“For us this isn’t a concealed carry issue as much as this is an employer rights issue. Employers should be able to manage the actions in their private business on their private property, period.” – Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce VP Chris Kershner in Businesses may face penalties for prohibiting guns in private vehicles [via daytondailynews.com]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: It’s a Matter of Property Rights
Ok, then you accept the responsibility for protecting people on your property and are willing ot face the civil liability if you don’t.
Not only do they have the moral, if not legal, responsibility to provide adequate security for their employees at work, but also on their way to and from work. If they ban the possession of weapons left in vehicles on their property the employees are rendered defenseless before and after they arrive.
Let them fire people over it. And if any of their employees are harmed by a criminal attack on their way to or from work they should be held liable, right up to a multi-million dollar wrongful death suit.
I have a 45 mile commute each way every day. No employer has the right to disarm me for the entire 45 miles that I am NOT on their property. The firearm in MY (property) car is a reasonable compromise between their property right and my civil right. Parking lot protection IS the “common sense” solution.
Well good golly, since we’re extending responsibilities right and left, willy nilly, hither and yon, then why not extend rights similarly? Employers now have exclusive, exhaustive rights over their employees and customers. “Rape at will!”, says “Gov” whatever. “Illimitable dominion uber alles!”, he says, in effect. What an F’ing moron.
Jesus Christ, I sure hate self righteous 2A’ers. “Mine mine mine!” is all these alleged absolutists know how to say. Pathetic. No wonder people not with us hate us.
Yes. Property rights are not the problem here. The problem here is the prevailing paradigm in liability law that says if you allow people to carry guns on your premises, and someone comes in and uses a gun to harm others, you’re liable, whereas if you prohibit guns you’re covered. It doesn’t matter if you have nothing more than a sign to prevent a murderous individual entering with a gun. It doesn’t matter that you’ve deprived potential victims of effective means of self-defense. The current paradigm considers a sign to be a reasonable means of repelling an armed attack, and the arming of employees to be a foolish risk – even if those employees are otherwise trusted to watch other people’s children, or operate on people’s brains, or control million-dollar machines.
That needs to change.
+1 look no further than insurance policies when trying to make sense of the world.
As the law stands now, if an employer prohibits firearms and someone, whether another employee or an outsider, comes in and murders the work force, the employer and, by extension, his insurer are off the hook. If the employer permits firearms and one of the employees puts down the mass murderer, the employer and his insurer may be sued by the murderer or his survivors for millions. It’s no wonder insurers don’t like employee firearms. It’s a no-win / lose situation for them. Turn the law around so that an employer is liable for his employees’ security if he prohibits firearms but leave him immune if he allows them and insurers will reverse their position promptly.
I agree with Shakespeare, ”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers…”. I, for one, was unaware of this liability issue which, of course, traces back to our over-lawyered, litigious society. This comment points out something very important, since there will be no change until the liability / insurance issue is addressed. Most of the public does not appreciate how absurd much of this has become. Common sense has gone by the wayside as attorneys seek the deepest pocket. Even common decency has disappeared — attorneys don’t care about right or wrong, proper or improper, decency, how much pain and misery they cause…they are driven by greed. With so many legislators being attorneys, good luck with trying to fix this issue.
If your analysis was correct that attorneys control the law and are only interested in seeking deep pockets, property owners would have a general duty to protect people on their property. If they disarm them, then they would be liable for disarming them. If they “allow” guns on the property, then they would be liable when they allowed them onto the property.
I’ve never seen a premises liability case concerning a property owner’s firearm policy, let alone the leading cases from the over 50 jurisdictions in America, so I can’t comment on the veracity of the claims about the current status of the law. I do however doubt them.
What “actions” will an naninate object inside a vehicle be performing, that would ostensibly need to be “controlled.”
Also, private property rights don’t extend to someone else’s vehicle. That vehicle, by contrast, is an extension of its owner’s “castle” during conveyance to and from said private property.
“That vehicle, by contrast, is an extension of its owner’s “castle” during conveyance to and from said private property.”
It is by law in Florida, and damn sure oughtta be nationwide.
Hopefully, we can correct that in the near future…
If by “castle” you mean home, then you are wrong. If by “castle” you mean something else like having 4A rights or there is a statute protecting your right to have a gun in your car then you aren’t wrong. (Maybe you’re wrong for using castle to mean that, though).
