Supervisor Tommy Scott represents district five on the Board of Supervisors In Bedford County, Virginia. Scott’s proposed a change to County administrative policy to restore County employee’s Second Amendment protected rights. “At Monday’s supervisor meeting, Tommy Scott proposed a change to county policy that would allow employees with a concealed carry permit to exercise their right while on the job,” wdbj7.com reports. Scott, who teaches concealed carry classes, is not saying . . .
“. . . that they must carry, but if they chose to do that they have a right under the second amendment to protect themselves.”
Infringements against government employees’ gun rights are common. They gradually crept into administrative codes during the “progressive” era of the last 100 years. These administrative measures were slowly added, a process that accelerated strongly after the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed.
My father was a supervisor for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in the 60’s. He’d take a pistol with him to work. Not for protection. For occasional plinking during lunch and potting game while working with the survey crew. He once told me about head shooting a ruffed grouse at 15 yards or so.
In the early 1970’s, I brought the a Colt Woodsman to a “Gooseberry Crew.” We were trying to control blister rust, which was devastating the White Pines in Northern Wisconsin. Several others brought pistols. We had informal target matches during the lunch break, in the middle of pine forests bordering the Namekagon river valley . . .
With Second Amendment protections being restoration in numerous states, it makes sense for local and state governments to remove these odious reminders of the fiction that the Second Amendment “did not apply to individuals,” a conceit created by the Kansas Supreme Court in 1905.
Virginia is not the only state where local employees are regaining their gun rights. It’s happening in Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan, and Texas. This trend is going to continue and grow. People with carry permits approach 10 percent of the population in some states.
These are people who’ve shown themselves to be the most responsible and law abiding members of the community. With public mass shooting making the news, it’s reasonable for members of the public to resume their role as the first line of defense against attack. Police will continue their traditional role of reinforcing the citizens and insuring that the rule of law is followed in settling disputes.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch
Excellent
My friends and I would do this during lunch. Bring our pistols to work and then go shooting at the range that was five minutes from our offices. Then head back to work after an hour of range therapy. It was a lot of fun. I wish I could do the same now, but I don’t have the ability to easily bring my pistol to work, because GFZ.
Local government attorneys have, for a long time, recommended employee policies prohibiting carrying on the job. The reason most often given is to protect the local government from the potential for lawsuits in the aftermath of a DGU by an employee on the clock. In other words, government lawyers are a lot like corporate lawyers – protecting their clients while disregarding employee rights and safety.
Fixing such policies will be an uphill battle.
Does that ever actually happen, though? I realize any fool can file any lawsuit he wants, just write it up and pay the filing fee, but does anyone actually do that and prevail?
I don’t doubt that it’s a likely excuse offered by lawyers, but is there any validity to it? Sounds like other dubious ban rationales like “Open carriers are wearing a shoot me first sign” and “You’ll shoot your eye out, kid.”
I’ve never heard of an employer being sued for an employee’s lawful DGU.
I’m sure it happens, and the insurance company settles it quietly.
It’s entirely possible. Settling even weak cases can be more cost effective than incurring ongoing legal fees. Settling quietly, like you mentioned, is probably key to avoid giving incentive to others in similar situations to file.
Gun stores and ranges come to mind, though. I can’t recall one I’ve ever been to (in Texas) where the staff was not open carrying. I’d expect their employers would operate in the same insurance and civil suit atmoshphere as any other, yet they allow carrying.
I believe it all occurred as part of the litigation explosion that started in the late 50’s and early 60’s.
A number of ‘progressive’ lawyers decided that tort law had to be changed. Because. They did not like it as it was. They organized and started writing law article to push their case, and they succeeded to the point where we are in the morass that now exists.
Several of the things they pushed:
Allow for lawyers to advertise for clients. Previously this was forbidden, as it was thought to create excessive incentive for lawsuits. It has.
Create the doctrine that anyone involved in tort, no matter how small the amount of negligence, can be held liable for the full amount of the tort. Completely alien to previous western law, it created the “deep pockets” syndrome.
Nearly eliminate the ‘act of God’ defense. Someone, somewhere must be found negligent and held to account. Remember deep pockets.
The morass of civil suits that we find ourselves in was created for the advantage of tort lawyers, and they have made themselves some of the wealthiest people in the country on the backs of these doctrines.
The above points are from memory; the best recounting of this tale is in:
“Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences”
by Peter W. Huber
http://www.amazon.com/Liability-The-Legal-Revolution-Consequences/dp/0465039197
As always, the people who are at an incident are the first responders. Many states and the feds would have them respond by locking their door and hiding under a desk. No thanks.
That’s my district! I was proud to get to vote for Mr. Scott this past November. He is a great man and does a great job representing his constituents. Now if we could just elect a good president like him….CRUZ 16!
What as difference between the east coast and west coast.
The Barbary Coast, saloon girls, gold miners, sinners, the godless utopia. Now a disarmed civilian population. Only the government has guns. Now a slave state.
The other coast the former capital of the confederacy. Slavery, Jim crow, massive resistance to school integration. A Christian state.
Now a place for guns for everyone regardless of what color you. Now a free state for everyone. Home of the first state wide black elected governor.
I work for a large corporation. They have a no guns/weapons policy in the building, but I noticed they have quietly changed the language on the signs surrounding the property to conform to state of WI law. They cannot forbid us from having guns in our vehicles anymore. We are not supposed to carry while on company business, I’m an outside sales rep and unless I’m going to be in the office, my Glock 43 rides IWB. I will never be defenseless if I can help it.
Comments are closed.