Any legal consequences of prohibiting firearms in the workplace?

[mapsjanhere]

It's always interesting when people look for the narrowest interpretation of one right to allow the broadest of another. If you go by SCOTUS, you have no right to conceal carry to begin with, you barely have a right to own a gun for home defense, and that only since Heller.
But here's another case: Does you local pastor have the right to ask you not to wear a gun to church? After all, he has a sign "come on in" at the front, he's invited you, public space and all.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

do you have a citation for legislation or significant court case that defines employment as not being voluntary?

Not sure you are asking the right question. There is the theoretical and the real. Theoretically, I can quit and move from job to job as I see fit. The reality is not that. Contracts, economic conditions and various other factors may determine how "free" I am to move about employment wise. I think a good place for you to look might be the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. I think that shows that workers have some say in the deal and the employer is not always right.

Some of you here mention that there would be no financial risk to a business owner by allowing employees to carry guns. I hate to inform you, but you are wrong. I used to work in the insurance industry.

I too used to work in that industry and sold Worker's Comp policies. Your link does not really shed any light on the argument. The article is aimed at those who carry to work, hurt themselves and try to claim Worker's Comp. The cases cited revolve mostly around law enforcement and the one case where a man shot himself the claim was denied. All injuries so claimed and approved on the job raise Worker's comp rates and firearm injuries would not do that any more than any other types of injuries. Where the risk is to the employer is General Liability even though a policy against CCW would probably not help the employer against third party lawsuits.

If you go by SCOTUS, you have no right to conceal carry to begin with, you barely have a right to own a gun for home defense, and that only since Heller.

Not sure what you mean by "barely". You have the right or you do not. As I have stated before the courts don't "give" you rights rather they interpret laws as to whether they are an infringment on a right. Big difference.

Does you local pastor have the right to ask you not to wear a gun to church?

He may certainly ask.

 

[Al Norris]

If you go by SCOTUS, you have no right to conceal carry to begin with,

Um, no. Actually, prior cases have dealt with State regulation of concealed carry, and not carry (bearing) in a general sense. Add to this, that such cases were all before Heller and (the current) incorporation (case).

The current legal landscape. as regards gun rights, is in flux.

you barely have a right to own a gun for home defense, and that only since Heller.

Barely? Hardly.

Heller's central holding was unequivocal. People have the unadorned right to keep firearms, within their homes for all lawful purposes, including self-defense. Included in that class of arms, firearms, was the subclass of handguns that a government could not ban, as handguns are demonstrably the weapon of choice for self-defense.

With McDonald being granted cert, the question is now broadened to include all people, not just those who live in Federal enclaves.

The question is not if the 2A will be incorporated, but by what manner the incorporation takes place (there is another thread that this aspect can be discussed, here).

Some of you here mention that there would be no financial risk to a business owner by allowing employees to carry guns.

Any such liability is actually a two part question. What liability if the employee is allowed only to store her arm(s) within her vehicle? as opposed to carry within the workplace itself. Add in that the State has mitigated employer liability in the former case, and the employer is still allowed to restrict personal carry within the actual job.

An employee may still leave the workplace, get a gun and return to cause havoc. That scenario has not been eliminated. It can not be foreseen and the employer's liability is the same, guns in the parking lot or not.

The fact that insurance companies might raise rates do not necessarily make a valid claim by the employer. Especially since insurance companies are want to raise rates at any pretext (seemingly real or not).

 

[lizziedog1]

Those of you that feel that private business owners should be mandated to allow guns are not that different then the Boxer's, the Feinstein's, the Brady's, or any of their kind. Different political ideas, same shove it down your throat mentality.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Those of you that feel that private business owners should be mandated to allow guns are not that different then the Boxer's, the Feinstein's, the Brady's, or any of their kind. Different political ideas, same shove it down your throat mentality.

How is my right and desire to protect myself shoving anything down anybody's throat?

Would you concede that business owners who forbid law-abiding citizens CCW be financially liable for crime that then injures said employees who didn't carry?

If not then I submit you are not offering a just position.

 

[divemedic]

Those of you that feel that private business owners should be mandated to allow guns are not that different then the Boxer's, the Feinstein's, the Brady's, or any of their kind.

