<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fla.: &#8220;NRA finds itself on losing side of gun-control bill&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 21:33:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2618</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3302#comment-2618</guid>
		<description>Certain races, genders, religions and handicap persons can, at one time or another, be a liability issue for a company....so why can&#039;t the company use the same &quot;individual rights&quot;  doctrine, that out-lawed guns in the parking lot, to eliminate those other liability issues from it&#039;s property.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certain races, genders, religions and handicap persons can, at one time or another, be a liability issue for a company&#8230;.so why can&#8217;t the company use the same &#8220;individual rights&#8221;  doctrine, that out-lawed guns in the parking lot, to eliminate those other liability issues from it&#8217;s property.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: E-Bell</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2617</link>
		<dc:creator>E-Bell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3302#comment-2617</guid>
		<description>I am conflicted on this issue.  On the one hand, I believe that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right to bear arms for personal protection.  We have laws against employers who violate other civil rights - why not the right to keep and bear arms?

On the other hand, I also believe in the right of an employer to make the rules about what can and can&#039;t be done on his business&#039;s property.  If the employee doesn&#039;t like the rules, he can go find work elsewhere.

All that aside, I don&#039;t agree with a criminal penalty for the employer for this type of thing.  If I decide (and I haven&#039;t made up my mind) that the right to keep a gun in my car trumps the right of my boss to say that I can&#039;t have one on his property, my remedy should be civil in nature.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am conflicted on this issue.  On the one hand, I believe that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right to bear arms for personal protection.  We have laws against employers who violate other civil rights &#8211; why not the right to keep and bear arms?</p>
<p>On the other hand, I also believe in the right of an employer to make the rules about what can and can&#8217;t be done on his business&#8217;s property.  If the employee doesn&#8217;t like the rules, he can go find work elsewhere.</p>
<p>All that aside, I don&#8217;t agree with a criminal penalty for the employer for this type of thing.  If I decide (and I haven&#8217;t made up my mind) that the right to keep a gun in my car trumps the right of my boss to say that I can&#8217;t have one on his property, my remedy should be civil in nature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Collins</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2006/04/fla-nra-finds-itself-on-losing-side-of-gun-control-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-2616</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Collins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3302#comment-2616</guid>
		<description>I would be in favor of laws of this type.  My last place of employment was located in one of the more hazardous areas of town.  I have a conceled carry permit and often locked my weapon in my vehicle because it was against company policy to have it on company property.  It was also a requirement that I park in the company parking lot due to complaints from people in the neighborhood.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  My employer has the obligation to provide for my security at work.  Do they have the obligation for my security once I leave work?  I don&#039;t think so.  As soon as I leave work I am responsible for my own security.  If an employer denied me the ability to provide for my security wouldn&#039;t it mean that he was assuming the liability? It seems to me that they are trading one liability problem for another.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would be in favor of laws of this type.  My last place of employment was located in one of the more hazardous areas of town.  I have a conceled carry permit and often locked my weapon in my vehicle because it was against company policy to have it on company property.  It was also a requirement that I park in the company parking lot due to complaints from people in the neighborhood.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  My employer has the obligation to provide for my security at work.  Do they have the obligation for my security once I leave work?  I don&#8217;t think so.  As soon as I leave work I am responsible for my own security.  If an employer denied me the ability to provide for my security wouldn&#8217;t it mean that he was assuming the liability? It seems to me that they are trading one liability problem for another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.418 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-05-26 21:58:45 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
