I know you can't, or perhaps won't. Not sure which it is at this point.
It's can't, I promise. Believe me I understand the mindset which tends to believe that the best way to keep society safe is to restrict ownership and possession of firearms.
I was raised by an actor, then had a stepfather who to this day is an insurance executive. My mother also worked in insurance AND was an actor before that.
As stated earlier, a younger me bemoaned having to carry a .38 to work. My supervisor had to stay on me for me to load it before work. The boss never understood why I unloaded it as soon as I walked off post. Prince William County LEOs' tried to convince me of my folly.
It took what mental health people call a "corrective experience" for me to have what Sam Jackson's character Jules called "a moment of clarity" in the regarded cult classic "Pulp Fiction".
Even after becoming pro RKBA, pro guns at work took quite a few years. I still think people who carry in public should be trained, not something accepted by all RKBA folks.
When I look at the Clinton Administration's own studies that concluded that personal firearms were used more often for good than bad that indicates that other studies along these lines may also be accurate.
Read the GOA fact sheet, that looks like more than a few studies to me.
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
I lived in D.C. as a small child before the ban and as an adult after the ban. Same in Northern Virginia. Before and after CCW, so it's not just a few studies but personal experience. Lived in Jersey for a while, now live in Delaware.
While I concede that access to firearms for law abiding citizens is rarely if ever the only factor when talking about relevant safety there seems to be a consistency in my slightly less than a half century walking around.
Guns have been around longer than I have. Even though I am fortunate to have been around this world a bit, have only seen a small slice of it. I agree that looking at a larger body of data and adjusting for other variables in prudent.
Still, our values are formed by our experiences. When people whose "gun values" are formed in the media trump the real world, Houston needs to be notified. Because we have a problem.
Since we both have dealt with felons at work, you more than I, perhaps we can agree that felons fear armed citizens.
I can't understand how these factors are invalid in the workplace. I have done security with and without being armed. Criminal types respect the steel. You will never convince me otherwise.
I just don't believe that evaporates when you move to an office building, restaurant, or other setting.
As far as business environments, restaurants I have worked in with no weapons policies like the bigger chains all have robbery experience and fear robberies.
The restaurant owner in Roanoke allowed weapons and had a few handy for anybody who forgot theirs. Employees did not fear robberies, he was never robbed in many years, robbers feared him.
Yes I know, only one example, not statistically significant, not certified not to hurt a chipmunk if you swat it with the bound version of the study, etc, etc.
In some jobs, like the one I do now, I don't think ccw for me personally is a good idea. Simply because of the physical activity. I would be very happy if some of the supervisors carried or had access to defense tools, it is allowed by state law in a fairly anti-gun state.
Not to mention I think it would be grand if the company would get off my ____ when I am driving home or coming to work.
When anybody in the world can simply walk in to our workplace, and we have no weapons of any kind, no practical physical security, it makes no sense that the no weapons policy makes us safer. Especially when we are all vetted fairly well for our jobs.
If this is in fact being done simply to protect profits and workers get hurt, that sounds actionable to me. That's why i harp on safety, the employer insists that the policy creates a safe workplace. I don't believe it.
Sure workplaces are relatively safe. Why can't they be safer? Americans were relatively safe when states started ccw laws. Why? Could it be because we knew we could do better?
We have yet to see a person committed to a workplace shooting rampage or
murderous robbery who called it off due to the no weapons policy. Not saying it never happened, just have not seen it reported. Never even heard an internet rumor confirming that one.
I am glad that we agree that extending that restriction to one's car is a bit strained.
I keep coming back to safety because it is the reason given for such policies. It is also the reason I oppose them. You may never convince me that telling all of the ccw permit holders to leave their guns at home and providing telephones to call 911 after the shooting starts is safer.
As for voluntary, the courts see it the way you portray it. Seems strange though when one reads a decision :
In the ordinary situation we indulge the assumption that people will obey the law rather than violate it.
