More Reader Comments, With The General Theme Of: Booooo!

On this morning's column on a proposed state law that would make sure employees could their guns locked in their cars at work, and that employers could not have no-guns-on-premises rules:

If a person wants to do harm at his/her place of work and break already existing state laws against killing or injuring people, does Troxler really think that telling the person that weapons aren't allowed on the property going to stop anything?  -- Butch

Liberal idiot.....  -- e

So if you want to carjack a person or just rob them or simply kill them the best place to do it would be while they are traveling to work. The perps can rely on their victims being unarmed at those times. It's Open Season on victims during the comute  -- Richard

I was hoping you could enlighten us as to your personal experiences as a Times employee.  Do your bosses randomly search your car in the parking lot, or only on special occasions?  Do they ask you for a key or just break out the slimjim and go at it?  Do they look in the glove compartment, trunk, inside containers such as briefcases, file folders, etc.?  Are you subject to discipline if they find a Tampa Tribune in there? -- Chris Casper

People that have a right to carry a concealed weapon have undergone extensive training in the rights and liabilities o0f doing so.  They have had a through background investigation done and have paid well over $100 dollars for the permit.  Criminals that do the workplace shootings are just that......criminals!  They usually have a stolen or illegally gotten firearm.  Do you think that a sign saying "no firearms allowed" is going to make them obey that rule? -- Richard Petruschke

Pretty smart comments, 'scept for that one name-callin' guy. I like Chris' the best. So far, Chris, no, the Times has not been searching our cars in the parking lot -- but what if it announced such a policy? I would have the free-market choice either of quitting or parking somewhere else, or subjecting to the search. Pretty much like the choice I have everywhere else our society has gone overboard on searching and "security precautions.'' Seems just as invasive to me for employers to require employees to urinate into a cup for drug testing. At any rate, since the Legislature is always telling me how important Private Property Rights are, it sure is odd how quickly those rights are being cast aside here... it is no coincidence that the Chamber of Commerce is horrified at this bill and deeply opposes it, while supporting a bill of the opposite philosophy, allowing businesses to keep out First Amendment type activity such as petition gathering.

Thanks for the comments; I'm sure there will be more.

Comments

[Lynn Casey (your wife)]

Hey honey, your column basically suggests corporations, government-created entities, are granted the same inalienable rights as an individual under the Bill of Rights. Possibly constitutional case law supports your stance but I think corporations should be regulated and governed.

[Howard Troxler]

In fact, honey baby, corporations are "persons" under the law with rights and legal standing. Certainly they own property under their own name. Besides, it doesn't have to be corporations -- we also are talking about whether John Doe, Sole Proprietor, can keep guns out of his parking lot as well, or whether he must allow his employees and customers to bring them onto his property regardless of his wishes.

[John Gibson]

Boy, this is going to be fun to watch!