Ten Years On, STILL WAITING…,

So we had yet another mass shooting on a military base, this one at Ft. Stewart.  It brings to mind once again the unfulfilled promise made by Donald Trump TEN YEARS AGO to do away with so-called “gun free” zones in the US, including military bases, on his FIRST DAY IN OFFICE:

“I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and — you have to — and on military bases.  My first day, it [the executive order - added] gets signed, okay? My first day. There's no more gun-free zones,” Jan. 8, 2016, at a rally in Burlington, Vt.

Consider his remarks to the NRA Leadership Forum in Louisville, KY on May 1 the same year:

Each of the injuries and deaths that have occurred during his terms in office could possibly been prevented - that blood is on his hands.

Mr. President, finish the job.  Fulfill your promise.  Write and sign the executive order doing away with so-called “gun free” zones.

President-elect Trump: Prove It….

 

Twenty-five Years Ago Today….

 

25 years ago today.  Columbine High.

Numerous school shootings later, those who write the laws leaving our teachers and students defenseless still enjoy the armed security they deny our schools.

For over thirty years an experiment has been conducted on the American public, and that experiment involves testing the notion that criminals obey laws, that declaring a given area “gun free” somehow appeals to the “inherent goodness” that supposedly exists in all people.  After thirty years, the results speak for themselves: “gun free” zones, whether they be schools, malls, churches, hospitals, or federal buildings, have protected no one and prevented nothing, but they have proven to provide shooters with unlimited sources of defenseless victims.  “Gun free” zones have proven to all who have eyes to see that criminals do not obey laws or designations, that they will, in fact, use those very laws and designations to their advantage.

The experiment is an unqualified failure.  It’s time to end it.

WHY Didn't Police Respond? I'll Tell You....

 

People keep asking, WHY? WHY didn't police wait for an hour before finally entering the building, while students and parents were PLEADING with them for help?

 

I'm going to re-state something here that I have stated many times on many different forums over the years, including FB. Perhaps people will finally be ready to listen.

 

No fewer than ten (10) Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that personal protection is the obligation of the individual citizen - not the police. The clearest opinion came in the SCOTUS ruling, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales (I hope the irony of this is not lost):

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is well-settled fact of American law that THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT TO PROTECT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. IT IS WELL-SETTLED FACT OF AMERICAN LAW THAT THE POLICE HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT ANY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN FROM CRIME, EVEN IF THE CITIZEN HAS RECEIVED DEATH THREATS AND THE POLICE HAVE NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION" (emphasis added).

In addition to the Supreme Court rulings, the universal drawdown of law enforcement across the country means that there are fewer officers available to respond to such situations, and that the response time needed to marshal the remaining officers will be correspondingly longer. This makes the 2012 federal appeals court ruling in Woollard v Sheridan even more critical:

"As Judge Niemeyer points out, the Heller Court`s description of its holding as applying to the home, where the need "for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," suggests that the right also applies in some form "where that need is not `most acute.'" Id. at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 628). This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court`s historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as "an individual right protecting against both public and private violence." Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment`s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and "self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be." Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1515-18 (2009))".

The following statement appeared on the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, relating to recent DHS training regarding active shooter incidents:

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. THE SHOOTERS IN THESE SITUATIONS DEPEND ON UNARMED AND SCARED VICTIMS. IT GIVES THEM THE POWER THEY SEEK. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT WAITING ON THE ARRIVAL OF UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL ENSURE MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED, INJURED, OR TAKEN HOSTAGE" (emphasis added).

By the way, I will remind everyone that it was the BORDER PATROL who took dow the Texas shooter.

 

And as Brendan Keefe pointed out in the report I recently posted here:

"****The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks**** (asterisks added for emphasis).

"In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

"Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

"****Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers****" (asterisks added for emphasis).

So-called "gun free" zones have benefited no one but the shooters who disregard the designation.

Prohibiting teachers/staffers who desire to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves and their students hasn't made them any safer.

 

Prohibiting lawful carriers from carrying on the job or while at the mall hasn't protected them from the shooters who don't give a tinker's darn about such prohibitions. 

 

You don't want to carry a firearm? Then, as it seems so popular to say these days during other debates, don't do it.

