Ala. Lawmaker...

Ala. Lawmaker...

Ala. Lawmaker Pushing For Allowing Guns At Work
November 23, 2012 4:14 PM
Share on email 200
View Comments
File photo of guns. (credit: Getty Images)
Filed Under

News
Related Tags

bill canary, business council of alabama, guns at work, NRA, roger bedford, Trending
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — An Alabama lawmaker is again pushing legislation that would let employees take handguns to work.

The Montgomery Advertiser reported Friday that state Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, said the bill is aimed at increasing personal safety.

“I think it’s necessary so people will have peace of mind when they’re traveling to and from work,” he said.

A similar bill has been introduced twice before, but it failed despite support from the National Rifle Association.

The Business Council of Alabama opposes the measure, said President Bill Canary.

“At a time when the business community in all sectors should be focused on creating jobs, we instead are dealing with this unnecessary legislation which erodes the constitutional property rights of businesses,” Canary said in a statement. “Alabama businesses are already struggling with burdensome regulations that impact productivity and increase costs.”

The bill would prevent most employers from barring workers from transporting and storing firearms at work. Employees who bring weapons to work would be required to keep their guns locked up and out of sight.

Bedford said the law would not apply to school campuses, and weapons wouldn’t be allowed anywhere they are already barred by federal law.

The lawmaker said he does not expect any dangers to arise in the workplace if the proposed legislation is signed into law.

“If someone’s that crazy, hopefully the sheriff didn’t give a pistol permit in the first place,” he said.

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

303 comments

Leave a message...
Discussion
Community
My Disqus 4

elkhorn • a day ago
No problem with that. If a Virginia Tech professor or two had been armed, thirty students might be alive today.
188 2 •Reply•Share ›

John elkhorn • a day ago
Totally agree. The anti-gun loons don't see it that way. They aren't even able to understand that the gun free zones are where the killing fields are for this killers. They would rather confiscate all guns and then no one would be able to protect themselves.
146 1 •Reply•Share ›

otay John • a day ago
Criminals don't acquire guns for a crime legally, unless they are stupid.
79 •Reply•Share ›

Daniel Martin Gray otay • a day ago −
I have NO problem TRUSTING the vast majority of my fellow citizens NOT to shoot anyone, unless in actual fear of DEATH.

The Chamber of Commerce says that the business owner's rights must be protected. But an employer ALWAYS has the whip hand, because they PAY. It is already established that an employee cannot say what they want, worship or associate with whom they want, AT WORK, and on the clock.

But to take from an individual the most BASIC NATURAL RIGHT of SELF-DEFENSE? How can THAT be justified?
62 1 •Reply•Share ›

GOOGLE EXCLUDED INCOME Daniel Martin Gray • 11 hours ago
Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, you are WASTING YOUR TIME.

You have no business being a Senator.

YOU SHOULD BE PRESIDENT OF USA.
15 3 •Reply•Share ›

ElectionFraudClick4Proof GOOGLE EXCLUDED INCOME • 8 hours ago
PSYOPS has declared themselves president, so actually DMG is president after the coup.
0 2 •Reply•Share ›

ElectionFraudClick4Proof Daniel Martin Gray • 8 hours ago
Welcome to the police state where the news is orchestrated to take attention away from the election
2 2 •Reply•Share ›

wordtypist Daniel Martin Gray • 6 hours ago
Trusting the vast majority is fine, but it's not the vast majority that goes around shooting people. It's the disturbed minority that does that, plus relatively normal people who sometimes go off the deep end and go for the most readily available weapon to settle their anger.
0 1 •Reply•Share ›

RPVG otay • 18 hours ago
Wanna hear a crazy one? Felons can't be required to register their firearms, since it would "admit" to being in violation of state gun laws. And that would be a violation of their 5th Amendment rights.
19 •Reply•Share ›

wordtypist RPVG • 6 hours ago
What's crazy about that? They shouldn't be allowed to have guns if it's against the law.
0 •Reply•Share ›

William RPVG • 8 hours ago
There is no firearms registration in many/most states. However, they do not have to fill out the Form 4473 honestly because it violates their 5th Amendment right of self incrimination.
0 •Reply•Share ›

zonable John • 11 hours ago
The strictest gun enforcement enclaves in the country are government buildings. There are "no gun" signs in almost every one of them. Check the walls next time you're in a post office, social security office, or any federal, state, or local government office. They're very prevalent. What are they afraid of anyway?
9 •Reply•Share ›

