Another Victim of "Gun Free Zones" at Deka Batteries in Lyons, Pa

**Fraggle09027** · April 25th, 2007, 07:23 PM

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...,6467148.story

Deka batteries (East Penn Manufacturing) is a gun free work place. One of my friends (also has his LTC) carries all the time except for at work (Same plant same shift). Reason, they prohibit it and if they request they can search your car. If you refuse they reserve the right to fire you.

First, I need more info to make my own decision if this guy should have been armed. If he was law abiding and had a LTC this to could have been prevented.

The media seems to be changing there views on anti gun laws (IMHO). With enough support and a loud enough voice. Hopefully we can achieve laws prohibiting employers from preventing LTC holders from being forced to disarm.

Just my 2 cents.

**awkx** · April 25th, 2007, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Fraggle09027

... gun free work place.... if they request they can search your car. If you refuse they reserve the right to fire you.... Hopefully we can achieve laws prohibiting employers from preventing LTC holders from being forced to disarm.

Yes. But some would say company parking lots are private property, so employers should be free to make their own policies (however dim-witted). This argument does has some merit to it.

Perhaps a tort should be created to let disarmed victims sue their employer if an attack could have been prevented by their lawful carrying of a fierarm.

**SuperMoose** · April 26th, 2007, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by awkx

Yes. But some would say company parking lots are private property, so employers should be free to make their own policies (however dim-witted). This argument does has some merit to it.

Perhaps a tort should be created to let disarmed victims sue their employer if an attack could have been prevented by their lawful carrying of a fierarm.

Nice thought, however you can't prove one way or another that someone lawfully carrying could have prevented anything from occurring, there is a chance it could go horribly wrong. Furthermore the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue, I forget the case exactly, but it involved a private company which had a policy like the one described. It was perfectly legal as it is private property and they owners have a right to control such things on their property. It's as much their right to deny you and everyone else the right to carry on their property as it is your right to carry in public places.

**theshadow** · April 26th, 2007, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by awkx

Yes. But some would say company parking lots are private property, so employers should be free to make their own policies (however dim-witted). This argument does has some merit to it.

Perhaps a tort should be created to let disarmed victims sue their employer if an attack could have been prevented by their lawful carrying of a fierarm.

I've argued this point before, with little sucess. BUT I'll put it out there again. The company claims no responsibility if my car is damaged while on thier parking lot, their property rights should not be permited to trump MY property rights, my vehilce is privately purchased, privately maintained, and in outher states, and extention of my home. Tag in that by law a corporate entity does not hve 'rights'. I really do thing a good agress ive lawyer should be able to leverage this in one way or another. The only trump here is we are a right to work state, and they could fire us for breathing too many times in one minute, or any of the other non-protected reasons.

**Fraggle09027** · April 26th, 2007, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by SuperMoose

Nice thought, however you can't prove one way or another that someone lawfully carrying could have prevented anything from occurring, there is a chance it could go horribly wrong. Furthermore the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue, I forget the case exactly, but it involved a private company which had a policy like the one described. It was perfectly legal as it is private property and they owners have a right to control such things on their property. It's as much their right to deny you and everyone else the right to carry on their property as it is your right to carry in public places.

True, but sadly enough we will never find out. Throat slit, situational awareness would most likely have been his best defense. I also have to agree with theshadow, there not responsible if my car is stolen, damaged, or broken into.

**1911shooter** · April 30th, 2007, 03:06 PM

the should be held resonsible for this. they have security there and they are the ones who deny you any right to protect yourself. yes he should have been more aware, but that doesnt change the fact they are resonsible for providing a safe work place....even in the parking lot.

**Fraggle09027** · April 30th, 2007, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by 1911shooter

the should be held resonsible for this. they have security there and they are the ones who deny you any right to protect yourself. yes he should have been more aware, but that doesnt change the fact they are resonsible for providing a safe work place....even in the parking lot.

I agree with you whole heartedly. I have posted in other threads I would not hesitate for a minute to sue. I was just replying to having to prove the gun would have made a difference. I did not mean to dissolve any blame on deca thus the thread title.