The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

62° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

Mailbag: Oct. 7

University should not cut off custodial health care coverage

This letter is to express my opinion on the university’s health care coverage changes for employees. I know opinions are expressed about chalk, marijuana and things of that sort. However, to employees who work here for years, health insurance has been one of the benefits which make it plausible to work here at the UA. Staff members know that health insurance is at the top of our benefits package list.

These past few weeks, we have learned of exclusions for certain dependants who have always been covered. My particular situation is a disabled adult child. Now, the university will cut off coverage. This is a young adult who will not be covered anymore and I feel very betrayed.  My child will be with me the rest of my life or her life and to decide to cut off coverage shows me what my 30 years as a staff member at the university means.

 

Johnny Hostetler

Custodial area supervisor

Congratulations on missing the point

I wish to congratulate the editors of the Daily Wildcat. With an astounding one-two punch, you’ve managed to completely miss the true intent and impact of the two gun-related laws featured on the front page of last week’s paper.

A.R.S. 12-781 ensures, among other things, that property owners and employers cannot prohibit firearms from being locked and stored in privately owned motor vehicles. The law does not change any rules about whether concealed carry permits are required; an easily accessible, hidden firearm still counts as a concealed weapon and still requires a permit. It’s still legal for a law-abiding citizen to store an unloaded weapon in a locked container without a permit, just as it’s always been. “”Youngsters”” under 21 are still prohibited by federal law from owning a handgun, so I fail to see how Dr. Shelton’s statements have any relevance. This change in Arizona law simply ensures that those who can already legally carry can defend themselves on the way to work — including university employees. As university policy still prohibits concealed carry permit holders from bringing their weapons with them despite having a full background check and having been trained on the proper use of a firearm, I suppose the guns will have to be left in locked vehicles where they will be subject to potential theft.  That’s the real twist here.

A.R.S. 4-229 clarifies rules that prohibited concealed carry holders from carrying a weapon into ANY establishment that serves alcohol, not just bars. As the line between a bar and a restaurant is blurry, lawmakers understood that legal battles would tie up the courts if they forbade weapons only in bars. The new law prevents this loophole, stating that establishments can post a sign prohibiting concealed carry if they so choose. I’m sure most bars will post such signs, but the real point is that permit-holders can now legally defend themselves in a Chili’s or Applebee’s, as long as they don’t drink while carrying. If a bar doesn’t post the sign and you feel they should, you’re free to drink elsewhere.

Instead of being informative about the current laws, you chose to spread fear in a sensationalistic fashion. The paper could have provided insightful commentary, researching the issue and the facts before publication. Instead, the editors dropped the ball. Go take a firearms safety course, talk to some professors in the university’s law department, and then publish.

Jeff Hiner

Electrical and computer engineering graduate student

 

More to Discover
Activate Search