On December 2, 2015 there was an office holiday party in San Bernardino. Employees were socializing and enjoying their selves. An employee and his wife enter the premises and starts shooting. At the end of the gunfire, there are 20 people shot. This paper will examine the rights of the employee to carry guns, employers’ rights to ban guns on their property and workplace safety with guns involved. The employees have the right to bear arms. Currently, there is no law that controls guns at the office. Several states have passed professed guns-at-work laws. Laws like these are usually intended to keep employees’ privileges to have concealed firearms differ in terms of their restrictions. The lobbying skills of the NRA along with other …show more content…
The general-duty clause requires employers to provide each employee a place of employment free from recognized hazards that could be injurious or deadly. A similar incident happened in Oklahoma, where a group of workers who had been terminated for having firearms in their vehicles in a company parking lot. They were in violation of the company rule and argued that the policy violated their right to bear arms. The federal court there defended the employer’s action. The only reason they did because it was permissible at the time, under state law, for the company to adopt and enforce the policy (Bastible v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 437 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 2006)). An amendment to the Oklahoma law (Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §1290.22(B) (Supp. 2006)) enforced a restriction like that in Florida, forbidding employers from keeping the policy, and this amendment also resisted a legal challenge (Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009)). Other states barring companies from banning firearms on company property include Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi. (Thelen 2009 para. 3) More states seem ready to pass laws that would ban a company’s right to forbid firearms on their property. Some of these laws offer employer’s with protection from responsibility if those employees cause injury with the weapons on the property. Other planned laws offer no protection from liability. The extent of a company’s obligation and what they should do to
The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.
December 4, 2015, in San Bernardino, CA, fourteen residents at the Inland Regional Center lost their lives due to Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shooting many residents. Attending a holiday party at the center for thousands of residents with disabilities, Mr. Farook left the center “angry” over a dispute and came back with Ms. Malik. Armed with .223- caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns, they killed 14 residents and wounded at least 17. Shootings seem to be becoming more habitual, therefore, people fear guns and want to enact gun control laws. Recent attacks from terrorist groups spark the question of who should have the right to own guns. Controversies over interpreting the Second Amendment date back to the turn of the twentieth century because so many viewpoints and regulations have accumulated; it is all in the manner of which interpretation citizens subscribe to- loose verses strict interpretation. Due to the controversies, certain gun regulations have been enacted and fears have risen because of this.
As the population increases its stocks on firearms, a significant number of citizens are at risk of being harmed. According to statistics, “In 2000, almost 30,000 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States more than the number of deaths from, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse… [in spite of] almost 20,000 laws and regulations regulating gun usage to some degree” (Kwon and Baack). Though several individuals are in fear of losing guns as weapons for protection, a greater number of laws will continue to be useful in maintaining the security of citizens upon significant new laws addressing gun control. Although the existence of guns is necessary to protect bear arms, gun control laws help reduce violence, decrease the homicide rate, and help prevent accidents from around the globe. New gun control laws should be enforced to ensure the safety of the entire population, and most importantly to prevent any gun violence as necessary to help save the lives of the innocent.
Over the last several years there have been disagreements over people’s right to leave firearms locked in their vehicles. This issue began in 2002 in Oklahoma with the Weyerhaeuser corporation fired employees for having their guns on the company property. As a result of this, the Senate passed with a vote of 92-4 prohibiting “any rule or policy” and prohibiting the law-abiding citizens “from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle.” I agree with the NRA that if companies start banning an employee from being able to have their guns in their vehicles would be like a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment. This would nullify my right to protect myself on my commute to and from work. I feel that laws are getting too involved in what companies can and cannot allow and things are becoming too technical. Most gun-related crimes are committed by non-employees. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics only 7% of the crimes are committed by current
Gun control is one of the oldest laws dating back to the early 1800’s. It was approved in the southern part of the United States. During this period, the Georgia administration banned handguns, but the Supreme Court cancelled the law after some time due to the second amendment. The second amendment of the United States which says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” has secured certain gun rights for Americans for more than two centuries. But, over the past years, more laws have been made regarding the purchase and usage of guns.
