Any legal consequences of prohibiting firearms in the workplace?

[Frank Ettin]

A corporation may be a fictional entity, but it has a solid, historical foundation. The corporate form goes back some 700 years and is a widely recognized and understood form of business organization.

At one time, corporations were formed by royal charter. Today, they are formed privately, without governmental action, except for the recording by a state agency of the documents forming the corporation. A modern corporation can be described as follows:

A corporation is a legal entity separate from the persons who own it or the persons who manage or operate it. In British tradition it is the term designating a body corporate, where it can be either a corporation sole (an office held by an individual natural person, which is a legal entity separate from that person) or a corporation aggregate (involving more persons). In American and, increasingly, international usage, the term denotes a body corporate formed to conduct business, ....

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders that invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve. People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, for their goods and services, .... for economic growth and social development.

The defining feature of a corporation is its legal independence from the people who create it. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment ....

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[1] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[2] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[3] Five common characteristics of the modern corporation, ... are:

* delegated management, in other words, control of the company placed in the hands of a board of directors
* limited liability of the shareholders (so that when the company is insolvent, they only owe the money that they subscribed for in shares)
* investor ownership, which Hansmann and Kraakman take to mean, ownership by shareholders.[4]
* separate legal personality of the corporation (the right to sue and be sued in its own name)
* transferrable shares (usually on a listed exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange or Euronext in Paris)...

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation emphasis added)

 

[jimpeel]

Actually, there have been several threads related to private companies banning employee carry or possession of firearms.

The AOL suit in Utah comes readily to mind and was discussed in several threads in L&P. A lawsuit was brought to bear which was discussed as well.

AOL won.

AOL Fires employees in Utah

AOL Lawsuit update

Businesses Watch AOL Employees' Gun Lawsuit

Judge rules in favor of AOL in case of employee gun ban

Judge rules in favor of AOL in case of employee gun ban (There were two threads w/ same title)

There were other cases and discussions as well.

Employer Weapons Policy

Is this legal? Parking lot question

Florida Attorney General taking Complaints of rights violations

 

[MedicineBow]

This has wandered far afield.

To summarize:

First, right now, if you are an employee, injured at work, then you receive compensation through the worker's compensation system. It doesn't matter if you get harmed by a bad guy or the roof caves in. So, yes, you have those rights...and it has nothing to do with whether you get to carry a firearm as an employee.

Second, if you are a visitor at a business, and (in summary) if the business doesn't take reasonable steps to protect you from reasonably foreseeable criminal activity, then you have recourse against that business. So, yes, you have those rights.

Now, if you want to pass regulations to force private parties to allow you to carry guns on the premises....well, write your representatives.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Second, if you are a visitor at a business, and (in summary) if the business doesn't take reasonable steps to protect you from reasonably foreseeable criminal activity

Haven't many courts ruled that violent crime is not reasonably foreseeable? What reasonable steps must a business owner take? My guess is not much. I know 7-11 says they did by installing cameras. LOL so they get a good picture of who kills you I suppose.

 

[divemedic]

I know that Morgan and Morgan (a large Florida attorney firm) have sued businesses for not lighting parking lot at night as a reasonable step to prevent crime. I have never heard of a business being successfully sued for a no firearms policy.

 

[DG45]

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my layman's opinion (which is probably worth what you're paying for it), but I think an avenue that might be pursued is to try to legally hold employers or a school (like Virginia Tech for example) to the same standard of screening for guns as an airport or a courthouse ; ie. they don't have to ban guns from their premises but if they do, they should be forced to accept the liability for that; i.e., they should be forced to do more than just put up a sign saying guns are banned on the campus or premises (which only has the effect of disarming the law-abiding and making them sheep for the slaughter). Instead these businesses or schools should be legally forced to either allow the law-abiding to have guns on campus for their own protection, or if not, then they could ban all guns in their business or campus, but if they did, then they should be forced to provide a REAL screen for firearms just like an airport or courthouse performs to guarantee that NO ONE gets onto that business or school property with a gun, not even a crazy or a criminal. (And if some crazy or criminal did get onto that business or school property with a gun and harm someone, then that school or business enterprise who failed in their duty to protect the employes or students they had disarmed should be liable for the most severe legal penalties.) The place to start the ball rolling on this would seem to be the state legislatures or on ballot propositions or even just by candidates for office making this a campaign issue. Any comments?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Funny how we complain here about how we dislike more regulation when we think it has a negative impact against us, but we are more than happy to promote more regulation when we think it is for our benefit.

 

[Uncle Billy]

It seems to me that if it's legal for an employer to ban CC for his employees, and he doesn't, and one of them shoots someone (justified or not), then whomever got shot has grounds for an action brought against the employer for not trying to prevent him from being shot. Principles are one thing, legal exposure is another, which trumps principle most of the time.

I think the general public (i.e. the majority of people, more than half of whom aren't avid gun enthusiasts) aren't all that enthusiastic about a bunch of amateurs, with no training and questionable skills, who have a penchant for guns as their motivation, being allowed to go among us with deadly firepower they have enthusiasm for using. That idea frightens me too. Oh, they believe CC ought to be legal (mostly so they could do it if they chose to), but they concurrently have a legit fear of what that enables. That gets a corporate voice when lawyers get involved.

It's the two-pronged sword of our rights. The Founders were clear what our rights were to be, but they didn't think it necessary to speak of the attendant responsibilities, the motivation for living up to those responsibilities supposedly coming from an individual citizen's character, ethics and understanding. We have the rights, more or less, but how much to we live up to the attending responsibilities? Not so much, which is why CC as a Second Amendment right isn't without its perceived dangers.