It’s the law here in Ohio as well, Dayton politicians just imagine the state laws don’t apply to the city.
So if business owner has the right to manage everyone’s actions on their property- they should be able to post a sign that says no weapons allowed, and disgruntled employees, criminals at large, terrorists, and mentally ill mass shooters will absolutely comply, right?
A business can manage much about it’s operations–the free will of it’s patrons and employees is another thing entirely. Nobody has the right to that but the individual
If they can ban guns, they can ban anything — newspapers, Coke, Bibles… anything. For that matter, if they can ban guns, they can require their employees to be searched with no warrant, to answer questions that will incriminate them, and more.
Rights are rights. Just because they own a piece of land doesn’t mean they can suspend the rights of people coming on it (unless it’s their home, whether that’s on a piece of land or an RV or an old van).
They actually can do most of that stuff. Most limits on what a property owner can and can’t allow/ban on his property is statutory and not constitutional.
My analogy has always been, a no smoking policy doesn’t prevent me from carrying a pack of cigarettes and a lighter on the property, therefore carrying a concealed firearm doesn’t infringe on property rights either.
The no smoking policy is turning into a no smokers policy. Quite a few companies no longer will hire smokers and they pressure current employees to quit.
In Kentucky as well.
Let me guess, he’s at the forefront for fighting for Christian businesses who don’t support gay marriage or abortion. He’s not? Oh that’s right, It’s only certain civil rights we can tread upon… because guns.
An “A” grade hypocrite.
Boo hoo…. Employers would not be able to dictate their views upon the employees:
The Ohio Chamber testified in opposition to this amendment, expressing two concerns. First, it would have allowed parking lot carry. Second, it would have given CHL holders the same protections and remedies as those who are discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, gender, and other protected classes. In essence, this took a bad policy that we opposed – parking lot carry – and made it even worse.
I lived and worked in Dayton for a year. If there was ever a place that justified daily carry…..
Normally I’d leave the snark on it’s own, but I feel the need to tell this: I worked for a company that has several defense contracts right at the time we were sticking our noses into Syria. The company received several, credible terroristic threats. Credible enough that the FBI and CIA were on site several times consulting with the veeps.
Our corporate HQ, where I worked, had always had a no Berettas sign on the door (no force of law in Ohio, btw). After the threats the veeps pulled us together and informed us they were upping security by placing a, one, uno rent a cop at each facility. They also went out of their way to remind us that thus in no way changed the corporate gun policy.
Quick correction, those signs do indeed have force of law- Ohio does not have a standardized signage requirement like Texas, so *any* no guns sign has force of law. However, the law does state that it must be placed in a “conspicuous” manner. So, the no-guns sign at the local market where it’s at the bottom corner of the door and usually obscured by merchandise placed in front of it, would not carry force of law. Similarly, the no guns sign posted above the entrance to the bathrooms inside the pub in my hometown would not carry force of law, because it’s not posted on the doors outside.
Source: Dayton native, HandgunLaw.us, and Ohio Revised Code 2923.126(C)(3)
The authors of Armed with Reason say that I am safer using a bat to defend myself or running away and calling the police than using a gun. (They did cite several studies for that so I am wondering) Anyone here good at cracking anti-gun stats? They have a study database of 100 or so studies. (I know I asked about this yesterday but I fell asleep and missed my opportunity to make some progress on this)
The usual fallacy in those stats is that the antis only count incidents where the perp is KILLED as a DGU. Not having seen the study to which you refer, I can’t say for sure.
One of their stats is that there are only 1,600 DGUs a year. I think they came up with that number based on hospital records and police files, and I remember it counting deaths AND injuries, but I’m far from certain.
It’s still flawed then. A DGU doesn’t have to result in a shot being fired. Simple brandishing is usually enough to deter a would be attacker.
And because mere display of the gun resolves the situation in favor of the gun owner in the vast majority of cases those studies massively undercount DGUs.
Consider this scenario: a guy starts pounding hard on your door in the middle of the night, demanding to be let in. You come to the door with your handgun. He sees you through the living room window, then all of a sudden, he’s walking away. Are you going to shoot him? Probably not. Are you going to call the police? Maybe, maybe not. If you don’t,there’s no record of anything happening. No police report, no injuries, no deaths, nothing.
That’s why guns are such an excellent defensive tool. No other is as instantly equalizing. A 90-pound elderly woman with a baseball bat is not much of a threat. That same woman with a gun is an entirely different proposition.
