Ammo For Sale

« « Pull the other one | Home | Gun Porn » »

Using OSHA to ban guns in workplaces?

Well, this seems like it would be quite the stretch:

Proponents of President Barack Obamas executive orders in the area of gun control point to OSHAs General Duty Clause as a possible basis for a national no guns at work policy.

The General Duty Clause requires employers to maintain a safe workplace, including the implementation of policies that may be necessary to further that goal. Proponents argue that this significant increase in workplace violence coupled with the expansion of concealed carry laws would be the basis for this regulatory change. Moreover, because a General Duty Clause already exists within the OSHA statute, there would not be a need for congressional approval.

So, more BS. And it can be done without an act of the legislature, in theory. That is exactly what is wrong with government.

8 Responses to “Using OSHA to ban guns in workplaces?”

  1. Fred Says:

    What happened to private property…The civil rights act ended that civil right by making a biz a public service. Oh wait, don’t pay your property tax and see what happens to your biz…I guess there is no private property after all.
    So, OSHA will need a modest budget increase (Definitely gonna need a whole new army of busy body, know it all, bureaucrats to eat out our substance and OSHA will need some of it’s very own SWAT teams as well).

    ammo on the shopping list? 10-4

  2. JK Brown Says:

    Well, the same clause could be used to justify criminal background checks for job applicants which the Obama admin is trying to ban as discriminatory against African-Americans. It would definitely be true for those with violent felonies.

    And also for workers to sue the employers for establishing a gun-free zone then not ensuring that no one was able to enter the workplace with a firearm.

  3. Chris L. Says:

    Something similar just happened to me at my employer. I was told to cease carrying due to a “Safe Work Environment Clause” in our handbook. After 17 year I can no longer carry in the office. I can still keep it in my vehicle but not on my person. This may change as the wording in the handbook has a “Proper Authorization Clause” that seems to have been overlooked …. We shall see.

  4. Bram Says:

    Perhaps OSHA should just require suppressors.

  5. mikee Says:

    The court case on this would be interesting. I’d present the stats on criminal violence for concealed carry licensees, compare it to police, politicians, general public, and then raise examples of armed employees stopping violent crimes. And then I’d wait for the other side to try and ignore those stats, somehow.

    I think if the administration has any capable lawyers on staff, they will not do this, because if the basis of the proposed ban is “workplace safety” concealed carry will be mandated rather than banned.

  6. Stuart the Viking Says:

    “wait for the other side to try and ignore those stats”

    What world have YOU been living in? Ignoring stats is the norm, even for Judges. You do realize the Federal courts have upheld various Federal firearms legislation merely because congress remembered to put something like “because Interstate Commerce” in the verbiage. What does law abiding citizens being allowed to carry in schools have to do with Interstate Commerce? Absolutely NOTHING, but because those words are there, it was upheld.

    Your only real mistake was thinking that logic and reality has anything to do with it.

  7. JTC Says:

    It is good to remember that violation of private property rights cuts both ways; pass or support a law that you see as positive and it can just as easily be turned against you…think Patriot Act as example.

    But in this case no new laws are required or for that matter, as I’ve said here several times, even Executive Orders. What’s happening here with OSHA as well as with the ATF on “unlicensed gun dealers” is simply pressure from the top to alter the interpretation and enforcement of heretofore helpful and/or innocuous laws.

    And they ain’t done yet by any means; they now know they can’t get new regs through so they’ll just alter the intent and meaning of what’s already on the books. Hell, if they can do it to the Constitution, why not laws, regs, and job descriptions?

  8. MrSatyre Says:

    Been seriously considering for a long time filing a lawsuit against my employer for creating an unsafe work environment by banning guns in the building.