 

But get out of the way of those who DO want to exercise their CHOICE (see what I did there?) and their EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Meijer, Inc., Abandons Its Previous Stance Regarding Lawful Defensive Firearms Carry….

 In 2019, Meijer, Inc. issues the following statement:

The safety of our customers and team members is our top priority, so we respectfully request that our customers do not open carry firearms at Meijer. We’ve made this decision because open carry can create an environment that makes our customers and team members feel unsafe.

While I support the right to lawfully carry a firearm openly, which is legal in Michigan, I also understand the thinking behind the request.

Over this weekend (2/13/22), however, that changed.

Meijer has now adopted a prohibition against ALL lawful carry.

As a result, I am taking my business elsewhere, and I am urging all Meijer customers who lawfully carry their personal firearms to:

1. Contact Meijer to voice your opposition to their new policy (616) 453-6711)
2. Boycott Meijer until they PUBLICLY reinstate their previous policy.

Finally - Honesty In A Gun Free Zone Sign...

The City of Racine has placed the first honest gun free zone signs on its buildings.  They contain the following disclaimer/advisory: 

“Although weapons are banned from this municipal facility, the City of Racine cannot ensure the protection of visitors or its employees from individuals who unlawfully enter with weapons and does not offer protection against the actions of violators.”

The city says they have included the disclaimer only because their insurers require it, but the truthfulness is undeniable.  A sign will not stop someone with intent, period, AND THEY’RE OK WITH THAT.

And Now, Aurora, IL....

"Wife Of Aurora Shooting Victim Reveals Husband's Final Text Message"

"I love You.  I've been shot at work."

The headline and last text message as given in the HuffPo article regarding this latest mass shooting.

I am sickened by these events and the usual anti-firearms sniping that follows them.  I am a former federal officer.  I have nothing but the highest respect for police officers.  They have an incredibly difficult, and ofter thankless, job.  So I'm not taking pot shots at them; their hands are tied by department policies.  

At the same time, I am reminded that the supreme court has, on more than TEN different occasions, ruled that law enforcement has ABSOLUTELY NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS; their responsibility is to society as a whole.  Whether  - or IF - police respond to any given call for help, according to these rulings, is left ENTIRELY up to the policies of the individual department.  And we have seen, time after time, the results of these policies.  

In this instance, law enforcement was made aware that the shooter had a criminal history.  Evidently, they sent him a letter requiring him to surrender his weapons - and then they never followed up to ensure that he actually did.  Before Parkland, law enforcement met with the shooter on more than THIRTY occasions, KNEW that he had a propensity toward violence, yet he was left free to carry out his attack.  Situation after situation like this exists, and in fact is quite normal proceeding mass shooting events.  

Yet all those who oppose firearms ownership can tell us is, "Trust the police to protect you.  You don't need a firearms to protect you and your family, that's why we have police."  And then, to make matters worse, they go on to intimate that the millions of lawful firearms owners and carriers, the vast majority of whom have never been involved in any crime of any sort, are somehow to blame for these events.  

Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet they have stopped nothing.  The factory where the shooting was carried out was a posted "gun free" zone, yet those signs - the SAME signs that are supposed to protect children in schools across this nation - did absolutely NOTHING to prevent this shooting.  In fact, the shooter knew he had ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to shoot as many people as possible before the police world arrive in sufficient numbers to come after him.

Nationally, per the National Sheriffs' Association, the average police response time to a 911 call is 18 minutes, a relative eternity; such events are usually over in under thirteen minutes.  Yet the best advice the government will give us - and it is now parroted by employers as well - is run if you can, hide if you can't, and as a last resort, throw things at the attacker and HOPE you will dissuade him.  

Thomas Paine, in his essay, Thoughts on Defensive War, made these observations:

"[...] Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation... These people [the victims - added] are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them... Thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."  

Paine was a Quaker and a pacifist, but he still recognized the reality that we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves; failure to do so only emboldens bad guys - whether the bad guy is a co-worker, or an attacking nation.  We will never be able to completely prevent such events.  If it isn't guns, it will be knives (look at the mass knife attacks that have taken place in China and Britain), bombs, chemicals, or some other form of weapon.  But we CAN give people the means to defend themselves and those around them as best they can.  Calling 911 and waiting for the cavalry just isn't cutting it.

