Chip Rogers has I think a curious interpretation of SB 43 which when taken to its logical conclusion would call for an even more intrusive bill (as far as employers are concerned).
“The measure intends to prohibit “employers” from establishing an employment policy, which would effectively allow firearms in a public access parking lot for everyone except the “employee” who has it locked in a private vehicle.”
To all of Georgia’s insta-Jack Bauers, what Chip is essentially saying is that if you work at, let’s just randomly say a day trading firm, and you are not allowed to bring your gun to work and stow it safely in your car, someone else (a customer, for example) isn’t prevented by your employer from brining their gun, and you’ll need it to protect yourself. OK, Chip, I can see the logic in this argument and where you’re headed, but in the day trading example, when some crazy guy comes in and starts lighting up the office will you have time (or even the ability) to run out to your car so that you can gun down the hostile?
Probably not, which is why I think the next bill to come up (if SB 43 were to pass) would say that employers can’t prevent employees from keeping their guns on their person at all times, because you never know when someone that isn’t an employee will have a gun on their person. In other words, if Mark Barton comes through the door it won’t be much good if your gun is safely stowed in your vehicle.
So, will Chip and other SB 43 supporters address this inconsistency of their argument and whether or not this is the next move?