ElectionFraudClick4Proof zonable • 8 hours ago
Zonable, we live in a police state after the coup and cover up where our Constitution no longer applies. Washington is running the conversation online tramping our First Amendment. Our election was rigged and there's proof. Learn why at the link in my name
3 1 •Reply•Share ›

mikec711 elkhorn • a day ago
Yes but ... I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment ... but also support property rights. Personally, if I ran a business, I would want the right to tell employees that they could not bring guns to work. I would NOT do so across the board ... but during a probationary period (and possibly if someone was getting terminated) ... I would want the ability to tell people that in a space that I was paying for, they could not carry. Again, I would be the first to allow and encourage carrying personally ... but laws have unintended consequences. I would like to see business owners face 1/20th of the regulations they currently face (I know several small business that would love to add employees but do not because of regulations). Let the default be free carry (concealed or not) ... but the business owner deserves the right to tell some or all employees that they cannot carry to their place of business.
13 2 •Reply•Share ›

Boboe mikec711 • a day ago
The problem is that the people who'd commit workplace violence won't care about laws or your rules.
53 •Reply•Share ›

zonable Boboe • 11 hours ago
Workplace violence is a progressive term written by Boboe, a progressive anti-gunner. Let's keep it simple by saiying..."the people who'd commit crimes..."
7 •Reply•Share ›

IllegalAmigo mikec711 • 20 hours ago
So you think it's OK that we have rights, just not in your business? Then sir, you do not support the second amendment, you are a hypocrite. You are asking to be judge and jury to take away SOME individuals' rights. If you are all carrying, you don't have to worry about some nut job being a threat. At the first sign of a threat there are other ways of dealing with people like that. Fire them and get a court ordered protection order. What I do not like is how difficult it can be to fire someone. I think as a business owner I should have the right to fire someone just because I felt like it. This is the real problem.
24 1 •Reply•Share ›

Grendel007 IllegalAmigo • 10 hours ago
I agree with the second part of your statement, but not the first. A business owner should be able to set policy in their workplace, no smoking, no firearms, no porn on company computers, etc. But to me an acceptable compromise would be to allow them in vehicles. I live in Ga, and many people have guns in their businesses, carried in holsters, concealed, or just laying on the counter. I have never had a second thought or felt any fear about being in those places. But I do, as i stated, think it is an individual owners "business" to decide their commpanies policies
5 •Reply•Share ›

William Grendel007 • 8 hours ago
Your assertion is generally correct except where it concerns the constitutionally protected rights of your employees. Just because you hired them, it does not mean they gave up their Constitutional Rights just to work for you. Porn on company computers is not a constitutional right. Smoking is not a constitutional right. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms IS a Constitutionally protected right. The honest, law-abiding citizen is not the problem. Gun free zones, no matter how well intended, do nothing but provide for a target rich environment.
0 •Reply•Share ›

EdG1955 IllegalAmigo • 8 hours ago
If you are all carrying, you don't have to worry about some nut job being a threat? That doesn't fit American history. There were nut jobs in the West in the 1800s who were quite the threat.
0 •Reply•Share ›

William EdG1955 • 8 hours ago
EdG1955:
You are correct about the nut jobs of the 19th Century. However, they didn't live very long.
0 •Reply•Share ›

nathan hale mikec711 • 16 hours ago
I agree with Mike. It may be your right to carry in public, but not in my house if I choose not to let you. Your "rights" end when they try to superceed mine, and visa-versa. I should be able to ask you to wear a shirt, put on shoes and not do something that makes some of my customers uncomfortable. You do not have the right to come into my business and yell and act crazy, even though you have the freedom of speech. Same principle.
17 2 •Reply•Share ›

Christian nathan hale • 13 hours ago
Absolutely. It should be your right as a PRIVATE BUSINESS to disallow people to carry guns into your store, not the government. It's also my right as a lawful gun owner to decide whether I want to lock up my gun in my car in order to enter your store, or to take my business elsewhere. To me, this is fair. It's when people want their way across the board (ie ban guns in businesses, etc) that actually makes it unfair.
15 •Reply•Share ›

John Fox nathan hale • 12 hours ago
Fine .. I won't bring it to my desk. But you cannot deny me the right to carry a gun from my house to work, which is 99% of my travel. By your own argument, you will let me carry it to your driveway, just not inside your building or in your yard. So thanks for proving the point you didn't want to.

Fortunately, I live in Arizona where sane people set up gun control laws. It's been my experience that those that are against people carrying guns are usually ignorant of gun use and how daily, millions of people in this country carry guns and never use them. Instead, they are selfish individuals scared of something they don't understand.
13 •Reply•Share ›

EdG1955 John Fox • 8 hours ago
Selfish individuals scared of something they don't understand.... Do you mean gun owners? Crime has fallen drastically in the last 20 years. What are you all so scared of?
0 •Reply•Share ›

KrustyKrab EdG1955 • 8 hours ago
And gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last 20 years as well so what does that tell you! In case your slow, it means that gun ownership does not increase the crime rate. and has been proven in many instances to lower it!
2 •Reply•Share ›

flyboy EdG1955 • 8 hours ago
@EdG - while nationwide violent crime is down overall, it doesn't mean that carjackings, kidnapping/rapes, and home invasions (MANY of which wind up in a fatality for the victim) have STOPPED. Just read local news headlines from around the nation DAILY. I'd MUCH rather have guns in my possession than to rely on 911 and many minutes (if not more depending on where you live) for a response. Like we're supposed to just naively tell the perp: "cops are on the way, don't do it!!" You are a delusional IDIOT and if I had to guess, an idiotic mindless emotion-driven Obamazombie to boot.