Very true, Carlos. A baseball bat is far better than nothing, but it’s nothing compared to a gun. Which is why I carry a gun for self-defense and not a bat or baton. It vastly increases the odds that you won’t have to fight at all.
Personally, if I had someone come at me with a bat or something similar and there was no way to avoid a fight, I’d go into violence overdrive. I figure I can take a whack if I have to, and then I’m going to be up in your grill too close for you to hit me with it again, and I’ll be doing my best to take that thing away and beat you to death with it. Or failing that, I’ll beat you to death with my bare hands if I have to. And I’m a big dude, so odds are I have the physical advantage anyway.
If I’m the one holding the bat, I have to figure the other guy will fight back like I would. If he’s as serious about subduing me as I am about defending myself, we’re both going to get hurt and there’s a pretty good chance that I won’t win. The guy could be even bigger than me, or a practiced fighter (which I’m not), or just faster/stronger/luckier.
But with a gun, I don’t have to risk all that. Of course there are no guarantees, but a gun gives you distance *and* power, which multiplies the odds in your favor no matter whether the bad guy has a baseball bat or has a gun himself.
Professor Gary Kleck and Professor Marc Gertz from Florida State University crunched the numbers and concluded you were less likely to be harmed in a violent encounter if you had a firearm:
The College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at FSU is one of the top rated schools in the country:
This is also a peer reviewed study, unlike the studies cited by those hacks over at Armed with Reason.
Also the assessment Obama demanded after the Sandy Hook shooting came to the same conclusion about injury rates and defensive gun use:
A bunch of cherry picked research from affiliated gun-control groups are not academic level peer reviewed studies.
“Further, if there actually are 50,000 defensive gun uses as NCVS’ data suggests, or more than 1 million as Kleck and Getz’s surveys claim, that would mean only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police. Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy.” This is from Armed with Reason’s article on how “defensive gun use is a myth.” This is the stuff that gives me cause for concern. 50,000 DGUs is the bottom, baseline estimate by researches such as the notorious David Hemenway, and they seem to have good reason for why it is too low. I’ve made personal progress in other areas but I need help here.
Even accepting that Hemenway’s low estimate is correct — which it could be, as it’s every bit as well researched as Kleck & Gertz’s, using a different method — the numbers still favor defensive gun use by law-abiding citizens.
That’s nearly double the number of yearly “gun deaths,” even with suicides included (just under 30k, iirc). And it dwarfs the number of homicides by firearm (about 11k per year). And the mass shootings that have everyone so freaked out? An average of 3 per year over the last 12 years by the FBI’s definition. Even if we take that ridiculously inflated 200+ mass shootings per year number at face value, defensive gun use wins out statistically again.
And let’s remember that self-defense is a fundamental individual human right — one that you can’t exercise if you’re denied effective tools (and you can be damn sure the people who want to take your life and livelihood will have them). If you’re not allowed to defend your own life, livelihood, and loved ones, then what good are any of those other so-called rights? You can’t exercise any civil rights if you’re dead or starving to death. So it’s both necessary and right that decent people should be armed.
Even if the numbers didn’t work out in favor of gun ownership, it’s still a civil, human, and individual right. Anyone who argues against it is arguing for something fundamentally wrong.
Maybe that’s not really what you wanted…but that’s where I’ve ended up after doing the kind of inquiry that it seems to me you’re doing right now.
I don’t think any law enforcement agency collects data on defensive gun use. I certainly have never heard of a single agency datum on the subject. That alone pretty much makes the “that would mean only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police” statement a lie. If it was a thing tracked, it would be like the murder rate and we would have a number. People would criticize the number, but it would be the baseline all the arguing was about. The authors of the study lied. That makes them untrustworthy. That doesn’t mean everything they say is a lie. It just means that they are not credible and everything they say might be a lie.
To find out how many people reported their DGUs, you would have to listen to every 911 call, watch every dash cam video, and read every police report involving a situation in which there could have been a DGU. Even then, the number of reported DGUs you got would be under inclusive. Not everything is recorded on 911, dash cams, or in police reports. You would also have to define a DGU.
Also consider that every defensive gun use is a crime. It’s at least assault. It is however, by definition, justified. Texas’ self defense etc. statute is titled “JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.” You committed the crime. Depending on the defense, you have to prove you acted in self defense after you admit that you are otherwise guilty. Any time you report a DGU, you are incriminating yourself. There is a good reason not to report a DGU.
