If not, there is no reason for a "no violence" policy, is there? Besides, materiality is based on probability AND magnitude. Here the magnitude of harm caused by disarming, can be deadly for the permit holder. No one has the right to make me take that risk for their convenience (at least, not without liability). 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 9:43 PM >> ( mailto:[EMAIL >>> PROTECTED]> ) 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?
_______________________________________________ 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.