One final thought: as far as I am concerned, any organization that prohibits people to exercise their God-given right to self defense is both implicit in, and responsible for, any injuries and deaths that occur as a result of their policy.

The Pratt Shooting....

The front door of the Pratt Company, a declared "gun free" zone.

Signs don't work, and the company is responsible for the loss of life that occurred as the result of forbidding lawful defensive carry.

Obviously, the sign was defective. I think the company and families need to sue the sign printer for producing what was obviously a defective gun free zone sign.

The "Gun Free Zones" Lie....

M.A.S.H. Comes To Life….

The president has declared that the Orlando shooting had nothing to do with islam, despite the shooter calling 9-11 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS.  The USAG has said they are still trying to determine the shooter's "true motivation" for his actions, but reiterates that it had nothing to do with islam despite the shooter's own words.

We are watching an episode of M.A.S.H. come to life before our eyes.  This is from the episode, The Novocaine Mutiny, in which Frank Burns tries to get Hawkeye courtmartialed:

Frank -  It has come to my attention that Sergeant Zale lost $300.

Hawkeye - Yeah.  So?

Frank - So that means that there's a thief around here.  Maybe more than one.

Hawkeye - Frank, Zale lost it gambling.

Frank - I beg your pardon?

BJ - Gambling, Frank.  He was playing poker with us.

Frank - Impossible. Gambling's prohibited.  There is no gambling in this unit.  Therefore the money was stolen.

BJ - Can't argue with that logic.

Hawkeye - I certainly wouldn't try.  My mother always said, "Never argue with crazy people and wear clean underwear in case you get run over by a tank and go to the hospital.

BJ - Wise woman.

Frank - Okay, you two clever Dicks.  I'm gonna conduct a search as only I can, and the culprit or culprits will be punished.

BJ - Frank, your sanity's sprung a leak.

Frank - We'll see.  When I find that money, you'll be laughing out the other side of your sleeve.

So here's how this plays out in today's news:

President - It has come to my attention that there was a shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Public - Yeah, that's what the news said.

President - Well, that means there's a shooter around there.  Certainly not part of a larger conspiracy.

Public - Mr. President, the shooter was a self-proclaimed muslim and pledged allegiance to ISIS.

President - I beg your pardon?

Public - Muslim, Mr. President.  The shooter said he was Muslim.

President - Impossible.  I have declared that there are no such things as muslim terrorists.  Muslim terrorists do not exist,  therefore, the shooter must have had some other motivation.

Public - Can't argue with that logic, won't even try.  My mother always quoted Proverbs 29:9, "If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest."  She was a wise woman.

President - Okay, you racist, intolerant right wingers.  I and my administration are gonna conduct a search as only we can, and the scapegoats we "discover" will be punished.

Public - Mr. President, your agenda is showing.

President - We'll see.  When I find my scapegoat, you'll be laughing out the other side of your sleeve.

"If It Saves Just ONE Life…."

It's interesting to me how the "if it saves one life, it will be worth it" argument only seems to work when BANNING something (like the president always says when calling for more gun control).

Interpol Sec. General Ron Noble advocates for INCREASING civilian defensive firearms carry as a response to terrorist events (like the one in Orlando), http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341. 

Ohio approved concealed carry for license holders in bars in 2011, and N. Carolina approved similar legislation in 2013; neither state has experienced an upswing in drunken shootings. 

Chief Craig of Detroit urged Detroiters to begin carrying in self defense because of the increase in crime and the decrease in law enforcement presence; the first year saw a 25% reduction in crime, particularly violent crime, and overall has seen about a 12% reduction in crime in the last three years or so since he urged them to begin carrying. 

INCREASE defensive carry, particularly in areas now designated as "gun free" (you know, like the night club was). If it saves just ONE LIFE, it will be worth it!

Enough Is Enough….

Tom Brokaw, professing "firearms owner," said in an interview after the Orlando night club shooting that "it's time for people to come together and say 'enough.'"

He is absolutely right - although not in the way he intended.

