I’ll start with the easy one first, Senate Bill 1028 makes a lot of sense to me. It is a good compromise between the right of the employer and the right of the employee in terms of guns on the premise of a business. Bottom line, an employee that has a concealed carry permit is allowed to carry a concealed weapon. However, if the employer doesn’t want the employee to carry concealed during the conduct of the employee’s duties then the employee can’t carry. The one caveat is that the Senate Bill allows the employee to maintain his weapon inside the employee’s personal vehicle on the business’s premise during the employees work day. This seems to be a reasonable compromise.
House Bill 4795 is a little more problematic. "An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms.” This issue is really about three things: 1) the various roles and responsibilities of local, state, federal, and international governments, 2) the freedom and safety of an individual versus the freedom and safety of the larger community, and 3) who gets to decide what is best.
Can local government pass ordinances that restrict gun activities? The Answer is yes, but those ordinances are not enforceable. That is, they can pass it, but local authorities can't enforce that law. Can State Government pass laws to prohibit local government's actions in respect to gun rights? Again, the answer is yes; however, the State’s law is also unenforceable because this is a right outlined in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
So, would I vote yes or no? I would vote yes on HB 4795 to intercede on behalf of the federal government and protect the rights of the individual.
I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!