.
"

The more I read about this guy the more I like him. The more of us show our support for him in and his stance on matters like this, the better. He's doing a great job, pleasedon't hesitate to let him know.
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

They passed similar legislation down here in Louisiana a couple years ago. A lot of business owners still didn't like having to let their employees have guns in their cars, but it does give them some relief from the screams of their insurance companies, who are the real reason for the "no guns on company property" policies.

And makes us employees feel a whole lot better about what we were doing anyway.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

Im not sure this bill says that, though. This looks more like an "optional" thing for employers, and they are just immune if something went wrong.

It doesn't look like (to me) a parking lot bill that would require employers to let employees on the premises with a firearm locked in their car. :cuss::cuss:

link here:
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2009/H0287.pdf

But thats only what I get out of it.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Even if it doesn't require it, and I don't really think it should (it is private property after all), merely removing liability from them might make it easier to get them to ease up on restrictions for keeping a firearm in your vehicle-which is a great step in the right direction.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,074
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

NightOwl wrote:
Even if it doesn't require it, and I don't really think it should (it is private property after all), merely removing liability from them might make it easier to get them to ease up on restrictions for keeping a firearm in your vehicle-which is a great step in the right direction.
So is your vehicle private property and your right to self defense is part of the Right to Life which is the highest and first enumerated right in the Declaration of Independence.

This bill will have absolutely no effect other than make a few people feel good. History has proven many times that employers will not change their policy simply because they have no civil liability if they do.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

yeah, I read -in the paper- on friday, that there's been 7 gun bills go through the Idaho legislature so far this year. I read, and 5 of them (all were discussed on these forums) were weak, watered down, and did little if anything to really help out the common person.

of course, Now, say Im in Virginia; I guess I can purchase my new shotgun; but YYY when its cheaper over here, anyways?
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

rpyne wrote:
NightOwl wrote:
Even if it doesn't require it, and I don't really think it should (it is private property after all), merely removing liability from them might make it easier to get them to ease up on restrictions for keeping a firearm in your vehicle-which is a great step in the right direction.
So is your vehicle private property and your right to self defense is part of the Right to Life which is the highest and first enumerated right in the Declaration of Independence.

This bill will have absolutely no effect other than make a few people feel good. History has proven many times that employers will not change their policy simply because they have no civil liability if they do.

Disagree. Today it's getting the liability lifted from employers for their employees having firearms in their vehicles. Maybe next it'll be having their liability lifted for employees exercising their rkba, after a bit of (unshocking) time that it doesn't cause a major issue. When employers are no longer liable, it will be easier to convince them individually to allow it. Heck, walmart follows state law, who knows, maybe the guy rounding up shopping carts in the parking lot will be openly carrying if such a law were to pass.

Every step in the right direction is a good thing, in my opinion, even if it's not a single jump to the finish line. Regardless of if it's enough or not, it's still something. Something > Nothing.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,074
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

NightOwl wrote:
Heck, walmart follows state law, who knows, maybe the guy rounding up shopping carts in the parking lot will be openly carrying if such a law were to pass.

Every step in the right direction is a good thing, in my opinion, even if it's not a single jump to the finish line. Regardless of if it's enough or not, it's still something. Something > Nothing.
Walmart follows state law for customers, not employees. Employees are strictly prohibited from carrying, nation wide.

True, anything is better than nothing, but this bill doesn't even make up for the loss incurred in S1112 let alone what you stand to lose if S1024 passes.

Having grown up in Idaho, it makes we want to cry when I see how far the people have allowed the state destroy your rights. I remember kids carrying a rifle down the halls of my high school and keeping it in their locker all day so they could have it to go varmint hunting after school. See how far you could get with that one today.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

rpyne wrote:
Walmart follows state law for customers, not employees. Employees are strictly prohibited from carrying, nation wide.
They also currently have liability nationwide. Not that I expect Walmart to be breaking major ground, but rather I was illustrating how employers will tend to follow the law as far as company policies.

The whole mess makes me sad too. Every little bit of progress helps though...with enough progress we'll get to where we were years ago. :(
 
Top