DISCLAIMER: There are good reasons to report a DGU. Pay a lawyer to figure out if you should report your DGU.
I’ve heard those stats and my rebuttal is self defense isn’t solely about safety, it’s about self dignity and respect…
I may be much safer using a phone call to ward off a group of armed thugs attempting to gang rape my wife and daughters, than I would be fighting them off with a weapon. But that’s not why I’m doing it… my safety is ancillary to their dignity.
Armed with Reason is a catchy slogan, but that’s where it ends.
” . . .(They did cite several studies for that so I am wondering) Anyone here good at cracking anti-gun stats? . . .”
Just trust in the fact this this is correlational research, based on computer models which may or may not (if presented by advocacy group, most likely not) embody genuine scientific rigor. For this reason correlational research is at best “empirical” with the very smallest “e”. If it is used to support a political agenda, I automatically question its scientific validity. Simply put, you can correlate anything with anything else. Activist organizations promoting “research” using questionable methodologies and then claiming that it is science is an old, old ploy.
Have you perused the “Facts About Guns” section of the TTAG site? Lots of great info there.
My employer doesn’t allow firearms on their property, however, that doesn’t stop me from carrying. I accept the risk that I could get fired if I get caught. My life, in my opinion, is more important than their property rights.
Yep. I agree. Although, it’s probably not a popular point of view on this blog.
In truth, every day I become a little less concerned about how other people feel about my right to self-defense.
I posit that they are right and it is a property owners right to do something even that stupid and rude. Our best defense is to avoid them and their property. They should also be open to extra liability for injuries due to assault. Isn’t there a long tradition of being responsible for the safety of one’s quests. Due diligence in protecting them should be a legal requirement and hopefully an expensive one. I am not speaking of a perfect world, just a little bit better one.
What other civil rights should owners be allowed to ignore? How about the 13th amendment? Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it imply that “shall not be infringed” is restricted to government actions.
I’d say all of the ones in the Constitution except the 13A. That’s the one about slavery, right? The one about slavery is the only one that applies to people and not the government.
Hmm, it seems that several of the amendments do not specify that it must be the government attempting to infringe for it to be forbidden. The second, for example, simply says “shall not be infringed”, even the third says “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Which means a company that took a contract to provide housing to soldiers couldn’t, somehow, force people to house those soldiers during peace time, even though they aren’t the gov.
A very notable exception is the 1st amendment, which specifies “Congress shall make no law”… that means the government can’t do it, but private entities can, at least by a plain reading.
Now, many of the specified things are, generally, considered gov things to do; housing soldiers, searching people’s papers/house/person, so you may consider those things to only affect the gov, but a plain reading of them really does indicate that no one else can either, should they, somehow, be a legitimate entity for doing so otherwise.
At very least the 7th certainly affects non-gov entities in addition to the 13th; otherwise it is useless.
I guess what I’m getting at is that there is certainly room for applying constitutional protections in a balance against property rights. At least enough room to require that something fair and balanced be the outcome; for example the idea of disallowing someone from forbidding guns in their car that is parked on their property, and applying liability sensibly on property (ie making the owner liable for the effects of criminal intrusion when they disallow visitors to the property to carry guns), if not fully disallowing the idea of forbidding anyone from carrying.
I’m going to use the 4th Amendment as an example, but this really applies to all the amendments (except the prohibition on slavery).
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
So there is no mention in the amendment who the people shall be secure from. A plain reading could be read to include me trespassing on your property and turning it over to the state. It has consistently been read by courts to mean that the people’s right is against government searches (before the 14A, just the federal government). At its broadest point, average citizens have been ruled to be instruments or agents of the government.
Say you committed a crime, and I was the victim. The cops couldn’t get a warrant, so I decide to break in and gather evidence against you. I turn the evidence over to the cops. They can use it against you. (In Texas courts they can’t because we have a statute against using evidence illegally obtained).
I cannot think of a single instance in which the Bill of Rights has been applied against a non-state actor.
“Employers should be able to manage the actions in their private business on their private property, period.”
I agree. What if a bar owner in Dayton wants to allow his customers to smoke cigarettes? No? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Hypocrite.
So he’s saying an employer should be able to say “I don’t hire blacks”. Or Irish. Or women.