The right to bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. All Americans are given the right to bear arms; however, many have taken this debate to a new level, and the scrutiny of what is allowable by this right is questioned daily. While Americans have a legal right to own a gun, it does not necessarily mean that a person’s morals line up with what was intended by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Second Amendment was established to protect the right to bear arms. A concealed carry permit allows a gun owner to bring their weapons on their person or in their vehicles. However, if a privately-owned parking lot does not allow for a car to be parked with the gun in it, the gun owner should abide
In light of many recent mass shootings, like the shooting in San Bernardino, the topic of gun control and gun violence have been highly debated in the United States. Many state and local government have taken the responsibility into their own hands, placing bans on certain types of guns deemed most dangerous. This has sparked controversy in the U.S. because of the fact that the right to ?bear arms? is a 2nd Amendment right found in the constitution. The Supreme Court has only heard one case involving individual gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which they ruled that the state and local government could not take away the individual right to own a gun. Despite the contradicting laws barring guns in certain locations and allowing guns in
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the second amendment in the United States. There are several gun laws in the United States that are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. If there is a department in charge of enforcing gun laws then why “were 1043 casualties, including 486 deaths, from the 160 active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2014?” (Michael, par 5). The answer is simple, the gun laws are not tight enough.
The state constitutional provision- Article V1, Section 24 that states, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.” This thus, makes it a right for any citizen qualified to keep or bear arms to do so without any
Across America there are close to thirty million small privately owned businesses that are run by owners. The businesses work on some of their own policies and the laws put down from government and federal laws. Many people today can get confused that the laws depress the second amendment and that it will take our rights away to bear arms. Most owners, or people managing a business, can choose whether or not to support and use these laws to keep firearms out of there business. Most just depend on the owners themselves. As with many problems faced by businesses they do have the right to deny patrons. If a customer is lacking hygiene for example a restaurant can tell them to leave, but because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you cannot be denied for being of a certain race. But recently due to the speculation and fear from most of the world, firearms are scaring a lot of people. The government has put in certain laws and restrictions to prevent this fear, and in some states it is legal to deny patrons carrying firearms openly. And that is why many businesses have the right to deny patrons openly carrying guns on their person.
First of all, the United States has an amendment right of bearing arms. In the Constitution, it is written in the Bill of Rights that a regulated militia’s right to bear arms shall not be violated. Although the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the states can have set regulations and
It is impossible to fully stop and prevent tragedies related to gun use or misuse. In the United States, it has been a series of tragedies in recent times that have left everyone perplex to the level of violence. Since the times of the protests in the 1960’s, to the Columbine massacre of 1999, to the very recent massacre at a rural Texas church. This recent incident, several others in past few years, has spark the debate over gun control in the United States. More and more are calling for a complete ban for assault type of weapons, that to include fully automatic and semi –automatic weapons with military attachments and features. In the light of the recent surge of incident
According to Alan Korwin, the public is not allowed to own machine guns; however government agents are allowed to carry them. There should be equality between government employees and the citizens. Gun control has a purpose, but the American society still hat its rights.
Title 23-Law Enforcement and Public Safety, Chapter 31, Article 1, Section 23-31-220 covers the “right to allow or permit concealed weapons upon premises” to include weapons in the workplace. The act gives the owners/employers the right to determine whether or not legally concealed weapons can be brought on the premise to include vehicles. The law also provides the owner/employer the right to post notice “No Concealable Weapons Allowed” to be allowed on the premises. If a person violates this act they may punished by law for being in violation of Section 16-11-620. Additionally Section 23-31-225 states that “No person who holds a permit pursuant to Article 4, chapter 31, Title 23 may carry a concealed weapon into the residence of dwelling place
Question 4: Because the workplace is the company’s private property, the company could choose, if it wished, to allow employees to bring guns not only into the parking lot but into the workplace itself. Are there ever circumstances in