Fine, so long as the place of business accepts strict liability for all injuries, caused by an assailant, suffered by a disarmed employee or visitor while on their sacred property. Disarming the permit holder is an intentional interference with their right to PERSONAL protection. There must to be an equal trade off. If the property owner takes away someone's protection, they must provide an adequate substitute. A "no violence" policy or sign is not sufficient. Neither is an old duffer in a rental "uniform" sitting in the vestibule. In Minnesota, the original bill called for strict liability. The "course and scope of employment" limitation and the parking lot provision was the trade-off during the behind-the-scenes lobbying. That's why the lobbyists for all three of the state business groups -- Minnesota Business Partnership (big companies), the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (medium companies), and the Small Business Association (small companies) -- testified in the House Public Safety Committee that they accepted the posting and parking lot provisions. Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> "Guy Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/27/08 8:42 PM >> ( mailto:[EMAIL >>> PROTECTED]> )
In the absence of intentional or negligent harm of other people, companies should be able to control their property as they see fit.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
