TexasCHLforum.com

"House Bill 228, sponsored by Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, says, among other things, that employees have a right to carry a gun to their workplace.

If an employer forbids guns at work, according to Kerns’ bill, the employer must provide similar protection to the employee that the worker could provide for themselves if they were armed. If not, the employer will be held liable for any injuries an employee suffers as the result of a crime that might have been prevented if the worker could carry a gun.

Asked if such a provision was appropriate in all settings, such as a daycare center, Kerns told Lee Newspapers, “What if the employee needs the gun to protect the kids?”

Mark Murphy, the chief criminal deputy attorney for Yellowstone County, said the county would again oppose Kerns’ bill, just as it opposed a similar effort in 2007."

The full article can be found here.

That is my kind of legiscritter.

Anygunanywhere

I like this guy!

CompVest wrote:I like this guy!

Me too. We could use a couple hundred legislators with similar views in Austin.

Excaliber wrote: If an employer forbids guns at work, according to Kerns’ bill, the employer must provide similar protection to the employee that the worker could provide for themselves if they were armed. If not, the employer will be held liable for any injuries an employee suffers as the result of a crime that might have been prevented if the worker could carry a gun.

I'm not sure I understand what this even means. "You can't have a gun, but here take take this ninja to shadow you all day at work?"

This reminds me of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Long story short Antonio and Bassanio take out a loan from Shylock with no interest on the grounds that if the loan is unable to be paid back to Shylock will take a pound of Antonio's flesh. They are unable to pay back the loan to Shylock so he is entitled to a pound of Antonio's flesh per their agreement. A legal expert comes in and reads their agreement and finds it legally binding. However, Shylock is only allowed to cut off a pound of flesh and connot make Antonio bleed as he is only entitled to a pound of flesh and not blood.

It seems to me that the wording makes the employer allow the employeees to carry at work as they, the employer, cannot provide them with the same protection.

But then again IANAL and could be wayyyyyyyy off.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:This reminds me of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Long story short Antonio and Bassanio take out a loan from Shylock with no interest on the grounds that if the loan is unable to be paid back to Shylock will take a pound of Antonio's flesh. They are unable to pay back the loan to Shylock so he is entitled to a pound of Antonio's flesh per their agreement. A legal expert comes in and reads their agreement and finds it legally binding. However, Shylock is only allowed to cut off a pound of flesh and connot make Antonio bleed as he is only entitled to a pound of flesh and not blood.

It seems to me that the wording makes the employer allow the employeees to carry at work as they, the employer, cannot provide them with the same protection.

But then again IANAL and could be wayyyyyyyy off.

Great analogy!

I think this is exactly what the bill's author intended.

Thanks!

Nice to hear about a positive or pro-gun bill showing up in the house for a change!