And another thing: a suburban town near metro Atlanta, GA is well known for having a high level of gun ownership (Kennesaw). Care to know what the crime stats are there compared the city of Atlanta itself? OH wait, you morons probably support Rhambo's Chicago values and handgun control, right? And Chicago has the highest murder rate per capita of any major global city as of this year:

NBC Chicago - Among what are considered Alpha world cities, Chicago has the highest murder rate -- higher even than the Third World metropolises of Mexico City and Sao Paolo. Here’s how we rank in murders per 100,000 among cities we consider our peers, based on a projected murder total of 505 for this year.

Singapore 0.4
Tokyo 0.5
Hong Kong 0.6
Berlin 1.0
Sydney 1.0
London 1.4
Toronto 1.7
Amsterdam 1.8
Paris 4.4
New York 6.0
Los Angeles 7.5
Mexico City 8.0
Moscow 9.6
Sao Paulo 15.6
Chicago 19.4

1 •Reply•Share ›

Grendel007 John Fox • 10 hours ago
I don't think he really proved the point he didn't want to
0 •Reply•Share ›

dygene nathan hale • 15 hours ago
Excellent post!
2 •Reply•Share ›

Snitch_in_Time nathan hale • 10 hours ago
So you are equating carrying a concealed weapon in a responsible fashion as yelling and acting crazy? It was fallacious reasoning like this that caused your side's position to crumble to dust when the Texas Legislature pass a similar measure in 2011.
1 •Reply•Share ›

mikec711 Snitch_in_Time • 8 hours ago
Understand that rights can conflict w/each other. I am free to swing my arms around all I want ... but if your nose is w/in arms reach ... I can no longer swing my arms fully without breaching your rights. What we have is a right to private property and a right to gun ownership. Personally, I would say keep gov't out of it as much as possible (which is always a good idea). I would allow and encourage carry in most scenarios in my business ... but for gov't to tell me what I can and cannot do in my business (which of course they do anyway) ... is not going to help our rights. The tramplers of our rights are gov't. I don't want gov't trampling on private property rights in a sham of forwarding the 2nd amendment. They will morph this into taking more and more of my private property rights away and, in the end, they will find a way to make it work against the 2nd amendment as well. Anything the gov't does that appears to protect or enhance your rights ... look for the trojan horse.
0 •Reply•Share ›

Squigman mikec711 • 2 hours ago
You are the first person I have heard that believes as I do,the government has no rights ,and all these supposed conservatives, that want, conservative laws banning this or that or,,forget that every time you ask for a new law, that you just gave the government the right to change that law when the opposition is in power,for example the patriot act,conservatives were all for it when,bush proposed it because it was to be used only to fight terrorism now a communist is in power and can use it to watch all of his supposed enimies.next time anyone says there auta be a law someone should punch em in the face
1 •Reply•Share ›

mikec711 Squigman • 4 minutes ago
Actually, I held my nose hard when I voted for Romney this year. Republicans are burying us in debt almost as badly and reducing our liberties almost as badly as the progressives. All too often, they act as 2 sides of the same coin using feigned opposite positions to keep the sheep battling each other instead of noticing that gov't continues to grow in power and influence, and liberties are reduced. For now, some pseudo-prosperity keeps us asleep ... and once all important liberties are taken away (to the cheering of one side or both) ... then the prosperity dries up and all actions to get them back are illegal. Thankfully, I work for the president's boss (the Lord) ... and I just have to trust that He's got a plan.
0 •Reply•Share ›

rimpy nathan hale • 6 hours ago
who but a criminal will refuse to leave if you ask them to?
0 •Reply•Share ›

fishnman1973 mikec711 • 16 hours ago
Then you would be violating their 2nd admendment rights. You can't pick and choose which rights apply to you and which apply to your employees. If you can't trust your employees, then no one is forcing you to hire them. You also have right to firearms to protect yourself.
7 •Reply•Share ›

Snitch_in_Time mikec711 • 10 hours ago
Is your business a corporation, LLC, or LLP? You better go check that paperwork again. Your company has no rights, only privileges and immunities. Your employment contract is also governed by law. You cannot contract to have your employees commit criminal acts nor can you have them contract to relinquish their inalienable rights.. (What part of "inalienable" do you guys not understand?) Legally speaking, constitutionally speaking, and morally speaking, your faux property rights argument is a FAIL. It took a few rounds in Texas for that to sink into the grey matter of the conservatives but eventually the only opponents left were the poisonous leftist liars in the gun control crowd.
4 •Reply•Share ›