Meh. What’s the employer going to do, search everyone and their vehicle before entry…
Change the law, by all means. But, I don’t see an employer having the, ability, time or stamina to keep up with it. Other than writing an arbitrary and unenforceable company policy.
It would be like an employer trying to enforce a no masterbation policy.
“Nope, no shooting or jerking off going on here, boss. You wanna check?”
It’s a rule for people who follow the rules, like “gun free” zone.
Last summer, someone on swing shift got caught “choking the chicken ” and was fired. Gosh sakes, it’s a window factory, not a poultry farm!
“Employers should be able to manage the actions in their private business on their private property, period.”
What if the customer is black? Gay? Female? A Baptist.
These are all protected by the constitution.
So are gun owners. Same constitution.
You misunderstand the Constitution and who it protects us from. The Constitution protects us from the acts of the government(s), not other citizens.
I don’t see where property rights of any business outweigh my human rights. Doesn’t matter to me if it is a retail store, or some employer, if they have invited me to be there, then either they must provide real security, or accept that I will provide my own.
Exactly. Property rights are secondary rights.
If we’d followed Tom Paine on this, all the real estate in the country would be owned in common anyway, so we’d all be owners (though the real difference is that the government would have to pay US for the use of any land….).
Property rights are human rights. Just ask yourself “who holds these rights?” It’s certainly not the property. Turns out it is a human.
I wonder if private businesses can ban cellphones and underwear?
Or restrict which bathroom a transgendered employee can use.
Not when those actions are negligent, irrational, and put people in harm’s way. There are very few reasons to enforce disarmament of lawfully armed citizens. Unless you work next to an MRI machine or in an environment where a firearm would put yourself or others in jeopardy, the rest is just an excuse to get away with tyranny.
Unless that business has competent armed security 24/7, it’s simply BS. Companies should be liable for any injuries and damages that occur as a result of disarming their patrons and employees. Period.
All of those businesses that fired employees for successful DGUs deserve full litigation.
I hope the MRI machine isn’t in the parking lot. That seems like a bad idea for any number of reasons.
My place is my play pen. Don’t get foolish in my pen.
This is the problem with corporatism. The government can’t violate our civil rights…legally so they help private businesses that do the dirty work for them.
I just love that Dayton Chamber of Commerce.
I’m opening a factory there where the “employees” will be chained to their workstations and fed a bowl of gruel a day. When they drop they go into the gruel for the next “new hire.”
It’s comforting to know that the Chamber has my back when it comes to what I do on my property.
Happy I haven’t had a “job” or employer in some 24 years. What a load of guano…
I got searched by an employer once but they didn’t find my gun. If employers don’t enforce their policy effectively then it’s pointless. If an employer designates a gun free zone they should be legally required to take minimum steps to secure it. Gun free zones are statistically more dangerous places to be in.
What a great new method of discussing this topic, it isn’t a concealed carry issue, or a property rights issue, it’s a :
A) I don’t want to be killed by terrorists because the state I live in says I have to be unarmed at all times,
B) I don’t want to die because a coworker, after a long history of red flags has decided to kill the entire office, and the “corporate” rules say none of us can be armed; except the killer who will be dead soon anyway, after we all are,
C) I know the danger of this life and I CHOOSE to arm myself accordingly, full stop.
People lost the right to control their own private property when the Government started forcing people under threat of imprisonment to serve customers it does not want to serve or to permit other behaviors (like homosexual or transsexual behavior) in their businesses.
If homosexuals have the right to practice their Constitutionally protected behavior on private property, then I have the right to exercise MY preferred Constitutional behavior–concealed carry–on private property.
If only the courts would get around to ruling that the one that is actually in the Constitution was in the Constitution.
There’s a unhealthy dose of stupid being thrown around here. No, employers should not be held liable for the actions of evil people who intend harm to others.
That is essentially the argument from those who seek to hold employers (and by extension, businesses) liable for those who oppose concealed carry on their property. Either you believe in property rights or you do not. If you believe that objects (guns) don’t cause crime, and that people are responsible for their own actions, similarly, you should not attribute one person’s liability (the shooter) in committing an illegal act to another person (the business owner) not proximately responsible for that act. You are not forced to work there, and you are not forced to shop there. If your employer won’t let you carry and doesn’t have adequate physical security, either work there and accept that or go elsewhere. The 13th amendment lets you do that. Employers and businesses have the legal responsibility to create a “reasonably” safe environment for customers and employees. That does not mean that they are liable for the unlawful actions of another on their property.
property rights should only be able to be fully exercised by individuals. Corporate property rights should be extremely limited.
