Page 6 of 6
re:
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:47 pm
by RyanZX759
I don't know much about Rick Perry other than he is doing the right thing by speaking out. However, those politicians in the East just are not in touch with their communities.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:18 pm
by KD5NRH
tornado wrote:Bring it on. Then the next thing to work toward will be making CHL holders a protected class so you couldn't be fired for carrying at work.
Will we then start having CHL pride parades all the time?
While were at it...
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:48 pm
by John R. Fuller
I think that now we are a vocal part of the tax paying voters, we should also press for open carry. I know that some object to it, but I would like to see it legal as well. Thank You
John R. Fuller
Re: Time to express our thanks.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:50 pm
by stevie_d_64
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Letters, calls and emails to your Senator and Representative asking them to support Governor Perry’s call for removing restriction CHL’s could also prove helpful.
We need to create a groundswell of support for this concept.
Chas.
A surge now, will carry well in making this a very nice thing for us in 2009...
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:38 am
by tornado
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:31 pm
by austin
Here is another approach.
Are firms that Prohibit CHL persons from entering putting themselves at greater risk than those who don't?
On a purely actuarial basis it would seem that if crimes go down by half when there is CCW, then it would stand to reason that locations that prohibit CCW are higher risk areas and must pay for a rider to prohibit CHL.
Furthermore, by prohibiting CCW, is the firm not creating a known dangerous situation by disarming people?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:39 pm
by frankie_the_yankee
austin wrote:Here is another approach.
Are firms that Prohibit CHL persons from entering putting themselves at greater risk than those who don't?
On a purely actuarial basis it would seem that if crimes go down by half when there is CCW, then it would stand to reason that locations that prohibit CCW are higher risk areas and must pay for a rider to prohibit CHL.
Furthermore, by prohibiting CCW, is the firm not creating a known dangerous situation by disarming people?
I suspect that the statistics compiled by DPS comparing crime committed by CHL'ers with total crime could be used to argue that case.
I have actually gone so far as to instruct my family to file suit against my employer in the event that I am killed in a criminal attack while travelling to and from work. My employer bans guns from its premesis AND parking facilities. Since we're in an office park, there is no other place to park EXCEPT the company facility. So in the unlikely event that I am attacked while travelling to and from work -
unarmed (due to my following company policy), I want my estate to hold the company financially responsible.
I realize that this would be a tough suit to win, but that's what good lawyers are for I guess.
