"Jessica's Law"

[ezkl2230]

A bill is being introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives this week by Rep. Collene Lamonte (D - Norton Shores) that would mandate that gas station owners, in particular, who are open late or 24 hours either A) keep at least 2 employees on duty during those night time hours or B) install video surveillance systems. The bill is a response to the as of yet unsolved, alleged abduction of Jessica Heeringa from an Exxon station in Norton Shores, MI, seven months ago; the station has no surveillance system in place.

While the idea behind this law is laudable, mandating that employers hire additional employees or install video surveillance systems extensive enough to cover all employees on all areas of an employer's property at all times seems to me to be yet another A) feel good piece of legislation that B ) tramples on the "rights" of employers and C) will ultimately prove to be quite ineffective at actually PREVENTING anything. Far too many crimes of all sorts take place under the watchful eye of the surveillance camera every year, and while the video footage CAN be helpful in prosecuting a bad guy, assuming he is caught, it actually PREVENTS nothing - and in many cases, due to non-functioning cameras, bad angles, low quality video, etc., bad guys still get away scott-free.

I wrote a bill called the Hoven Self-Defense Act a couple of years ago and have sent it to several legislators a number of times since. The Hoven Self Defense Act, named for a Benton Harbor, MI, pharmacist who was fired after using his personal firearm to fend off two violent bad guys during an attempted robbery, restores employees' right to defend themselves by preventing any employer from prohibiting the lawful carry of one's firearm at work:

"The right to carry a pistol in lawful self defense shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation or education."

It is legislation that could actually PREVENT a kidnapping from taking place in the first place.

"Jessica's Law" is yet another piece of democratic, feel good legislation that infringes on employers' rights, but has no real chance of actually preventing anything. The Hoven Self-Defense Act, on the other hand, actually has the documented potential to stop bad guys from successfully carrying out their crimes.

One way or another, any legislation that attempts to require some sort of protection for employees in place is going to infringe on the "rights" of employers, just as every law that protects our civil rights does. There is no getting around that, which is why I have argued that business owners do not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection as is enjoyed by truly private entities (homeowners). The government has been infringing on business owners' rights for decades; this is no different. The difference is between an infringement that truly gives employees the opportunity to protect themselves versus one that is so much window dressing.

 

[Bikenut]

Just going to be Captain Obvious for a moment...

If more people carried guns less people would be kidnapped because more kidnappers would get shot.

 

[ezkl2230]

I posted a reply on WOOD TV's web site regarding this bill that is very similar to what I posted here this morning. The following exchange took place within the last few minutes:

Truth HurtsI don't think adding security cameras to a business prone to such attacks as robberies and theft would be infringing upon anyones privacy. Now i agree that adding CCTV won't necessarily eliminate the potential but rather would help in finding the perps. Secondly, i'm a huge 2nd Amendment supporter, NRA member and future certified instructor and i don't believe firearms are the answer everytime. There are over 500,000 CPL holders in Michigan and i would say over half have NO CLUE how to properly defend themselves with their own firearm. If businesses as such allow employees to carry firearms simply because they have a permit, more harm than good will be done. Cashier's sometimes miss judge the amount of change you're to receive, now we should expect them to profile and understand criminal behavior and intent, then potentially use lethal force based on their interpretation?? Ummm bad call. My thoughts.

• ezkl2230First of all, this isn't about infringing on privacy, this is about forcing employers to either hire additional employees that are not justified based on traffic levels at these late night hours or installing and maintaining expensive video surveillance systems - both of which arguably infringe on the business owner's right to conduct his or her business.
• 
  Second, while you offer your assumptions regarding the ability of carriers as "proof" that allowing employees to carry at work is a bad idea, you have no actual proof on which to base it, while I can point to cases like those of Jeremy Hoven in Benton Harbor, Battle Creek convenience store clerk Pardeep Singh, and others that illustrate the effectiveness of this approach. A person's inability to accurately count out your change is not an indicator of the moral compass that regulates their decision to pull a trigger. PS -- if I ever discover your identity, you can rest assured that I will never take a firearms class from you
• This is "TruthHurts'" latest reply:
• Adding and or installling a security cameras in "my opinion" is the least thing that such business owners could provide to some sort of comfort that in the event of an attack, my employer has measures in place to help find my attacker. I think it's discraceful that a young woman was left alone in a desolate gas station with no sort of help. I think your comments and opinion would be much different if it (God forbid) were your daughter missing.
• 
  P.S-- I have no problem disclosing my identity to you and you would never complete our firearm class because we teach our students to perfect the fundamentals of firearms, not encourage their RAMBO ambitions. We remove and refund people like you who are looking for an opporutnity to use a firearm to prove something to oneself. I've seen far to many "tough guys" simply because they poses a CPL. You totally fit the bill based on your stated opinion.