It is time for the American people to come together and say, enough gun control. Enough apologizing to those who hold an ideology that has declared war on us. Enough shifting blame from terrorists to the US for their attacks on us and our allies. Enough "gun free" zones. Enough surveillance and security procedures that criminalize innocent citizens while allowing potential enemies to slip through in order to say we don't profile. It is time to begin acting once again like we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is time to protect our citizens, secure our borders, and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

It's time. 

Enough is enough.

Repeal Michigan "Weapons Free" Zones….

Over the weekend in Grand Rapids, the body of a woman was found on the campus of Grand Rapids Community College (GRCC), murdered.

GRCC is one of the many so-called "weapons free" or "gun free" zones that dot the city.

The irony?

The stated reason for declaring the campus "weapons free" was for the SAFETY of employees, students, and the general public.

Here is their written policy: 

"III. Policy Statement
Possession or use of firearms, explosives or weapons or anything that is intended to be construed as a weapon is not permitted on College property.

IV. Reason for the Policy
To prohibit the possession or use of firearms, explosives or weapons on College property, as defined herein, FOR THE SAFETY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, STUDENTS, CUSTOMERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. [emphasis added]

V. Entities Affected by this Policy
Employees, students, vendors, visitors to the campus and the general public…

iX. Definitions
“College property” includes but is not limited to property owned, operated, managed, licensed to or leased by the College. At GRCC, all college property is used for classroom purposes.

“Weapons” shall mean any type of firearm, knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged non-folding stabbing instrument, taser, brass knuckles, any other type of instrument which could be used as a weapon and any type of explosive, chemicals or objects or instruments possessed for use of fighting or attacking.

“Firearms” shall mean any weapon or device from which is propelled any missile, projectile, bullet, shot, pellet or other mass by means of explosives, compressed air or gas or by means of springs, levers or other mechanical device which weapon or device shall be capable by the discharge of any such propelled missile, projectile, bullet, shot, pellet or other mass of inflicting personal injury or death upon any person.

...How to handle a situation where you see someone with a gun or other weapon?

They should immediately contact the Campus Police at extension 4010 and advise them of what they have seen. The dispatcher will ask the caller to provide him/her with a clothing description of the person they suspect. They will be asked for the last place they saw the individual and whether this person was walking, getting into a car, etc. If the person is walking, the dispatcher will want to know what direction they were moving in. If they were in a vehicle and on the street, the dispatcher will ask the same thing, what direction were they traveling?"

The stated purpose of this policy is safety.  It prohibits all weapons, INCLUDING NONLETHAL, DEFENSIVE ITEMS SUCH AS  PEPPER SPRAY, MACE, TASERS OR STUN GUNS.  The only recourse offered to anyone on campus per the policy is calling campus security - and HOPING that help arrives in time.

I have been saying this for years: ANY ORGANIZATION THAT TAKES IT UPON ITSELF TO DENY INDIVIDUALS THEIR GOD-GIVEN, CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE USING ANY AND ALL MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING FROM THAT POLICY.

Between the college campuses and medical mile, much of the downtown Grand Rapids area is designated as "weapons free," yet in recent years there have been numerous attacks on disarmed individuals in parking structures or other property relating to these organizations.  Obviously, criminals 1) don't care about such designations, 2) see them as fertile grounds on which to carry out their attacks, and 3) know that it takes time for police to arrive on the scene - by which time the damage is done and they are long gone.

So-called "weapon free", "gun free", or "pistol free" zones protect no one.  It's time to stop pretending otherwise, and it is time for the state legislature to take the following steps:

1) Eliminate so-called "weapon free" or "gun free" zones
2) Give Michigan's pre-emption law TEETH, specifically stating that schools, colleges, and universities are subject to pre-emption, and designating penalties for violating the pre-emption law
3) Hold any business/organization that takes it upon itself to enforce a "weapon free" or "gun free" policy - whether on the public OR their employees - civilly liable for any death or injury arising from the enforcement of such policy. 

4) Indemnify businesses/organizations from civil prosecution arising from lawful, defensive weapons carry and use.

And a final note to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder:  you are against the public carry of firearms because of something that happened while you were still a student at the University of Michigan.  You were a residence director in a dormitory when a man illegally carrying a firearm entered the dormitory and killed a fellow residence director, or so the story goes.  That person violated a gun free zone in order to commit a crime.

