Carry at Work

[Frank Ettin]

...

His so called claim is essentially the hypothesis that an employer may reasonably be concerned about the potential liability that could be associated with employees have no or minimal training could present a liability risk.

No, it is more this:

I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.

...

Functionally equivalent.

...or this:

Just reading this board for a few weeks would convince me that the average gun enthusiast is fairly unlikely to be a practical minded, well trained and smart weapon user.

Those are claims and there is no evidence to support them. Just opinion...

He's not making a statement of fact. He is stating an opinion, and he his stating the bases for his opinion, i. e., his observations in a particular environment.

...Data from numerous academic studies from a well known and respected researcher is "So-called data"? What data would you accept?...

The problem is that the data apparently doesn't exist. There appears to be no studies which look at the level of training or skill of a person using a gun defensively and outcome. Indeed, data relating to successful DGU does not seem to including any information about training.

...Other than these three anecdotes you keep dutifully repeating what do the overall stats about DGUs and all these CCW holders shooting up innocent people. Where is your "so-called" data?...

My claim is merely that private citizens have misused their guns. The cases I reference are sufficient to show that much. I'm not making any claims about how frequent misuse is, merely that it occurs. No amount of data regarding successful DGU can change that.

In any case even one example of misuse is sufficient to rebut your statement:

...HE THINKS is a danger and the stats in the pages I gave him show that not to be true.

Even one misuse demonstrates that there is a danger.

 

[RX-79G]

TG,

I was not submitting a percentage likelihood for an ND. My point is that most employers would regard that chance of a discharge as being too high if it is not zero. For them, the ability to eliminate a known risk to everyone and liability is a better choice than prioritizing the vulnerability of a single employee.

My own experiences inform me that you have absolutely no reliable data about ND statistics. Why? Because there is absolutely no mechanism for detecting or reporting the full number of NDs and close calls unless the shot is detected, reported to the police AND ticketed. I couldn't say if unreported close calls are 90%, 99% or 99.9% of all incidents, and neither can you.

That explains the reasoning, but the legal basis is little different than not allowing someone you're not close to coming into your house with a gun to babysit your kids. It is your house, your people and your future. Why put everything you care about in the hands of someone you don't know and truly trust? No principle or single individual's perceived need of a gun should override your responsibility to all the people that rely on you.

In public and at home it is your call. But it is my call what sort of dangers come into my home. I don't understand what sort of individual liberties you think exist that take away other peoples right to choose what happens on their property. That's not freedom.

As I said earlier, a gun is only one solution to a personal security issue. If work makes it impossible, try a non- gun solution or get a job outside the war zone.

 

[44 AMP]

I made a very salient point that on private property, the property owner has ultimate moral and liability responsibility for his guests.

I don't see this as a major point of contention. Likewise, I don't see anyone claiming that stupid, foolish, clumsy, inattentive, un or under trained, (choose which ever you like best) are not dangerous walking around with loaded guns. Trained people have accidents, too.

Also a few minutes reading on the Internet will show you lots of people who probably ought not to be trusted with guns, knives, matches, automobiles, or any other thing where incorrect use might result in injury.

The devil is in the details, and how we go about them.

And let us also remember that "one size fits all" fits almost no one perfectly, and zero tolerance policies are actually prejudice.

There are places where customers could legally CCW, but employees cannot. OK, I get it, management is all about risk/cost. SO many take an absolute no guns policy. Its the easy way out, for them. It also shows a concrete lack of trust, but only about guns, and their employees.

With some employees, its justified. But not with all, I think. I'm fine with management telling the kid who can't even make change without the cash register computer telling them how much to give me back, that they can't have a gun on company premises.

I'm not ok with an employer just making blanket policy in this regard. They can, and do, and have the legal right to do so. I'm just not ok with it.

Many places have some kind of proficiency requirement for a concealed carry license. Why is it that so many employers automatically accept your state license to drive (including commercial licenses) and yet will not think of accepting a state license approving you for CCW?

Why is it that people who may be operating millions of dollars of complex machinery, with the safety of possibly hundreds of people in their hands for hours at a time as instantly assumed to be drooling Neanderthals who will run amok at the slightest frustration when the machinery is a gun? (yes, this is aimed at armed pilots, but also applies to many other jobs)

Also, the "no gun at work" rule prevents non-carry possession as well. Not cool with employees wearing a gun at work? OK, your house, your rules, but, what about the people who don't feel the need to carry, but want to have something available? They make these neat little lockboxes now days....