How this guy can conclude from my stated desire to insure that we have the right to protect ourselves at work that I am some sort of a "Rambo" who is itching for a chance to pull the trigger is ridiculous beyond words!

 

[vernsimpson]

I am surprised that the wizards of smart did not suggest that these places post a sign that declares their property to be a "Crime Free Zone"!!!! :sarcastic:

 

[Peggy Reist]

It's possible that if Jessica's Law was to pass and employers were faced with the added expense of surveillance cameras and extra employees, maybe they would agree to carrying employees as a cheaper alternative. At least if it was offered as an alternative. Why couldn't that be the third option of the law? Extra employees, video surveillance, or armed employee. Sounds logical to me anyway, but that's because I'm not a liberal.

 

[Icemanii]

Have to agree with you. Would be interested in taking his class to see what kind of crap they try to instill in the students.
My work has cameras installed so would meet the criteria of this new bill. The person who 'watches' the monitors daily didn't recognize his own spouse at the door. Forcing companies to install these would just result in, as you stated, feel good legislation as most would install the same cheap junk we have here.

 

[Black Dragon]

I think they should pass a bill that allows people to carry a firearm so they can defend themselves in these types of situations. Also the bill would make it so the right to carry a firearm is something that can't be infringed upon.

I know, I know, it's a whacked out idea and would never fly.

 

[dogshawred]

Reality is a 3rd option.

It's possible that if Jessica's Law was to pass and employers were faced with the added expense of surveillance cameras and extra employees, maybe they would agree to carrying employees as a cheaper alternative. At least if it was offered as an alternative. Why couldn't that be the third option of the law? Extra employees, video surveillance, or armed employee. Sounds logical to me anyway, but that's because I'm not a liberal.

There is an inherent 3rd option built into any bill that dictates how a business owner runs his/her business. Depending upon the size and success of the business they may deem it prudent to close the business and go on with their life in some other way. People who own business didn't graduate and start a business they worked at some job and decided they wanted something better. They will always have that prior skill set to fall back on to earn a living.
~
There is the ugly 3rd option in the real world.
~
Peggy, not that I disagree with you, it's just impractical to expect Democrats to accept any use of a weapon for protection as an alternative to non-violent legislation.

 

[ezkl2230]

This was my final response to "Truth Hurts"

WOW! Talk about a jump to conclusion! As my wife would tell you, Rambo I am not; far from it. How you can conclude from my stated desire to insure that people have the opportunity to defend themselves that I am looking for an opportunity to pull the trigger is ridiculous beyond words.
***EDITED***
So as to remove all doubt about where I am coming from, I'm going to lay it out: I am sick of half measures. I am sick of gourd-headed politicians introducing bills that they KNOW have ZERO CHANCE of preventing something, but, to use the worn out phrase that so often accompanies bills of these kinds, "we have to begin somewhere." I am sick of implementing measures that have no chance of actually preventing something just to "...provide some sort of comfort…" I'll tell you what would provide "some sort of comfort" to me: knowing that if someone ever went after my wife while she is at work, she has the actual ability to protect herself and her students. That isn't likely to happen any time soon; she and her students are supposed to huddle under their desks or in a dark corner somewhere and hope that a bad guy doesn't come into THEIR room next, and if he does, they are supposed to begin throwing things at him in the HOPE that he will be dissuaded. Knowing that there is a video camera around recording the carnage gives me no comfort whatsoever.
I am not Rambo. Never have been, never want to be. I have no desire to drop the hammer on someone. But I also have a God-given RIGHT to provide for the protection of my family and me using deadly force if that time ever comes.
You think that because I support the individual's right to provide for their own defense I fit into some sort of profile you've built? I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that you know NOTHING about me - let alone enough to say with certainty that you would be kicking me out of your class.

 

[Nightmare45]

Daughter in law, carries and knows how to use weapon.