Border Wall Contractors ask for Guns

[Elderberry]

The Truth About Guns by  Johannes Paulsen   April 12, 2017

Concerned about the safety of their workers, at least one of the contractors bidding on construction of President Trump’s “big, beautiful wall” on America’s southern frontier has requested permission for its workers to carry firearms and to be shielded from liability in the event they need to be fired in anger.

The contractor also asked if its workers could be given an exemption from strict state gun control laws.

California is the obvious concern of the unidentified contractor, as it not only has enacted many infringements on residents’ right to keep and bear arms, but also refuses to recognize carry licenses of non-residents. Of the other border states, Arizona has enacted full Vermont-style constitutional carry, and New Mexico protects the right of all persons to openly carry a firearm. Texas isn’t quite as protective of the right to carryr, but the Lone Star State will issue non-resident licenses to law-abiding persons.

The request is probably a pipe dream on the part of the contractor, as any sort of effort to pierce the sovereignty of the Golden State would require an act of Congress at minimum, and as John Boch lamented, the Democrats still can use the filibuster in the Senate to block legislation.
Via pbs.org

Numerous other contractors also expressed concern about possible “attacks” during construction of the wall. Bidding closed on the job last week and over three hundred companies submitted bids. The Trump Administration is expected to select four to ten contractors to build prototypes in San Diego. California is considering legislation to officially boycott any contractor that works on the project.

More: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/04/johannes-paulsen/trump-border-wall-mexico-illegal-immigrants-guns/

[Frank Cannon]

has requested permission for its workers to carry firearms and to be shielded from liability in the event they need to be fired in anger.

Can anyone think of a situation other than war where firing a gun in "anger" is acceptable? Some worker is going to sit on another workers pack of Marlboro's during break and one of them is leaving the work site in a body bag.

[rodamala]

has requested permission for its workers to carry firearms and to be shielded from liability in the event they need to be fired in anger.

Can anyone think of a situation other than war where firing a gun in "anger" is acceptable? Some worker is going to sit on another workers pack of Marlboro's during break and one of them is leaving the work site in a body bag.

You obviously don't know how much a pack of Marlboros costs these days.

[txradioguy]

I wonder who poses more of a threat to them...Mexicans on the south side of the wall being built or the violent protesters on the left who will line up on the north side of the wall trying to stop it from being built?

[EC]

I wonder who poses more of a threat to them...Mexicans on the south side of the wall being built or the violent protesters on the left who will line up on the north side of the wall trying to stop it from being built?

The answer to your question is yes. 

[bigheadfred]

I wonder who poses more of a threat to them...Mexicans on the south side of the wall being built or the violent protesters on the left who will line up on the north side of the wall trying to stop it from being built?

I don't know if there is a difference.

[Hondo69]

The people I know who worked in the south Texas oil patch told me each and every worker definitely was packing.  Problems only happened at night so they slept with their weapons under their pillows. 

[sneakypete]

The Truth About Guns by  Johannes Paulsen   April 12, 2017

@Elderberry

The request is probably a pipe dream on the part of the contractor, as any sort of effort to pierce the sovereignty of the Golden State would require an act of Congress at minimum, and as John Boch lamented, the Democrats still can use the filibuster in the Senate to block legislation.
Via pbs.org

Maybe not. If they were smart,they would have their His and Her Panic and their black workers threaten to file a discrimination law suit if they aren't acknowledged TO ALREADY HAVE A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE FROM ATTACK.

Yes,I know and agree. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense,but the right to self-defense is a NATURAL RIGHT of all living creatures,and it predates any and every man-made law that has ever existed. Common sense will tell you that the ONLY effective method of self-defense against an armed attacker is to be armed yourself.

Just watch leftist heads explode all over 'murika if some black workers file suits that state exactly what I wrote above.

[sneakypete]

has requested permission for its workers to carry firearms and to be shielded from liability in the event they need to be fired in anger.

Can anyone think of a situation other than war where firing a gun in "anger" is acceptable?

Well,yeah,you pompous fool. MOST people would get angry over someone attacking themselves,their children,or even other people they knew with no good reason. Especially if the attack was made using a weapon.

I realize that people like you who live in the northeast have "evolved" to the point where your spouses and children aren't worth fighting and maybe even killing a criminal in order to protect them,but most of us are a little backwards when it comes to things like that.

Some worker is going to sit on another workers pack of Marlboro's during break and one of them is leaving the work site in a body bag.

