Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Mo. senators back firearms discrimination bill
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri Senate panel has endorsed legislation making it illegal for employers to discriminate against current or prospective workers who have concealed weapon permits or have used a legal firearm.
The measure would prohibit refusing to hire an applicant solely because the person has used a firearm for a legal purpose, such as self-defense.
Employers would also be prohibited from classifying job applicants differently based on whether they have a concealed carry permit or have used a gun in the past.
The House passed the bill last month. The Senate’s general laws committee approved it on a 12-0 vote Tuesday, sending it to the full Senate.
———
Firearms measure is HB1621
Online:
Marry Me
Comments
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
Look at these crybabies, whining for the nanny state to give them special rights!
I'll hire whoever I want, for whatever reason I want. How about that?
What's wrong with "Don't ask, don't tell"?
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
Somewhere there is a database server with CCW permit holder information waiting to be examined by a future employer via background check. Some permit holders have the qualification on their drivers license ready for inspection. The constitution is very clear on what our rights are, and none should be voided by an employers beef with law abiding citizens that don't fit criteria unrelated to job skills. This isn't about "special rights" as you would have it; it is about rights...period. I do agree with DADT to a point. What's the old adage? What you don't know can't hurt you?
asb 1 year, 1 month ago
The constitution grants the right to bear, not to have a job, or haven't you been reading your own posts. If an employer doesn't want to hire Pistol Packin' Pete, the employer shouldn't have to, or haven't you been reading your own posts. If the applicant doesn't want the job with arms restrictions, the applicant should go elsewhere, or haven't . . . all that said, I agree with the law, but then you'd know I support government guaranteed protections for its citizens if you've been reading my posts.
spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago
This has zero to do with the union mentality of a right to a job. It has to do with eliminating a candidate because it is found out they are legally affiliated with firearms which has zero to do with job skills. It is discrimination. Why are citizens affiliated with firearms exempt from civil rights in your mind? You are not for guaranteed protections if you believe an employer can discriminate against Pistol Packin' Pete (nice name, shows zero bias) as you suggest. Answer the question. What does having a CCW or being a member of the NRA have to do with the job description? I can still own a firearm and become the best lobbyist for gun control ever, can I not?
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago
I think it's a valid question for an employer to ask an applicant. There's a reason why some of us are determined to carry weapons, and it has to do with a view of the world that some employers may not wish to have among their employees. Other employees may welcome the gun carriers, so shouldn't they have that information?
TraceyT 1 year, 1 month ago
You are right, there is a reason why some of us are determined to carry weapons. Some are motivated by a good reason, while others are motivated by a bad reason. If the purpose of asking is to determine whether a person is a threat, then it would be good to come up with a question or evaluation that actually predicts threats, since statistics show that people who go through background checks, training, and additional expense to comply with the law are a very low threat. If, on the other hand, it is just a matter of trying to select employees that hold the same world view, then it should be just as acceptable to ask what party you belong to and who you voted for in the last election.
TraceyT 1 year, 1 month ago
If a company doesn't want to hire me because I have a permit, it is their loss. If the company's goal is to hire people who are peaceful and don't like guns, rather than people who are peaceful and good in their field, then that company will eventually go under anyway.
John 1 year, 1 month ago
Equallity is a "special right"? I agree with "Don't ask, don't tell."
Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago
I dunno. I just remember when gay and lesbian people ask to be protected from discrimination, they were accused of seeking "special rights." They said equality isn't a special right. Now you're saying it.
Interesting, isn't it? The language of it all?
John 1 year, 1 month ago
You sure like to twist things around to justify your gaffes . . . .
JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago
So when are they going to tackle some REAL ISSUES instead of wasting taxpayers's money on all this silly stuff?
Hey, legislators! The economy is still in the toilet for Missouri, and we need some decent-paying JOBS.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago
I guess we need to get some guns and concealed carry permits so we can't be discriminated against.Then eveything will be fine, right?
FussyOno 1 year, 1 month ago
The legislation mentioned here is just fluff and timewasteing on the legislators part. Here is important news for you: I wanted to make sure you heard the news on the Buffett Rule coming out of the Senate this week.
Senate Republicans filibustered the bill, blocking debate and preventing a simple up-or-down vote, despite the fact that a majority of senators supported the law.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you added your name to the call to pass the rule, and a recent CNN poll showed that almost three-quarters of Americans support the Buffett Rule. Monday's result was disappointing, but it was not entirely unexpected. Republican leadership, from Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell, has consistently lined up to defend tax breaks and loopholes for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of the middle class and the health of our economy. Apparently they think it's fair that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
It's not fair, and it's not right for the economy either. The Buffett Rule is an important part of the president's plan to make tough choices on spending and taxes to bring down the deficit and invest in the middle class. And with supporters like you keeping the heat on, the Buffett Rule is going to be a defining issue in this race. We're going to make sure the voters know President Obama is fighting for middle-class security, while Mitt Romney protects tax loopholes for himself and other millionaires.
The tea party sits in their rich comfort intent on destroying the working mans wages so they can protect their wealth and keep even more for themselves. They dont give a rip about abortion it is just another ace in their deck of cards to dupe you into giving up your livelihood and end up renting from them and buying in their company stores and dying in debt to them. And they will even pass laws so your debt will be passed on to your children. They truly want you as serfs and you had better wake up to that fact.
JMO 1 year, 1 month ago
This is a problem? Really? People who own guns are being refused jobs? Where? Seriously, give me one example where that's happened? It's such an important issue we have to have the legislature debate and pass a law about it?
How about fixing the freaking budget? How about addressing the fact that the state is 50th in salaries, but not 50th in cost of living?
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago
The NRA and ALEC say it is a problem, or could potentially become a problem, so the Missouri General Assembly gets right on it.There's no PAYING constituency for fixing the budget or fixing state pay levels, so good luck with that.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID