Prof. Bainbridge offers a dissenting opinion to the West Virginia Supreme Court’s decision. I think his argument is quite powerful, though I think it’s weakened by the “gun nut” references.
You don’t have to be a “gun nut” or a “nut” of any sort to want to defend yourself against a criminal, to applaud others who do so, or even to endorse limitations on employment at will when people are fired for exercising their right to self-defense. Conversely, one can conclude that employers should be free to set up their own rules here, or even conclude that employers are wise to set up a no-self-defense (or no-self-defense-with-guns) rule — a matter on which I express no opinion here — without condemning the other side as “gun nuts.”
UPDATE: Clayton Cramer takes a similar view.
Comments are closed.