Comments on: Gun owners as new protected class in employment discrimination law

By: Legislators Seek to Create New, Unnecessary Protected Class: Gun Owners

Legislators Seek to Create New, Unnecessary Protected Class: Gun Owners — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:31:40 +0000

[…] home or business for insulting you. But Missouri legislators have decided to turn gun owners into a protected class, citing the Second Amendment — which only applies against the government — as a reason […]

By: Malcolm Smith

Malcolm Smith — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:51:44 +0000

Perhaps someone would like to come up with statistics on how serious the perceived problem might be. How many people have been refused work, fired, or otherwise discriminated against because of gun ownership?
This is the problem with anti-discrimination laws in general. Once one class of people has been designated as a protected group, the push is on to add more and more groups to the list – irrespective of how pervasive the discrimination might be, or whether it might not be justified in any case.
The political correctors of the world are determined to criminalise anything they regard as unfair. What ever happened to the old system of naming and shaming: picketing organisation, boycotting them, and so forth? That was how we used to deal with antisocial activities, before this quaint doctrine was invented that everything not prohibited must be protected.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:20:34 +0000

If it isn’t broke don’t fix it, Nicholas. The Second Amendment is fine just the way that it is. We cannot trust the government to determine what is “reasonable”. Gun laws are redundant anyway. We have laws against murder and robbery, why do we need seperate laws for when a gun is used?

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:42:00 +0000

I understand the argument, but the article says this:

“The Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to bear arms from government intrusion. But it does not impact the ability of private citizens to place restrictions on guns.”

This is wrong. The amendment clearly says “shall not be infringed.” This is worded differently than the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law…” The wording “shall not be infringed” is plainly much more broad than the wording of the first amendment, and a plain textual reading means NOBODY can infringe on the right. The plain reading of the text means that any person, citizen or noncitizen, free person or imprisoned, has an absolute right to carry any weapon, from shivs to atomic bombs, in any place he chooses — even courts, schools, or prison cells.

AND THAT IS WHY IT IS A BAD AMENDMENT. It leaves no room for reasonable people to put reasonable limits on the possession of arms. We should amend further to make it clear how the right to bear arms should be limited and enforced.

As for this law in particular? It’s a silly political stunt to make hollow souls feel falsely full. I’m against silly political stunts, but I’m not going to waste time getting bent about it.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:48:52 +0000

Personally I think that the workplace violence statistics are inflated media driven hype. What I would like to see is somebody compile statistics on the number of people who are crime victims on their way too and from work.