Georgia Pacific: We Can Ignore Your Stinking Gun Laws

No doubt in the halls of GP, cadres of attorneys are hard at work to ensure that they can ignore any current and future gun laws in this state, as well. In Florida, they’ve already thrown down the gauntlet:

Georgia-Pacific has declared that its Palatka toilet- and tissue-paper plant isn’t bound by a controversial employee gun-rights law, citing a Homeland Security exemption because the company handles barge-loads of explosive fuel.

So what’s their defense?

And the federal law Georgia-Pacific cites is the U.S. Coast Guard’s Maritime Security regulations. Under the regulations, the Department of Homeland Security required the Atlanta-based paper company to have a permit and a safety plan — which bans firearms on the property — because the Palatka mill barges in about 700 gallons of fuel oil daily to run its paper mill, said company spokesman Jeremy Alexander. ”This is based on our Homeland Security requirements. It’s not because of the products we make,” Alexander said. Citing confidentiality, the company wouldn’t furnish a copy of the document. Homeland Security referred calls to a Coast Guard spokesperson who didn’t return calls.

13 comments

  1. Icarus says:

    Worth noting that this is GP, owned by Koch, which is not exactly a company that tends to align its public causes with MoveOn.org.

    That should give the Frigtards some pause before they try to trot out their legislation about guns in the workplace yet again.

    It won’t, but it should.

    Frigtards.

  2. heroV says:

    I’m confused, shouldn’t GP be allowed to determine whether guns are allowed on its private property?

  3. Game Fan says:

    Most conservatives would be upset if a “pizza guy” or the “owner operator” was to get canned for blowing away some human predator out on the road. Aside from that I can’t see gun lobbyists agitating for a target range next to the fuel depot.

  4. Icarus says:

    “Aside from that I can’t see gun lobbyists agitating for a target range next to the fuel depot.”

    Just a guess here, but you weren’t around much during the last two legislative sessions, were you?

  5. Game Fan says:

    Icarus
    It looks like the controversy revolves around employees having guns in their cars. Interesting issues of “corporate entities” rights vs. individual rights as well as Federalism vs. States’ Rights (?) and Maritime Law vs. the “law of the land”. Also it would be interesting to see the results if your higher quality employees (who have licenses to carry) quit and are replaced with low-lifes who aren’t able to have guns legally. All in the name of “security”. Neocons simply take a more circuitous route than liberals in taking our money and freedom.

  6. Icarus says:

    Go up to the top/mid right side of the page, and type in Frigtards – Ignore the stuff about fantasy football (still time to sign up for this year, however) and take a look at the SB 43? from last session.

  7. Game Fan says:

    Monsanto, Halliburton, Merk/HPV, Blackwater, Nationsbank, verichip, FISA, The Fed bailout, “trillions missing”, Eminent Domain, ect… This is why CONSTITUTIONALISTS are done towing the line for multinational corporations and “corporate rights”. They have enough lawyers on the payroll to defend themselves.

  8. heroV says:

    GameFan: speaking of freedoms, what about GP’s private property rights? If a worker really wants a gun in his car, he can park on a public street and walk the rest of the way into work.

  9. Game Fan says:

    Icarus
    just google some of those items. As far as private property rights I’m sure some large corporations are falling all over each other to oppose eminent domain for corporations. Has GP weighed in on this?

Comments are closed.