“That does not mean that they are liable for the unlawful actions of another on their property.” It does if they created conditions that promote the unlawful actions of others. Or at least some courts have held so in some situations.
As I learned in Law School — “property” consists of the “bundle of rights” which the State CHOOSES to recognize. The rights are not God given. The size and composition of the bundle is NOT static. Special purpose protection devices have long been allowed. Think of seeing-eye dogs. It does not matter if the property “owner” is allergic to dog hair or was bitten as a child, his bundle of rights NO LONGER includes the right to exclude service dogs. Why? Because the State says so. Same with guns in possession of carry permit holders.
As I learned in law school, this was not always the interpretation of the Constitution.
Our contracts had us read a pre-New Deal case in which a court ruled against the enforcement some workplace regulation on the basis of the constitutional right to freely contract.
There is also the Dred Scott case which came down pretty hard on the side of property rights. After reading that case in college (not law school), I asked the professor if it had ever been overturned. It hadn’t, largely, because of the 13A. I asked how come I wasn’t allowed to smoke crack in my basement while holding an AK-47. The question was rhetorical and got the point across that under the decision, the government can’t outlaw property. The professor agreed that it was a fair interpretation of the case.
Yeah, it’s a property rights issue — and guess what? The employees are the property!
Corporate asswipes are even more controlling than the government. And that’s the truth.
Actually, 30YearProf, our rights ARE God given.
To me it is a case of concealed carry in a vehicle.. If you never need it and they never know it’s there what difference does it make. What doesn’t show they don’t know. if it’s a life or death matter and you can get to it. USE IT. I would rather loose my job than my life. If you save someone else s life so much the better. At the end of the day it’s your choice. Decisions are hard. There are always consequences. Right or Wrong just hope you are alive to live with the consequences.
With the exercise of “Rights” one assumes “Responsibilities”. When a private property owner REFUSES to allow those who enter his place of business to carry the means to defend themselves from harm that property owner is assuming the duty AND the responsibility of protecting that visitor. The problem is that businesses want to exercise
their right to deny visitors, customers and employees the ability to defend themselves while AVOIDING the legal and financial costs of this decision. THAT is the problem. And the solution is simple. If a business or company actively
denies those on it’s premises the right to carry arms for self defense then the law must explicity require them to assume ALL responsibility for the safety of those disarmed. That means that if they must pay legal, medical and other costs for ANYONE attacked and harmed while on those premises. THEN and ONLY THEN can such companies claim they have a right to control and disarm visitors, customers and employees.
Employers have a long history of meddling in the private lives of their employees. One of my supervisors was a private pilot. After the CEO of the company lost his son in a flying accident, he told pilots in the company to stop flying. At another company, a wife and children were an unwritten prerequisite for promotion to a management position. Back in the 1950s, the federal government pressured the automobile manufacturers to drop out of racing. (I assume the sport was considered to be a bad influence.) The manufacturers took this to include racing by their employees on their own dime. To get lower rates from its health insurer, a city in western Nebraska tried to eliminate certain recreational activities from coverage. One of them was horseback riding. Western Nebraska is cowboy country.
Their property rights stop at my tires. then it’s my property and none of their business.
I’ve been involved with 3 so called “defensive gun uses”. In 2 of these did I ever shoot, draw, or even hint that I had a firearm. My knowledge that I could take command of the situation at will let me stand my ground without terror. The other guys (bigger and/or drunk) couldn’t figure out why I seemed unafraid. Most predators can smell fear. These two knew something was off, but couldn’t figure out what. After a few minutes of not getting the reactions they expected, they left. No shooting, no cops, hence no record of a gun saving my ass from major injury or death.
The third incident had 25 to 30 youths with baseball bats and axe handles show up at a parking lot gathering to teach one guy some manners. My two friends stepped out of their cars with .45 pistols. I got out with a Remington 870. I never even had to jack one in. The sight of REAL weapons had bats and axe handles hitting the ground so fast it looked like they practiced it. We had them all bunched up against the building wall till the police arrived. We went home, most of them went to jail. No shots, no bodies. Did that go down as a defensive gun use?