New gun law sets stage for airport showdown

[Hazcat]

The 'employers' aren't.  The circumstances are.

BTW my Kel-Tek is well less than a pound fully loaded.

[TAB]

So its the job that makes it diffrent...

so where do we draw the line?


I can make a very strong case that you having the LCP in your pocket is a danger to yourself if you fall( and I don't mean it going bang)


I've seen some nasty "accidents"  every thing from people cuting several inchs into thier leg with a skill saw, amputations and people getting thier ass "filled up" with paint from an airless.    Whats the worst accident I've ever seen?  A guy falling off the 2nd step of a 5' ladder on to cualking gun.  Long story short the guy is on disablity and  has a colostomy bag.  All from falling from a hieght of 18" off the ground on to the grip and trigger of a cualking gun.

[Hazcat]

And your point is?  I worked hazardous waste for 10 years.  Line air, toxic atmosphere, confined space, etc.  All dangerous.  In some carrying would not really have made a diff.  In some if there was a spark there would be a BIG boom.

Common sense is a good thing and if it IS dangerous (matches in a flammable atmosphere) then it is an OSHA matter.  The 'possibility' that some one goes postal is NOT a reason to legislate nor is the 'feelings' of some one else a reason to forbid a persons rights.

[TAB]

We both know osha is a four letter word and does more harm then good.

So my question is, where do we draw the line when it is dangerous to carry and when its not?   i'm not talking about the use of the gun, I'm talking about where having the gun on your person puts you in more danger.

For that matter you could also add in the type of concealed carry.   For example an ankle holster is alot safer in a fall then a SOB or MOB holster in a fall ( several police officers have been put in wheel chairs for landing flat on thier back/ pushed into something  and landed/ pushed into  on something on thier duty belt)

[tombogan03884]

So why can those employers forbid them, but other can't?   In a perfect world people would not carry where they are a danger to themselfs/others/ "stuff", but we all know that there are plenty out there that are too dumb or too "thick headed" to take it off.
 There is not a job out there that having a 1 + lb (for the smallest pistols) hunk of metal some where on your body could not cuase harm or increase it.

Employers in your examples are not prohibiting "GUNS" per se, but any thing that poses a potential saftey hazard. Thats no differant than saying no smoking while making fireworks.
I'm a machinist, I used to carry a 1911 in 1 shop (had deer, moose, and bear in the parking lot, and open bay doors.)
It was in a shoulder holster under my sweat shirt, It never got in the way.

[Sponsor]

[Teresa Heilevang]

Can I just say something here? 

So my question is, where do we draw the line when it is dangerous to carry and when its not?   i'm not talking about the use of the gun, I'm talking about where having the gun on your person puts you in more danger.

Isn't it an individuals decision if they want to take the chance on falling on their gun etc.. ?? I am a big girl. I don't need a keeper. If I fall on my gun and something happens...Then that is my fault and I will deal with it. It isn't anyone else's job or business to try to tell me what I need to do for my own good. I think that if I was going to have an MRI.. I would probably think it is safe to say I'd leave my gun in my truck and not have it on me when I went for my tests.. 
Just like seat belts, motorcycle helmets etc.. it is MY life and MY decision if I want to risk wearing or not wearing something that some one else deems dangerous.

Tha'ts all............   

[TAB]

Can I just say something here? 

Isn't it an individuals decision if they want to take the chance on falling on their gun etc.. ?? I am a big girl. I don't need a keeper. If I fall on my gun and something happens...Then that is my fault and I will deal with it. It isn't anyone else's job or business to try to tell me what I need to do for my own good. I think that if I was going to have an MRI.. I would probably think it is safe to say I'd leave my gun in my truck and not have it on me when I went for my tests.. 
Just like seat belts, motorcycle helmets etc.. it is MY life and MY decision if I want to risk wearing or not wearing something that some one else deems dangerous.

Tha'ts all............   

Thats just it, it still hits your employers workmens comp. ( just so you know, if you have a perfect record, it still cost about half of what your employees earn per hour for comp alone.   One claim and that can go up drasticly.  More so if OSHA gets envoled )  Also what about when having a gun there would be dangerous to the property of the employer.    A MRI machine is a perfect example, It does not take much in the way to do serious damage to it.  Same with power plants.    There is a reason why hammers that are made for use around strong perment magnets can cost over a grand( I'm not joking)even small ones are in the 300 range.    Several things during the manufactory process are very sensitive to metal near by.   In a perfect world the employee would have to pay for the damage, but we all know it does not work that.