Bt what if things had been different?  What if your fellow student's right to defend himself had not been taken from him?  Might he still be alive today?  While having a firearm or mace might not have prevented his death, it would also have given him the chance to fight for his life.

Stop punishing lawful firearms carriers for the actions of a criminal.

When Something Is Truly Sacred….

The Myth Of American "Gun Violence"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Psychologist: Psychological Tests Can't Predict Rogue Pilots...

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,

"The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

Israel and Russia Just Did It - Time For America To Do It, Too….

An open letter to our elected officials:

Terrorist acts are increasing in the world.  They have now begun to come to the US and Canada.  In response to such acts, both Russia and Israel have made it easier to carry firearms for self defense - including in so-called "sensitive areas."  It is time for the US to do the same.  

Gun control has stopped nothing - and never will.

At the federal level, it is time to revoke the federal gun free school zones act, it is ime to finally permit lawful carriers to carry in so-called "sensitive areas," and it is time to revoke the "gun free" status of our military bases and let our military personnel carry the weapons on which they have trained.

At the state level, it is time to revoke "gun free" zones.  It is time to establish open carry and concealed carry parity; there is no logical reason why a concealed carrier should be required to complete hours of training that are not required of an open carrier just because the method of carry is different.  It is time for Michiganders to be able to exercise their right to lawful self defense in so-called "gun free" zones by carrying concealed - a method far less likely to incite panic.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."  -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"  -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr.

Sincerely,

John Lott - America should make it easier to carry guns

Moms Demand's Anti-Kroger Thanksgiving Campaign….

Moms Demand is running this graphic to remind their members which Kroger companies to boycott because they refuse to bow down to MD and ban lawful firearms carry in their stores.  Let's be sure to support them whenever possible!

Michigan House Commerce Committee Members: NO on H.B. 5189

The MI House Commerce Committee will be hearing testimony this morning regarding HB 5189, the Jessica Heeringa law, which requires 24 hour gas stations to install costly surveillance equipment and maintain a minimum of 2 employees during overnight hours. 

I sent the following email to all of the Republican members of this committee this morning (their contact information can be found here: http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comkey=222): 

Rep. Foster, 

I write to you today to encourage the commerce committee NOT to support HB 5189. While the goal of this bill is laudable, it has almost no chance of accomplishing what it sets out to do - protect employees, specifically late night gas station employees. The installation of security cameras prevents nothing; it merely acts as a POTENTIAL resource for police as they try to solve the crimes that MAY have been caught by them. Robberies and killings occur each and every day in this country and are dutifully recorded by security cameras. In many cases, the images they capture are too grainy, out of focus, or dark to provide any meaningful assistance to law enforcement. 

Similarly, the addition of another employee guarantees nothing, especially if a firearm is introduced into the equation by a criminal. A firearm in the hands of a criminal nullifies any perceived advantage offered by the presence of a second employee. 

This bill does two things: it makes people FEEL SECURE without providing ACTUAL security, and it increases the costs to employers - many of whom simply cannot afford the additional expenses. Passing a bill simply because it is better than nothing is what the legislature has a history of doing. If we are going to pass legislation to protect employees, then pass a bill that actually stands a chance of protecting someone. Pass legislation that repeals so-called "gun free" zones. Pass legislation that requires an employer to recognize the right of their employees and customers to provide for their own protection by carrying their lawfully-owned firearms and then INDEMNIFIES the employer. "But we don't want to infringe on the private property rights of an employer," you say, yet that is EXACTLY what HB 5189 does. 

Mr. Chairman, I encourage you and your committee to REJECT the emotional appeal that will be offered today in support of this bill in favor of legislation that actually stands a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of providing REAL PROTECTION to employees. You have Republican majorities in your committee, and both chambers of the legislature; this SHOULD BE an easily accomplished task.

Public Backs Kroger Firearm Carry Policy….

MSNBC has been running a poll to gauge public sentiment on the question of firearms carry in Kroger stores - and to bring pressure to bear on Kroger.

I'm certain the results aren't what they were expecting….

For the record, the Construction Zone supports and applauds Kroger's common sense policy:

"The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important company values. Millions of customers are present in our busy grocery stores every day and we don't want to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores," policy-on-customers-carrying-firearms-in-stores