Got response from Mr. Eachus

[schr8er2000]

My understanding is that Mr. Eachus did not sponser this bill, but talking to his aide, he is willing to hear our views on this and "SEEMS" inclined to vote FOR it... That is all I know right now, but will keep you posted when I have more information. I am going to try and find out WHO initiated this proposal and get more information from them on it.

[MostlyHarmless]

Yeah, I actually think a law opening these companies up to liability for such policies is a better way to address this issue.

Still thinking about that ... maybe we don't need as much as a law for starters.

How about some really nice form letter? It of course needs to be professionally developed by a member of the legalese speaking minority of this community. Something that basically asks HR if the company, in return for the gun ban, assumes full responsibility for your personal protection and safety, and accepts full liability for the possible harm that may result from their failure to do so in a self defense situation.

I am aware that their initial response probably would be "no, but you still can't be armed" ... or something slightly more mature. Question is, would something like that actually help putting the company in a worse position, if anything would ever happen?


Jan

[Eugene V. Debs]

Well, it's not like I know the case law on the subject but I'm willing to bet it would be a groundbreaking decision and you'd probably want the SAF and a whole legal team on board to plan a "test case" from the beginning.

I think a statute spelling out the ability to sue would be easier. In any case, I think you'd have a very, very difficult time ever getting companies to allow their workers to bring guns on their property, I mean, after all-- what's the bigger potential liability-- having one family sue you if a person is killed walking back to their car or their house after parking their car at home OR having dozens of families sue you (and horrible publicity) if you allow weapons on the property and some asshole decides to take his out of the trunk and shoot up the workplace?

[MostlyHarmless]

... OR having dozens of families sue you (and horrible publicity) if you allow weapons on the property and some asshole decides to take his out of the trunk and shoot up the workplace?

You mean I can't do that without permission in written? Darn ... there goes that plan ...


Jan

[Eugene V. Debs]

You mean I can't do that without permission in written? Darn ... there goes that plan ...


Jan

Well of course you can but it's a question of liability. If someone gets shot at work and their employer expressly allowed guns on his property, you don't think his policy will be used against him in court? You don't believe he'd more likely be subject to a more costly judgment than if he didn't allow guns on site?

[schr8er2000]

Found out this is being proposed by State Rep. Pyle of the 60th District..... Everyone PLEASE send a thanks to him at his website for introducing this bill AND contact YOUR rep to ask for their support of this bill... Here is his e mail address

jpyle@pahousegop.com


THANKS

[Siobhra]

And gun-control groups now do all they can to convince employers that if they don't ban guns they are leaveing themselves open to a law suit. Those groups spend a lot of money to produce slick mailings that they send out to companies telling them over and over how costly it will be for those who do not forbid guns.

[mjfletcher]

And gun-control groups now do all they can to convince employers that if they don't ban guns they are leaveing themselves open to a law suit. Those groups spend a lot of money to produce slick mailings that they send out to companies telling them over and over how costly it will be for those who do not forbid guns.

If the bill being proposed isn't completely finalized, maybe it would be a good idea to suggest adding civil/criminal immunity to employers if some criminal starts shooting at law abiding employees. Counter the "You should oppose this because it opens you up to a lawsuit" mailings from the anti's before they even get a chance to print them.

[WhiteFeather]

I was talking with Rep Pyle staff today 7-16-09 the bill is called “Preservation & Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in a Motor Vehicle act” the first co sponsorship memo went out on June 30. It currently has about 30 co sponsors.

So when you are contacting your Rep about asking them to become a co sponsorship mention that title and date

It has no house bill number assigned to this legislation till it gets submitted by the sponsor Rep Pyle that will only be done after he feels that he has all the sponsors he is going to get.

More co sponsor = greater chance of getting acted upon - usually.

FYI – Rep Pyle is a solid PRO-GUN rep always has gun owners back in Harrisburg and if you get him talking about shooting firearms better have some time to spend with him.

A while ago I posted a request to “wish list of changes to the UFA” this is bill is one of these corrections that was suggested, that I passed along with our suggestion to be included in the bills language.

I want everyone to know that WE are able to attempt to get legislative corrections to the UFA DIRECTLY because of everyone’s help and attendance in the April 21 rally and interactive legislative event in Harrisburg.



Note: I am soon going to making a post about a late Sept – middle on Oct mini lobby day trip that I got permission to offer everyone on PAFOA to tag along on with us and try to get all of these pro gun bills moving in the legislative process.

[mjfletcher]

Email sent to Reps Caltigirone and Santoni

Rep X

I am writing to you today to ask that you add your name to the list of sponsors for the proposed "Preservation & Right to Keep and Bear Arms in a Vehicle act," proposed by Rep. Pyle (60th District). This bill, if passed, would provide for law abiding citizens the ability to defend themself from societies criminal elements while traveling to and from their jobs. Currently, employers are able to strip their law abiding employees of the ability to defend themselves against criminals by prohibiting them from having a legally owned firearm securely locked in their vehicle while at work while having no obligation to provide for their employees safety from criminals who would attempt to harm them. If passed, this bill would correct that grave situation and ensure that the law abiding residents of PA are able to defend themself against imminent threats regardless of where they are traveling to or from.

I implore you to co-sponsor this bill and provide it with your full support.