Hmmm...We all claim to be defenders of freedom, but we carry torches and pitchforks to the doors of a private company for enforcing their own policies. While I wouldn't patronize an establishment whose policies weren't in tune with my own moral compass, I would still respect their rights as a private entity to regulate the actions of their employees within the confines of company time.
Imagine a Pizza Hut driver armed with high velocity FMJ rounds, and he fires in an obvious self defense action.....the round goes through the bg and into a little girl on her way home from ballet class. The driver is on company time and is therefore a representative of the company........anybody smell HUGE lawsuit?
Don't misunderstand, I would be all for Pizza Hut changing their policy to allow drivers to carry, but I am also all for Pizza Hut deciding, as a private company, whatever their policy will be.
If you're uncomfortable delivering while complying with Pizza Hut's non-carry policy, I'd suggest you find a more accomidating place of employment. After all, this has been a standing policy, and the employees were aware, or should have been aware of it from the start.
When Starbucks told the Brady Campaign to take a hike, I was impressed....not for their overt support of gun rights, that support was only assumed by us. Starbuck's position was not one of gun rights, it was simply Starbuck's demonstrating their rights to make and maintain their OWN policy. I was impressed only at Starbuck's decision not to cave in to the pressure applied by the Brady Campaign. I would expect Pizza Hut to act the same way. I would much rather see them not cave in to any pressure, and maintain their OWN policy. In my mind, the only thing an OC demonstration would accomplish would be to have Pizza Hut ban firearms entirely.
Let them try to ban firearms entirely. Signs have no force of law in Indiana. If they ask me to leave, it will be after they've taken my order and started my pizza, and if I have to leave, I'm certainly not going to stop to pay for something I can't stay to eat. Result: Lose/lose for them. The "little girl on the way home from ballet" class is a classic Brady teeth-gnash/handwring/panty-wet in which I place no stock. See Cooper's "Rule #4". Further, if they wish to continue this policy of theirs after HB 1065 becomes law, they will face lawsuits they will lose. If their policy is that employees may not be armed, that would be a policy forbidding possession on their premises. If the employee defends himself OFF of their premises, I don't see as they have any say in the matter. Indiana is, however, employment at will, so they'll just find another reason to fire the employee, or will simply not provide him/her enough hours to make a living and they will go elsewhere. I don't think PH will care. There are lots of sheople willing to be cannon fodder.
Blessings,
Bill