| The Friend of my Enemy… Can be Useful |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Friday, 04 July 2008 | |
|
The Knox Report From the Firearms Coalition (July 1, 2008) Today is the day that Florida’s new; “You can’t ban guns in locked cars in parking lots law” goes into effect. Actually that should be; “You can’t ban guns of concealed carry permit holders hidden in locked cars in parking lots except for parking lots of schools, prisons, and sensitive security areas like nuclear power plants and defense contractors law.” A similar law was struck down in Oklahoma and a lawsuit has been filed against this one as well. Many expect the law to die in the courts before the end of the month, though the Heller decision might make courts hesitant to reject a “gun rights” law too quickly. The lawsuit is sponsored by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation, with help and support from the US Chamber of Commerce and many local chambers of commerce and business organizations in the state. Which brings to mind to another story out of Indiana; a true gun rights success story. In mid June the Common Council of the city of South Bend, Indiana planned to ban firearms from all city property – a fashionable trend among cities of late, despite state preemption laws. Local activists began spreading the word about the Council’s plans and recruiting gunowners to attend the next Council meeting. In the process, Jim Tomes, President of the Second Amendment Patriots got alerted. Jim and his wife Margie are seriously dedicated and motivated defenders of the Second Amendment. Jim wanted to help his comrades in South Bend even though he lives some 300 miles away. He sent out an alert to his extensive e-mail list to keep spreading the word, but he went a step further. He called the South Bend Chamber of Commerce and let them know that if the ordinance passed, he and Margie would have to forgo any future shopping or tourist trips to the city. The people at the Chamber seemed interested in his concerns and by the time 2 or 300 of Jim’s closest friends had called with the same message, the Chamber was heavily lobbying their friends on the Council. At the Council meeting, not a single Council member was interested in supporting the measure and the move was tabled without discussion. In this story the Chamber of Commerce, though not particularly interested in guns or gun rights, recognized gunowners as an important constituency and was quick to lend assistance in stopping an obnoxious idea from becoming an obnoxious law. Contrast the Indiana story to what has been happening in states like Florida and Georgia where gun rights advocates and business leaders are dragging each other to court after contentious legislative battles. This fabricated animosity between gunowners and business leaders is unnecessary and counterproductive. Proponents of property rights make a good case – as do proponents of gun rights. There are people on both sides of the issue who are thoughtful, intelligent, and passionate. Some, on both sides, see the issue in a broad, philosophical context, while others see it as a simple, practical matter. All believe they are right – and they are, to one degree or another. It is right and reasonable for a person to say, “I have a right to provide my own personal protection to work, from work, and at work.” It is also right and reasonable for an employer or property owner to set their own rules regarding who and what is acceptable to them on their own property. To most businesses, gun bans are employee safety and business liability issues, like requiring hard hats, and safety glasses. Businesses have been led to believe by workplace violence “experts” that a “No Guns” policy reduces risks of workplace violence, and by their attorneys that a “No Guns” policy reduces their liability in case of a tragedy. A “No Guns” policy, which in most workplaces amounts to posting a sign, applies only to those who are inclined to abide by rules, not those who are likely to shoot the place up. Short of security checkpoints and metal detectors at every door, the policy is meaningless. Which brings us back to a familiar refrain for readers of this column: Shift the liability. The entity that prohibits lawful possession of the means of self defense assumes liability for protecting everyone in the establishment. Shifting the liability is not as dramatic as filing a grandstand lawsuit and may not fire up donations from irate gunowners, but neither does it create enemies of potential allies and result in years of litigation. Friends are good to have. Making enemies unnecessarily is just wasteful. Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108. ©Copyright 2008 Neal Knox Associates |