Yeah,causen that happens every day in "backwards" states that "allow" their residents to EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND BIRTH-GIVEN RIGHTS to defend themselves,huh?

[sneakypete]

I wonder who poses more of a threat to them...Mexicans on the south side of the wall being built or the violent protesters on the left who will line up on the north side of the wall trying to stop it from being built?

@txradioguy

That's easy. The leftists on the north side of the border,most of whom will be actual citizens. 99 percent of the illegals who come here are coming here for the free stuff so they can live better and safer lives. They have no interest in harming anyone.

[sneakypete]

I don't know if there is a difference.

@bigheadfred

There is,and it's obvious. The families with children are not coming here to physically attack anyone from anywhere.

[Bigun]

Why are they "asking for guns"?  As I understand it, owning guns is legal in the USA and self defense is as well!

[txradioguy]

Why are they "asking for guns"?  As I understand it, owning guns is legal in the USA and self defense is as well!

IIRC with Federal contracts it's kind of a no no to carry a gun on the worksite.

[bigheadfred]

@bigheadfred

There is,and it's obvious. The families with children are not coming here to physically attack anyone from anywhere.

I was referring to violent protestors on either side of the fence. One and the same thing.

[Bigun]

IIRC with Federal contracts it's kind of a no no to carry a gun on the worksite.

Sure would like to see that in writing.  Where is it codified in law?

[driftdiver]

@bigheadfred

There is,and it's obvious. The families with children are not coming here to physically attack anyone from anywhere.

@sneakypete
So you know what their motivations are eh.  Do you know them personally?   have you done background checks on them?

They are here illegally.  That hurts us.
They use public services.  That hurts us.
They risk the lives of their children to make the trip.  That hurts them.

Either you are for a nation of laws or you're not.   We now know where you stand.

[txradioguy]

Sure would like to see that in writing.  Where is it codified in law?

The Google search came back with too many hits to give you just one.  But from the search results...everyone from USDA to even private companies...get to decide whether you are allowed to carry a weapon while working on a jobsite, laboratory, etc etc.

[thackney]

has requested permission for its workers to carry firearms and to be shielded from liability in the event they need to be fired in anger.

Can anyone think of a situation other than war where firing a gun in "anger" is acceptable? Some worker is going to sit on another workers pack of Marlboro's during break and one of them is leaving the work site in a body bag.

If someone threatens me of my family, i won't be in a happy mood when I shoot them.

[Bigun]

The Google search came back with too many hits to give you just one.  But from the search results...everyone from USDA to even private companies...get to decide whether you are allowed to carry a weapon while working on a jobsite, laboratory, etc etc.

That's what I thought! And why I don't see a problem here.
 

[txradioguy]

That's what I thought! And why I don't see a problem here.

The problem is if the Pentagon puts in the contract they let out for bid that legal gun owners aren't allowed to carry their weapons on the jobsite.

Not to mention that in the PC world the Pentagon lives in...they tend to seek out and do business with contractors that are like minded when it comes to carrying guns.

It will all come down to the language in the contract that the DoD writes and puts out for bid.

[Hondo69]

Wonder if the contract says anything about hiring mercs?

[txradioguy]

Wonder if the contract says anything about hiring mercs?

Perhaps Black Water should offer to provide security for the construction crews.

[Sanguine]

@bigheadfred

There is,and it's obvious. The families with children are not coming here to physically attack anyone from anywhere.

@sneakypete, I'm guessing you haven't spent a whole lot of time on the border.  I can't say anything about CA, but I am very familiar with the Texas border.  It has always been a dangerous place, and given the unprecedented amount of illegal traffic over the last 16 years, it has become even more so. 

Illegal means illegal, and people who are willing to violate another country and break its laws will not generally stop at just coming in.  There's lots more laws to break, and violence generally accompanies lawbreaking. 

[txradioguy]

@sneakypete, I'm guessing you haven't spent a whole lot of time on the border.  I can't say anything about CA, but I am very familiar with the Texas border.  It has always been a dangerous place, and given the unprecedented amount of illegal traffic over the last 16 years, it has become even more so. 

Illegal means illegal, and people who are willing to violate another country and break its laws will not generally stop at just coming in.  There's lots more laws to break, and violence generally accompanies lawbreaking.

Exactly...despite what the media shows us...it's not grandmas and little kids that are mainly coming across the border...it's MS 13 and worse.

[Hondo69]

Gang members of MS 13 are people too.