Should medics be allowed to carry?

[Excalibur]

Why not? Medics and Corpsman carry weapons when in the field.

 

[Thor]

I had to google "gibbet" for both definition and pronunciation. I shall now use it in every day speech.

Just doing my part to expand everyone's vocabulary!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks Doc. For me, it's similar to getting a 2 year old dressed. "Do you want to wear your red shirt or your blue shirt?" It's giving the kid the illusion of choice, when he may not want to wear a shirt at all. He may not want to go wherever it is, but that isn't a choice he's allowed. At 2, though, he won't realize that, he'll just be happy he could choose what he was allowed to choose.

Blessings,
Bill

We have a winner!

This thread had me at "allowed".

It seems to be a common way to get people to give up freedoms or at least be sneaky about gaining power. Get them focused on, and talking about, the pro's and con's of a decision and distracted from the fact that the "decision" shouldn't be up to others.

 

[EPeter213]

The real question should've been: Should EMS companies be allowed to prohibit first responders from carrying firearms?

The answer, of course, being NO.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

The real question should've been: Should EMS companies be allowed to prohibit first responders from carrying firearms?

The answer, of course, being NO.

I disagree, so long as the EMS company is not publicly owned. I figure the owner of a business has the right to run their business as they see fit.

 

[Thor]

I disagree, so long as the EMS company is not publicly owned. I figure the owner of a business has the right to run their business as they see fit.

Because the founders would have said that owners rights trump God given rights? I agree that owners should run their business as they see fit but I'm not sure that this should be a choice they have to enforce on their employees.

 

[Trigger Time]

How about this: everyone carries, until they demonstrate that they should not be trusted.

^^ this.
im sick of pre-judging people. If they **** up they pay the price that the law dictates. We cant pre-cop

 

[SMiller]

I disagree, so long as the EMS company is not publicly owned. I figure the owner of a business has the right to run their business as they see fit.

Are the owners going to provide armed security for the EMS? Yah didn't think so, why should I have to take a bullet because my employer is a idiot?

 

[Hoosier Cowboy]

Yes without a doubt!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Are the owners going to provide armed security for the EMS? Yah didn't think so, why should I have to take a bullet because my employer is an idiot?

Is anyone forcing you to work for them? Someone told me back when I was on a rig that Detroit is issuing sidearms to their medics, so it's not like every provider will have policies to make you helpless.

FWIW, I support the idea of more people carrying. I don't support blaming the boss for the choices we make, and no, that's not a pointed statement at you, SMiller. I think it sucks that any non-threat should be prohibited. Not like it stops the bad ones, anyway.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[EPeter213]

I figured the owner of a business has the right to run their business as they see fit.

I don't disagree, but I don't see what allowing employees to carry has to do with running a business. If an employee threatens someone with said firearm, or otherwise uses it to commit a criminal act, you don't need any additional justification to fire them or file criminal charges. Possession should not be restricted by employers.

 

[gregr]

I don't think you'll get support from the Ambulance Companies.

Their support isn`t needed, the Constitution supports it.

 

[gregr]

Is anyone forcing you to work for them? Someone told me back when I was on a rig that Detroit is issuing sidearms to their medics, so it's not like every provider will have policies to make you helpless.

FWIW, I support the idea of more people carrying. I don't support blaming the boss for the choices we make, and no, that's not a pointed statement at you, SMiller. I think it sucks that any non-threat should be prohibited. Not like it stops the bad ones, anyway.

Blessings,
Bill

I don`t feel the argument that no one forces one to work for company "A", who just happens to restrict a right holds water. No company ought to be able to demand one to rescind a right simply to be employed.

 

[EPeter213]

I don`t feel the argument that no one forces one to work for company "A", who just happens to restrict a right holds water. No company ought to be able to demand one to rescind a right simply to be employed.

^^^^ This.

I understand that some companies may have areas or environments in which a firearm constitutes a safety hazard, but even then, it would have to be a hazard that was inherent in the presence of the firearm, not it's use.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I don't disagree, but I don't see what allowing employees to carry has to do with running a business. If an employee threatens someone with said firearm, or otherwise uses it to commit a criminal act, you don't need any additional justification to fire them or file criminal charges. Possession should not be restricted by employers.

Their support isn`t needed, the Constitution supports it.

I don`t feel the argument that no one forces one to work for company "A", who just happens to restrict a right holds water. No company ought to be able to demand one to rescind a right simply to be employed.

^^^^ This.

I understand that some companies may have areas or environments in which a firearm constitutes a safety hazard, but even then, it would have to be a hazard that was inherent in the presence of the firearm, not it's use.

Do either of you have the right to restrict who may bring what onto your private property? If so why do you wish to strip that same right from a business?

 

[gregr]

Do either of you have the right to restrict who may bring what onto your private property? If so why do you wish to strip that same right from a business?

Just like with the now infamous "parking lot bill", my right to keep and bear arms should not be curtailed because my company might hate freedom and the Second Amendment, period. There simply is no justification for infringing upon the right that the Constitution states very clearly shall not be infringed. It`s incredible that here, of all places, an explanation for this position would be necessary.

 

[Alamo]

Just like with the now infamous "parking lot bill", my right to keep and bear arms should not be curtailed because my company might hate freedom and the Second Amendment, period. There simply is no justification for infringing upon the right that the Constitution states very clearly shall not be infringed. It`s incredible that here, of all places, an explanation for this position would be necessary.

This might be a good moral argument, but it is not supported by or protected by The Constitution which deals with the powers and limitation of the government. In the case of the 2A, the "shall not be infringed" means by the government, not by everybody. There is no article, clause, or amendment that says you can't agree with another individual to forego certain rights in exchange for something else. For example, one can be hired as a spokesman for a company and agree to tout the company line, thus limiting what one may normally say in public or even in private -- and be expect to be fired for going off script.

Parking lot bills and such are public policy laws, not "rights" laws, and there is a non-trivial argument that they infringe on the property rights of the businesses affected. Actually they do infringe on business owners' property rights, the only question is whether that is Constitutionally permissible. So far the answer is yes. I happen to like the effect of parking lot laws and I think as a matter of public security/safety policy they are good, but I do recognize the conflict with enforcing them against the property rights of the business owner.

 

[EPeter213]

I understand that individual rights and freedom can only exist up to the point where they begin to interfere with the rights of others.

The question as I see it, is whether their desire keep fire-arms out of the hands of working employees trumps the employee's right to effectively defend themselves.

I would also make a distinction between a place of business and a private residence, especially for those cases where the business is a vehicle.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, how about this?

You are a restaurant owner.
One of your servers keeps telling all the customers that the food sucks, the company is going downhill, maybe even throw in some homophobic or racists comments.

Are you arguing that the owner doesn't have a right to fire them?
After all, freedom of speech.

 

[Pewpewlife]

I have a buddy back home in Chicago who is an EMT. When you are the only one on scene you don't know what is going to happen. I believe all first responders should be given that option.