One place I worked, had, at one time, a "drop box" type set up. There was no carry or possession allowed on site, but carry to and from work was legal, so they provide a storage you could check your gun in, and pick it up on your way home. Always seem like a good idea to me, especially when your other options were either leave it home, or leave it in your car while at work.

There are lots of ways this issue could be handled. To me, a flat no guns at all, ever, for everyone rule is just cheaping out.

 

[RX-79G]

44amp,

I don't think this thread is really about only one kind of ban on guns at work. An employer can just as easily grant an exemption as post a policy. Employers and owners are absolute monarchs when it comes to who they allow to do what.

Your driving analogy doesn't really work: All drivers have had many hours of training, regular re-licencing, eye tests, enforcement, infraction record keeping and liabity insurance.

You can carry a century old gun and ammo that you have a complete misunderstanding of how the safety system works. An incredible number of people carry at half cock, for instance. That's like a driver with no insurance driving a pre-recall Pinto with the bumpers removed.

No safety record, no safety or equipment standards, all the liability risk - what could possibly make any of that attractive to the boss? An employer could do all sorts of pro-gun things, like lockers, but all of them only increase risk and liability.

If the employee wants to assume all of the liability for their personal gun needs, all they need to do is break the rules and live with that if discovered. It just isn't reasonable to expect someone else to shoulder your liability.

A truly pro- gun employers best move would be to have no policy at all. They might at least avoid some of the liability by not "knowing" what was happening. Not the most responsible or moral move, though.

 

[sigcurious]

Your driving analogy doesn't really work: All drivers have had many hours of training, regular re-licencing, eye tests, enforcement, infraction record keeping and liabity insurance

Without delving into the general discussion, this breakdown of the analogy is incorrect. Not all drivers have hours of training, just like CCW the requirements for a drivers license vary widely from state to state, from show up take a written test over and over until you pass and drive without crashing, to mandated training. Renewals, also follows similar requirements on similar time frames, eye tests are largely irrelevant, being tested once every 4 to 5 years speaks nothing to whether the persons eyes changed over that period or if they ever use their corrective lenses outside of when the test occurs. Enforcement and records are just the same, get caught driving poorly or using a gun inappropriately, it gets enforced and recorded. Insurance, an employer has no control over or ability to determine whether a driver is actually insured except in limited cases where it might be requisite for the job, ie delivery driver (and if all drivers had insurance, I sure as heck wouldn't be paying for uninsured motorist coverage ). Other safety standards, I can drive a ford model T or a busted pinto down the road which meet none of the modern safety standards, just as someone could use an old firearm that has none of the current safety implementations.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I would jump back in. The issue as I see it has nothing to do with the training or competency of CCW holders.

The issue I see it is that if an employer is aware of an employee working in a dangerous work environment subject to violent crime (robbery) and takes little or no actions to mitigate the danger and then on top on that disallows CCW for employees, an employee is morally ok to ignore that CCW ban and carry anyway without telling his bosses. Basically, what the OP story I posted was about.

Since the courts will not let the employee or his surviving family sue for not letting him carry if he is killed or injured by criminals then I personally could really care less about any potential employer liability.

The employer is mitigating his risk at the expense of the employee by banning CCW in a dangerous environment. Immoral IMHO.

So, the employee mitigates his risk at the expense (possibly) of the employer. Quid pro Quo.

 

[born2climb]

Your driving analogy doesn't really work: All drivers have had many hours of training, regular re-licencing, eye tests, enforcement, infraction record keeping and liabity insurance.

I will have to disagree with you there, rather strongly, in fact. I know of several drivers who have had their licenses suspended for DUI, but it does not render them "unable" to drive, even drive safely when sober. My state does not require eye tests, aside from your initial exam at 16, or whenever you first get your license.

I heard a story once, from two sources I knew personally, of an elderly gentleman who was driving his wife to one of those luncheons provided at community centers for the elderly. He swept wide in a turn, actually leaving the road and running into the ditch. One rear wheel was in the air, spinning wildly when a man (whom I know) stopped to assist. He told the old gentleman to put it in PARK and kill the engine...to which the old man roared, "You mean we're already there?" Point being, THAT old man had no business driving. Decades of experience mean nothing when the mind is no longer capable of processing data at appreciable speeds.

