This presumes that a company has some reasonable expectation of a violent assault on their premises (fires, being frequent in nature, create reasonable expectations of occurrence and thus fire codes are permissible restrictions).
Are we to believe and promote that workplace shooting are so frequent that all business should assume a present danger equal to electrical fires or natural gas explosions? If a statistical case can be made, I might buy into the legislation. But in the absence of such a threat the right to control of private property remains. The liability is for their OWN deliberate act of rendering the permitted employee defenseless. >>> "Guy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/27/08 9:20 PM >>> Why must a company accept liability for the actions of a third party (the shooter)?
_______________________________________________ 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.