I am not advocating that a business owner be mandated to allow carry. I am stating that:

1 If a property owner open a business on that property, thereby opening that property to the public, then the owner has certain obligations to the public. If the owner wishes to deny me my ability to effectively defend myself, then the owner is now responsible for providing that protection. If I am attacked while defenseless, and the property owner has not provided security, then I should be able to sue for damages.

2 No one is forcing a property owner to open a business on your property, therefore no one is forcing you to allow a firearm on your property.

3 Comparing this to healthcare is a strawman argument. Comparing a law that would prevent you from dictating what is in my pants is far different from mandating that you pay for another's healthcare.

 

[lizziedog1]

I open a small business on my property. I am also a pacifist, I do not want any weapons on my property. No government entity should dictate different to me. Yes, if someone is injured through any actions or inactions of mine, then we go to civil court. Then we leave up to a jury.

 

[roy reali]

I'll Ask Again

Not too far here there is a BLM office. There is a large sign at the front door that no weapons may be brought into that building. It is a Federal building.

I am a tax payer and taxes go to upkeep, utilities, and paychecks involved with this entity. In other words, I, along with all of you, own it. It is a public facility. Where is the outcry on their gun ban? Why the outrage towards a private owner of property?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Yes, if someone is injured through any actions or inactions of mine, then we go to civil court.

Fair enough. As to pacifists, IMO there are very few of those who truly are but that is another thread

Where is the outcry on their gun ban?

Lots of it around here. I only accept courthouses because they have metal detectors and armed bailiffs. Locally, I have always opposed any and every CCW restrictions in parks and all public spaces.

 

[roy reali]

re:TennesseeGentleman

Lots of it around here. I only accept courthouses because they have metal detectors and armed bailiffs. Locally, I have always opposed any and every CCW restrictions in parks and all public spaces.

I agree, in public areas, there should be no carry restrictions towards those that have legal right to do so. In fact, if a person can legally own a firearm, I believe that no permit, license, or any requirement should be mandated by any government entity for that person to walk around armed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We seem to be all over the block here -- discussing whether it's good policy for an employer to prohibit weapons and whether there's any good reason for him to do so. But let's remember that the OP's original question was

...If there was a counterbalancing liability--i.e. I could sue a company if they prohibited me from carrying my defensive weapon, then I get shot on their grounds--it might make for fewer reflexive "no weapons allowed" policies....

I propose the following answer to that question:

I am not aware of anyone successfully challenging in court an employer's "no weapons" policy. While employer practices that discriminate, or create a hostile work environment, based on gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation have been successfully challenged by employees, such challenges have been supported by specific statutory and common law prohibitions on such conduct when based on gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation. These are explicitly protected classes.

I'm aware of no statute or court decision making people who own guns or have a concealed weapons permit a protected class. Any legal challenge to an employer's "no weapons" policy would, it appears, be breaking new ground.

That in and of itself doesn't foreclose trying. New ground has been broken in the past. But it does mean that the success of such a venture is highly speculative and also high dependent on the law in the particular jurisdiction in which the challenge is brought.

 

[roy reali]

re:fiddletown

gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation. These are explicitly protected classes.

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

So, what's your point? My point is that in the real world these are bases upon which to hold an employer liable for discriminatory practices, but there is no parallel basis upon which to challenge an employer's "no weapons" policy. Or didn't you understand my post?

 

[divemedic]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

But one is, according to the Constitutional theory that this country was founded upon, born with a right to defend their own life. (Also, a persuasive argument can be made that sexual orientation is a learned behavior)

I open a small business on my property. I am also a pacifist, I do not want any weapons on my property. No government entity should dictate different to me. Yes, if someone is injured through any actions or inactions of mine, then we go to civil court. Then we leave up to a jury.

Fair enough, but that is not how it works. Businesses fall back on the defense that they have no control over criminals, even though the no weapons policy is what enabled the criminal in the first place.

As a business owner, say you want to chain your emergency exits shut because your employees are sneaking out to take unauthorized breaks, and you don't want some government agency dictating to you. If someone is hurt, then you go to court and let a jury decide. Should you be allowed to do so?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

Religion isn't genetic and growing up in a gun culture can be inherited like religion, though it isn't a religion.