 

[RX-79G]

An employer has an obligation to provide a safe work environment. That means following OSHA regs, establishing security measures that prevent or discourage crime and having employee policies in place that protect guests from bad choices.

Installing armed glass and banning carry are the same thing for an employer, not opposites.

An employer who doesn't care about protecting workers and patrons is asking for a lawsuit.

I don't understand what makes you think an unscrupulous employer makes a good example for how aan owner should behave. Good employers are already attempting to make work safe, which may include a gun ban.

Don't work in an unsafe environment, don't work for unscrupulous people, and if the neighborhood is bad, find a deterrent that isn't a liability for your employer.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

An employer has an obligation to...establishing security measures that prevent or discourage crime

Not sure they are legally required to do that. Would have to check with the law guys. I think in most states the legal standard is "reasonably foreseeable" and most courts have ruled crime (like armed robbery) are not.

I don't understand what makes you think an unscrupulous employer makes a good example for how an owner should behave

I didn't say it was a good example. That is just the way most of them are.

Don't work in an unsafe environment, don't work for unscrupulous people, and if the neighborhood is bad, find a deterrent that isn't a liability for your employer.

In other words let them eat cake. As I have said before, my choice is to be responsible for my own safety and insure I get home at night. The owners bottom-line is secondary if that to me.

 

[RX-79G]

Born,

Perhaps I should have said "As imperfect and fallible as driver and vehicle regs are, they are still worlds more reliable as an indication of employee fitness to drive than the issue of a CCW permit holder's fitness to carry a gun at your business."

Let's keep this in context to what was suggested and answered. The issue is whether employers have any solid reason to believe the average employee SHOULD be trusted with a gun at their business. Lacking any sort of applicable stat or licensing, the smart thing is to avoid the known dangers of firearms on the property. That's the owners right, and it protects him and people that rely on him.

This is definitely an issue of rights, but it bothers gun people when what is right isn't a gun right.

 

[RX-79G]

Then carry a gun, TG. Just don't act shocked when your employer won't accept liability for YOUR gun. His rights and safety may not be compatible with your perception of the only way to safeguard yourself. That is not his fault - it's your problem to solve - which is the way it should be.

Just as the government isn't our keepers, your boss isn't obliged to put you before everyone else.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Now we're talking! By the way, I never said the employer should accept liability for my gun. I think you got off topic from the OP with the training and other stuff.

My point was that it was not immoral to disregard immoral rules (like CCW ban) and carry anyway and it seems that most have (some grudgingly) agreed. I'll add you to that list now!

 

[shortwave]

After 7 pages of discussion on this topic, it doesn't seem that there has been any change in heart by anyone.

Things we know for sure are:

1) Employer has a right to not allow guns on their property same as a person can deny guns on their private property.

2) Nobody is holding a gun to our head(couldn't resist) making us stay employed with a 'no guns allowed' employer.

3) There are those that will carry anyway regardless of getting fired from the job cause the employee feels the employer has made morally bad rules for not allowing employee to carry. Even though employee makes a daily choice to break the law(in some states if signage is posted) and come to work everyday while carrying. All the while claiming immorality on the employers part.
I guess to some that means...two immoral acts(no gun rule by employer, carrying anyway by employee) constitutes one moral act.

A few things that have not been ironed out:

1) Given there are choices made by the employee to not be honest and be deceiving, should 'morality' even enter into the topic of discussion?

2) If employers went further and pursued criminal charges on an employee for carrying while at work rather then the usual firing of the employee, would that change a few minds?
In other words, do you feel the employers 'no gun' policy is immoral enough that if you knew you would not only be fired but also be charged with a felony if caught would you still cc at work? Be honest about that one.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

My input:

Nobody is holding a gun to our head(couldn't resist) making us stay employed with a 'no guns allowed' employer.

True, but I'm not sure in some cases there is a real choice.

I guess to some that means...two immoral acts(no gun rule by employer, carrying anyway by employee) constitutes one moral act.

I would say that since the rule is immoral there is no obligation to obey it.

should 'morality' even enter into the topic of discussion?

It has often on this board in the past and so that is why I brought it up this time.