[Rastus]

I hope they arrest the guy,  not for carrying a weapon... but for trespassing.  Its pretty clear he has been warned not to goto the property.  He is acting like a teenager.

First, my internet connection with Wildblue is really terrible and it takes minutes to load a page so I load, go work, etc., then come back.  The reason I'm saying this is to apologize for not having time to read the rest of the thread to see what's going on.

Second, Tab, you have got to be kidding, right?  Civil disobedience aimed at bad politicians (or bureacrats) and their laws, to make the politicians and laws conform goes back to the beginnings of the U.S.  Allowing people who create laws that conflict with controlling law to serve their own agenda unchallenged is madness....it is basic support for fascism.  Look back to the last century to see what the failure to stand against fascism brought on.....Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.  All of these little tyrants got their start by working contrary to law...when punished for it, as in Hitler's case, the damage was delayed.

Tirades and "what if's" about someone doing something off-the-wall that's "not smart" is a fringe argument and is childish. 

If someone feels a call and has a righteous crusade against a wrong they are to be applauded.  It is right to support and encourage someone with such wonderful conviction.  Standing against a bad law that conflicts with a superior law that some bureaucrat or politician does not want to conform with is surely righteous and cannot be debated with the silliness of impossible conditions, unlikely conditions and other fringe thinking "what if's".  Fringe thinking as described in the last sentence is a foolish remnant of Greek thinking that entered the Western mind some centuries ago; that is fancied by academia's refusal to accept God and which resides, futhermore, in weak minds that prefer not to think.

It is easier to get along and to not stand.  Within me I must make a stand.   My mother may say at times it's better to smile, nod your head and go about your business.   My aunts may say at times it's better to smile, nod your head and go about your business.  My grandmother may have said it's better at times to smile, nod your head and go about your business. 

But my father, grandfather, my uncles...did not say that in such abundance.  They built things, chartered a town, ran businesses, and, in general accomplished things because they were not satisfied to be one in a crowd of many.  It used to be that failure to stand, failure to be a man, was frowned on.  Societal forces now are set to squash the honest man and to reward the foolish, lying and controlling one that deceives with a smile and makes the masses people feel good while using and stealing from them to acquire power that will be used to increase the deceptive one's influence and wealth.

It was once mostly the women who did not speak out.  Shamefully, now men would be as women and cowardly fail to challenge bad things for fear of running afoul of the law.  Not even my frail, 80 year old mother would, in this instance, agree with you. 

[Pathfinder]

Path,

What tests are you talking about?

Sorry, it was clear in my mind, can't the rest of you keep up? Or lag behind??   

I was referring to the CCW tests. No range tests are required, no proof that you know which end of the barrel the bad things leaves, an assumption - since it's in the State Constitution - we're all adults and knowledgeable and capable of handling ourselves properly.

So all we need to do is prove we know the law by taking a 10-question test on the law.

I've heard that the lack of a range test is the primary reason that ND's CCW is not reciprocated in many of the other CCW states. Personally, I think that is an excuse coming from less than eager Attorneys General to deny reciprocity. At least I think that was true in PA case, as a letter from one AG to the other should have resolved the hold up. PA's AG chose not to send the letter, and we all know that PA is a CCW state against the "better" judgement of its gummint officials.

[Hazcat]

Tab,

There are always exceptions to the rule.  Heck, I would bet there are exceptions to the law of gravity, but we do not make laws for the exceptions (or as Rastus calls it, the 'fringe').  We make laws for the most likely possibilities or to cover the most situations, and rely on people of rational mind to know when they do not apply.  That is one reason we have a court system and a jury.  They can make a decision that 'in this case' the law did not apply and you are innocent.

Trying to plan for the 'what ifs' is not possible or desirable because at the least, it will become much too complicated not to mention it is like talking to a three year old that has just discovered the word 'why'.

As an NCO I was taught to give as few orders as possible because once I give an order on a subject I stifle thought and will be looked to by the troops to give an order in every similar situation.  Instead give guidance and allow them to come up with the best solution.  

For CCW guidance is given in many ways, classes, experience, knowledge (strong magnets and guns = not good, fire and bullets = not good), even signage as to a particular environment you will be exposed to (microwaves and pace makers),  but in none of these instances is anyone forbidden from any given activity, just guided as to risks.  Yes there are exceptions to this rule (fireworks present, no smoking)  but notice those signs don't say 'no open flame, no burning incense, etc because they have given you guidance on why that would be a bad idea.