With that said, fiddletown makes a good point. A new basis would need to be established for such a suit to work.

At this point, with all of the workplace shootings where people were not defended with firearms (though who owned them and CC permits) and with all those who have been fired for having guns in the workplace against company rules (often because they managed to defend themselves against bad guys), I would be inclined to believe this would be a legal windfall for the NRA and/or whatever legal team wanted to challenge the issue given how clear cut some folks here think the law is on this matter, be it based in discrimination or on Constitutional law. There don't seem to be a lot of lawyers chomping at the bit for these cases and I don't see where the NRA is challenging any at this time (but maybe it isn't on their site?). If the NRA is involved in some of these challenges, maybe someone can post the links to the cases. If they have filed suit, the reasons for the suit will be public knowledge and likely the NRA will have made a press release to coincide with the suit.

So if the matter isn't so clear cut and suits are being filed across the country in support of forcing employers to allow employees to carry guns at work, why isn't this happening? It isn't as if the suit would need to be against a major corporation like Domino's that would have a large legal team and a lot of backing. Initial suits against smaller private companies would the way to go, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

So far, all that has been strongly tried is getting companies to let employees leave their guns in their vehicles on the grounds of their employers.
http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm?recID=72776
http://www.insidecounsel.com/Issues...-and-Companies-Duel-Over-Gun-Legislation.aspx

 

[roy reali]

re:doubleNaughtSpy

It isn't as if the suit would need to be against a major corporation like Domino's that would have a large legal team and a lot of backing. Initial suits against smaller private companies would the way to go, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

Big corporations and small private companies are different to me. Regulate one of them all you want, leave the other one alone as much as possible.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I agree, in public areas, there should be no carry restrictions towards those that have legal right to do so. In fact, if a person can legally own a firearm, I believe that no permit, license, or any requirement should be mandated by any government entity for that person to walk around armed.

Agreed! However, the OP includes the idea that if a private company prohibits law-abiding CCW then they should be financially liable for crime that injures employees and customers who might otherwise have defended themselves against attack for which the business owner did not provide protection from.

These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

As Double Naught Spy said religion is not genetic. However, I AM born with the God-given right of self defense and that may require the use of a gun.

With that said, fiddletown makes a good point. A new basis would need to be established for such a suit to work.

A couple of thoughts.

Legal precedents take time to develope. CCW really hasn't been around that long in the states (FL was first of any size in 1987) so it will take a while for the right cases to develope.

Second, the NRA HAS bashed Pizza Hut and other workplaces (urging boycotts and such) for firing drivers who defended themselves from attack. Also, the NRA has supported laws that restrict employers from prohibiting employees from storing guns in their cars and has passed those laws in several states.

So, I see this coming to a head legally as more and more people CCW. As you know you have to get the "right" set of facts in a case to set the precedent and that may come soon or take a while. Like Heller. One step at a time.

As the general public gets used to the idea more and more that folk should be able to defend themselves and workplace violence continues I could see the courts or legislatures going over to this idea that the right to self defense trumps employer "rights" and allow liability on those who refuse to let employees defend themselves. We'll see.

 

[divemedic]

I just find it extremely hypocritical to hear someone tell me that they don't want the government interfering in the running of their business, even though they are using government interference to protect their assets by having that business incorporated.

It seems to me that they are only interested in preventing government interference when the government is protecting the other guy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...using government interference to protect their assets by having that business incorporated....

How is incorporation "using government interference"? The corporation as a form of business organization goes back several hundred years and has been recognized in both Common Law and Civil (Roman) Law. Each form of business organization has long recognized legal consequences.

The government does incorporate your business. You incorporate your business and then make certain public record filings so that others who do business with you know how you are organized and who you are, and so that the government can tax you appropriately.

 

[divemedic]

because a corporation is a fictional entity that is created by law (government) to shield the owner from personal liability for any bad decisions. This allows the owner to reap the financial rewards while taking very little risk beyond the limited amount of money invested in the corporation.

When I am an employee of your corporation, I am not entering an employment agreement with you, I am entering an employment agreement with a fictional entity created by the government for your financial benefit.