In other words, do you feel the employers 'no gun' policy is immoral enough that if you knew you would not only be fired but also be charged with a felony if caught would you still cc at work? Be honest about that one.

Is the choice of death or serious lifelong injury better than possible jail time?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My point was that it was not immoral to disregard immoral rules (like CCW ban) and carry anyway and it seems that most have (some grudgingly) agreed. I'll add you to that list now!

I don't think "most" have agreed. I don't even think "most" have agreed that it is immoral for an employer to impose a gun ban on his/her employees. "Immoral" is a value judgment. Your judgment is that this is "immoral," but a business owner also has a "moral" obligation (to himself, to any investors in his business, and to his employees) to do what's best for the business. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, business owners are receiving advice from legal advisors and insurance advisors that it is "best" for businesses to NOT allow employees to have guns on company premises.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, what is "immoral" about a business owner following whatever course of action appears to best further the financial health and success of the business? If there are investors, or if the owner has a family, is it not "immoral" for him to take an action that he does NOT perceive to be in the best interests of the company?

 

[shortwave]

True, but I'm not sure in some cases there is a real choice

As has been stated before "there is always a choice".
Life is full of them in most every waking moment.

I would say that since the rule is immoral there is no obligation to obey it

I would say that just because you think a rule is immoral does not make it so to everyone. Especially since you are on private property while at work that you have no obligation to be there and have no choice in the rules set forth by the company. Of course, unless you own the company.

If you think a certain act is immoral and post that you don't want that act performed on your property, I then come to your house and perform that act , do I have a right to do so cause I don't think the act is immoral? And that you are immoral for having the rule you do.
Would you throw me off your property? Or would you accept the fact that you think the acts immoral, I don't so it's okay.
Do I have the right to come on your property and deceive you and perform that act?

Is the choice of death or serious lifelong injury better than possible jail time...

...and then possibly being a convicted felon and not even being legal to have a gun at your house the rest of your life to protect your family and probably not being able to find further employment cause of the felony.

I finished it for ya.

Again life is full of choices. There are some states/places that getting caught cc'ing while at work would probably only get you fired. Then there are places of employment that getting caught cc'ing could just as easily get you a felony rap.

I guess one has to weigh the possibility of needing a gun at work with the consequences for getting caught.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

but a business owner also has a "moral" obligation (to himself, to any investors in his business, and to his employees) to do what's best for the business.

Just as I have a moral obligation to do what's best for me and my family. If jobs are not available to me and the ones that are are dangerous then my obligation is to do what is best for me.

The rule is immoral because it is allowing a condition to exist that could be remedied at the expense of another. Therefore, the other has no obligation to obey it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If you think a certain act is immoral and post that you don't want that act performed on your property, I then come to your house and perform that act , do I have a right to do so cause I don't think the act is immoral?

If you have to come to my house and there is a danger to you I know of and will not mitigate then yes. Otherwise no. Remember the context and don't pain it with too broad a brush.

and then possibly being a convicted felon and not even being legal to have a gun at your house the rest of your life to protect your family and probably not being able to find further employment cause of the felony.

Still...or be dead or injured seriously for life? Which would you pick...be honest and I'm talking about the odds being very good that you will face that danger.

BTW in what states is it a felony to carry at work? At least if you have a legal permit. Now, as I said before I am not talking about carrying in the Pentagon but a stop and rob. Again, keep it in context.

As has been stated before "there is always a choice".
Life is full of them in most every waking moment.

And as I have stated before I reject that all "choices" that are coerced or the outcomes so draconian are real (from a moral perspective).

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So shortwave,

Time for you to pony up.

Your choices are; work a dangerous job where there is a good chance you will be attacked by a criminal. You can't quit (or if you do your family will suffer great deprivation) and your company will not allow CCW. Do you not carry and face the strong possibility of being killed or injured by a criminal? Or do you carry anyway and face being fired?

 

[RX-79G]

I would argue that it is more immoral to allow uncertified people to bring loaded guns to work vs. denying one employee to carry. What moral person prioritizes one person over a group of people.

I'll answer TG's question to Shortwave:
Carry something(s) other than a gun.

No one ever died from dropping mace or a bat. It isn't like guns are force fields that prevent violence. They just provide another option when threatened - an option that may actually increase your likelihood of being killed in some situations. There is no panacea for violent crime.