When gunnuttery and anti-unionism collide: Howdy, Tennessee!
Right-to-work (e.g. "I can fire you for anything"
meets Right-to-store-guns-in-company-parking-lot. Hilarity ensues! 
NASHVILLE, TENN. — A Tennessee employer could fire a worker who violates company policy by storing firearms and ammunition in vehicles parked on employers’ property despite a new state law, according to a state attorney general’s opinion.
Gov. Bill Haslam in March signed the measure that would allow people with handgun carry permits to store firearms in their vehicles no matter where they are parked.
(snip)
While the letter stated the bill does not seek to alter the state’s “employment-at-will doctrine,” it noted that businesses could run into trouble if they seek to enforce a gun ban on their property.
“Employers who terminate employees just for exercising this right may violate the state’s clear public policy that handgun carry permit holders are allowed to transport and store firearms or ammunition,” the sponsors wrote....
Read More: http://www.theleafchronicle.com/viewart/20130529/NEWS01/305290019/AG-Gun-measure-doesn-t-affect-employment-law
You can't have it both ways, people!
= new reply since forum marked as read
...So to speak.
I expect that if a case comes up (and you know it will), and if ruled against the employee, the leg will pass an amendment, strengthening the language of the bill.
Feel free to try to set up the rules you mentioned for your home at your business.
Maybe an employee will educate you on the difference between the two. 
Try hard, I know you can think of things an employer *can't* do or fire someone for.
Don't try to walk back your statement now.
...my parents rented a rural cabin on the Delaware River North of Philadelphia where we lived. From mid-Spring through October we spent most weekends and some whole weeks relaxing without the distractions of city noise like traffic and sirens. We owned a small boat that we used for fishing and general recreation. We didn't miss electricity at all. My dad would have a radio to listen to the occasional baseball game. My dad was self employed and often took three or four day weekends. One of the decisions they would talk about was how many whole weeks of vacation he would take.
Fast forwarding to the last 25 years to my own family and our decisions we have little saved for retirement. My children, both in their mid twenties, don't work in their desired fields and in spite of liberal use of community colleges and extraordinary diligence in selecting reasonably priced additional schools and my own help, student loans are still being paid. My last "vacation" lasted almost 19 months. It cost $87,000 leaving me $21,000 in debt after my savings was exhausted. Our decisions were more often, "Can we afford to open 4 cans of tuna fish for dinner or only 3?"
The scope of opportunities has been limited and some tax laws have encouraged what I think of as more protectionist than economically encouraging. In the sixties when JFK cut taxes a bit to encourage economic expansion, it worked. Today, the wealthy get tax cuts and invest money either in banking/finance where risks are mitigated and the only jobs created are few high paying ones or they invest in outsourcing work to cheaper foreign markets. Both of these courses orphan the middle and lower income workers.
People are sick of it. 
changed their minds? What's that? It doesn't track those stats? If Google can't find it, it didn't happen I guess.
There's that NRA/Gungeon superior logic again, and it's sooooo impressive...
a gun within easy reach vs. a drive home to get a gun? Seems on the same level as the stats that show the higher odds of gun death and injury in the home when a gun is present, would apply here as well. But then again, I'm sure that you have some gunner logic that shows that the more guns equals less gun violence. And then there's that government tyranny thing, and the citizen's militia club.
Whatever blows your dress up Bubba...
This removes any kind of objective criteria for deciding whether a piece of legislation / rule / regulatory scheme is effective or not. If crime goes down, the diminishing pool of victims is just as large to the absolutist who holds this position ("One death from guns is one death too many." Even if crime goes up, the justification of "Well, we don’t know how many more might have died without this" is given credence. Strange how a failure of a regulation can lead to more of the same.
I do conflate the "if just one.." philosophy with the "one death is too many.." mantra, because it seems if you point out that the incidence of a particular crime is down, it’s often followed by the second phrase.
There seems to be a disconnect between goal, action, and consequence. It’s as though there is a measure of faith involved. "If this doesn’t work, we must not be doing enough. I know that if we do this, eventually lives will be saved." Rarely is there serious discussion about whether or not the approach can reasonably be expected to result in the goal, it’s "obvious" to those proposing action that A should lead to B. No rational discussion about the effectiveness of a law can be tolerated- those who do are painted as being against saving lives, or for killing innocents. In the absolutist’s mind, it’s all or none.
There’s also a disturbing ends justifies the means mentality involved. The lengths that these proponents are willing to go seems to know no bounds. Random pat-downs of the public, government tracking of ammunition sales, government tracking of guns via lojack type transmitters, door-to-door searches of those living in public housing- all have been proposed in the last year or two in various discussion forums; the same kind of thinking brought us Guantanamo, torture, and warrant-less wiretapping. I’m not equating strict gun control to these, just noting that in the heads of those who propose such actions, justification is clear and absolute. "Just one life..", "One death is too many."
No consideration is given to unintended consequences. The burden on anyone else is considered inconsequential compared to the "saving of a single life". Never mind that the trust placed in the government’s hands today can and most likely will be abused tomorrow under a different administration. It always amazes me that our party is usually so adamant in it’s protection of all amendments in the bill of rights except one. The same kind of incrementalism that the other side uses to infringe the other nine amendments- our own party tries to use those same tactics on the second.
Firing a fella and not knowing they are packing a weapon could prove an interesting business....
Wonder what would happen if all the Union Members would start carrying. I bet the laws would get changed REAL FUCKING QUICK. Fucking KOCK brothers.