Seems odd that it is not withing judicial notice that people who obey the law also tend to go to work. Work itself is not voluntary for the great majority. But the courts see it that way.
Since employment and cooperative effort are necessary to our way of life it seems odd to say employment is entirely voluntary, as in no coercion involved. You need money to eat, and companies need employees to function.
The guvment needs taxes to function. They gotta come from somewhere. Maybe those Justices thought their salaries and pensions came from the tooth fairy.
In cases arguing reasonably foreseeable danger, the court ruled that a liquor store clerk was in no more danger at home than at work. Clearly contrary to anything I can find and certainly arguable.
On the matter of voluntary, could it be said that companies choose to operate in states that recognize an individual right to bear arms in self defense? I mean after all, the company can move to Jersey, or California, right?
Personally I think the above is as ridiculous as saying the employee has a choice. Not saying everyone sees it that way, just forwarding one possible perception.
My position is pretty simple, although we get into some interesting debates on the finer points. People who obey the law, submit to licensing and obtain permits should be allowed to keep their defense tools with them.
I do not believe that employers should be able to restrict this unless it interferes with the job AND they assume the responsibility of a special relationship where they acknowledge a kind of temporary custody of the employee where the employee is denied their customary means of defense.
In jobs that are hazardous by nature, my position is that employers who restrict their employees from effective defense should absolutely be liable for any harm resulting.
Take the convenience store. Saying that cameras protect convenience store clerks is highly debatable.
Why do 7/11 and Wawa have robbery procedures in writing if the danger of such is not reasonably foreseeable? Do they print and distribute those policies for the sheer unadulterated thrill of killing trees? I humbly submit that is not the case without any research or studies to back my position on that point.
I readily acknowledge that there is a percentage of situations in a robbery where introduces a weapon makes it worse. Yet you would be hard pressed to
argue that resisting with a firearm is not the statistically safest course of action for the victim.
So why no licensed carry for the stop and rob clerks? Could it be that the company cares more about profits than the lives of its employees? Do companies always get to endanger their employees for higher profits historically? Without government restrictions?
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/e0407972.txt
Over the last 30
years, there has been little change in the proportion of
convenience store robberies.
.......
Convenience store employees suffer from high rates of
workplace homicide, second only to taxicab drivers
I found some OSHA materials, they don't mention guns at all but do mention teaching employees to protect themselves.
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3153.html
http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/factsheet-workplace-violence.pdf
It's when you get into company policies, Insurance and trade journals, "Security" consultant web pages that we start seeing the "no weapons" rant.
I concede that this is best for the employer $$wise in our current legal climate from a strict liability standard, but humbly submit that some of the courts need to come into the 21st century.
Still don't think the employers interests absolutely trump the basic rights of employees. This has not been the case in the history of labor laws. As mentioned before, things that were once accepted as being at the discretion of the employer are no longer.
In my mother's day women were told they could not wear pants and had to accept lower wages. Their acceptance was taken as voluntary. No more.
In the early '60s such policies were seen as a right of companies. Just as disarming law abiding citizens and turning them into unarmed victims is now. But I will continue to forward the position that victim disarmament should become a relic as well.
Many restrictions have been placed on employers for worker safety. So safety is relevant. Generally employers are not permitted to knowingly create unsafe environments for workers without incurring liability and/or significant penalties.
Any court who says being a clerk in a liquor store is no more dangerous than sitting at home either never worked in a liquor store or they were likely getting high with Supreme Court nominee Ginsburg at the time. But courts have ruled exactly that way. Time to set them right.
Also when we are talking about chl holders we are talking about a small percentage of the population. According to everything I can find and IME, these are pretty law abiding responsible folks in general. Restricting them out of hand, reflexively, and without providing reasonable alternative security just ain't right.
So Dave my position condensed is that employers wishes trumping an employees recognized and state licensed right to carry defense tools just ain't right.