William Snitch_in_Time • 8 hours ago
Snitch:
Please understand that your Constitutionally protected Civil Rights are unalienable NOT inalienable. Compare the definitions. BIG difference!
0 •Reply•Share ›

Tionico mikec711 • 8 hours ago
but this law, aas I understand it, would NOT mandate carry IN the workplace, only that employees can travel to and from work armed if they so choose, and then lock the gun out of sight once AT their workplace. So, how are the "rights" of the employer abrogated? The rights of the employees are now abrogated the minute they leave home and travel toward their workplace. Property owners DO have the right to self-determine how their property is used.... carrying handguns by permitted persons COULD come under that right. BUT.. they can NOT terminate MY right to carry to and from work, off their property. Such laws are wrong. When MY property is concerned, I have the right to determine who can come and go, and what they might possess whilst here. However, when I open up my property to the public, even a limited portion of it, such as my own employees, then I MUST allow their personal rights to govern at MY place, too. On my personal property I can prohibit certain persons coming here on the basis of race, color, creed, national olrigin, sexual perversion, etc.... but, as soon as I open my property up to the public, by rengint out my house, pening my doors for business, public passage, MY right to restrict in such ways is gone. Same principle should apply to lawful possession of arms. Besides, the clown determined to come into my business or home, armed, with the intent to harm anyone, has broken laws to start with. Any guess as to what difference MY preference that he not bring his handgun will be honoured? Yeah, that's the point. If I can't trust a man WITH a gun in space that I control, on what basis should I be expected to trust him WITHOUT said firearm? Untrustworthy is untrusworthy, armed or not. The problem is not whether he has a gun, but whether he is trustworthy. what employer will keep untrustworthy people about anyway? Fire them once his lack of trustability is evident.
0 •Reply•Share ›

georgewashlincoln mikec711 • 11 hours ago
as an nra member and concealed carry permit holder, i agree with mike. i as a business owner should have the option to allow or not allow employees to carry on the premises. besides if you have to lock them up, what good is it going to do you anyway?
0 •Reply•Share ›

LarryPTL elkhorn • a day ago
Amen!
6 •Reply•Share ›

Ned Carter elkhorn • a day ago
That is one possibility. Another is that the teachers would have been shot, and they would have killed even more people... but that's called making stuff up...
6 16 •Reply•Share ›

RenegadeScholar Ned Carter • a day ago
You miss much of the reality of the situation. The gunman would NOT have even TRIED at an armed facility.

Ever heard of anyone shooting up an NRA convention? Gun show? Shooting range?

No.

It's always the "gun free zones" that are targeted.
85 •Reply•Share ›

David Kachel Ned Carter • a day ago
Only a leftist would come up with something this silly.
There is ZERO evidence to support such a ridiculous speculation and there are endless cases of actual encounters to contradict it.

Armed citizens prevent crime. There is absolutely no doubt of this remaining WHATSOEVER!

So your leftist agenda is exposed: disarm the people so you can rule them. THAT is your REAL goal!
63 •Reply•Share ›

Alky David Kachel • 21 hours ago
Someone on twitter said, "Guns can no more kill people than a pencil can spell words wrong."
20 •Reply•Share ›

gringorgulloso1 David Kachel • a day ago
Amen, The 2nd amendment is in Obama sights. If he is allowed to have his way then this country is truly over.
16 •Reply•Share ›

Jonathan Miller gringorgulloso1 • 10 hours ago
Not trying to be one of the spellNazis. But the word is "sights" like gun sights.
2 •Reply•Share ›

gringorgulloso1 Jonathan Miller • 3 hours ago
Jonathon, I do not mind ever being corrected!! Thanks!
0 •Reply•Share ›

Grendel007 Jonathan Miller • 10 hours ago
like a campsight? Or is it a campsite?
0 •Reply•Share ›

Katherine McChesney Grendel007 • 6 hours ago
CampSITE!
0 •Reply•Share ›

Snitch_in_Time Ned Carter • 11 hours ago
Back in the early 80s a Justice Department study, started under Jimmy Carter, drew the following conclusions:

1. If you defend yourself with inferior weapons to a gun you have a 5 out of 7 chance of being injured or killed.
2. If you do nothing to defend yourself you have a 4 out of 7 chance of being injured or killed.
3. If you defend yourself with a gun you have a 3 out of 7 chance of being injured or killed.

When under criminal attack there is ALWAYS a chance that you will be injured or killed. However, if you want to maximize your chances of prevailing and minimize your chances of being injured or killed, carry a gun.
2 •Reply•Share ›
Load more comments
Powered by Disqus