Does employer's policy override CCW license?

[Perldog007]

Mostly true. But there are places that do recognize right to carry on private property. In Florida a business open to the public is constrained from discriminating against chl holders.

Private entities can and do violate rights but they can and have been restrained. Sometimes to ridiculous extremes. Sometimes arguably for good.

Also the statutes that challenge outright prohibition of weapons on property aren't exactly allowing ccw, but they do say you can keep your weapon in your car.

Then there is this : http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

The proposed gun free zone law being re-introduced in AZ. I may be way off course, but at least I am not alone.

 

[divemedic]

So as an employer, I can have a policy that prevents my employees from wearing hard hats on my construction site. One is struck in the head, and I am shielded from liability because of my property rights, even though I prevented the employee from protecting himself.

How is the above any different from preventing an employee from carrying a weapon?

 

[HKuser]

We are talking about the system that absolves the business interests when their unarmed employees are gunned down in predictable incidents of robbery, but rewards millions to some ____ (insert your favorite pejorative here) who spills coffee in her lap and sues because the coffee was hot - as advertised and as is the custom when serving coffee.

Bringing up the McDonald's lawsuit is a sure sign of legal ignorance. Everything you know about it is wrong, the 79 year old woman involved was an invitee not an employee and the facts were egregious. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries (3rd degree burns over 6% of her body requiring grafts), McDonalds had received hundreds of similar complaints, many of which had been settled for $500K amounts, and the jury award was greatly reduced by remittur, and would likely had been reduced further on appeal if not settled.

Employees do not have a right to a hardhat either. They are usually required because of a safety regulation, which, if the employer should violate shows a breach if the employee should suffer an injury which the hat was designed to and would have prevented if the safety regulation was adhered to. Yes, that is very different than prohibiting employees carrying guns.

 

[STAGE 2]

Employees do not have a right to a hardhat either. They are usually required because of a safety regulation, which, if the employer should violate shows a breach if the employee should suffer an injury which the hat was designed to and would have prevented if the safety regulation was adhered to. Yes, that is very different than prohibiting employees carrying guns.

What he said.

Mostly true. But there are places that do recognize right to carry on private property. In Florida a business open to the public is constrained from discriminating against chl holders

True, but there is a difference between an employee and a consumer, as well as a difference between a business that is open to the public and one that is not. Even in businesses that are open to the public, their employees must abide by any employment terms.

 

[Perldog007]

Well here is what I have taken away from this thread. The current political climate, while being challenged in some quarters, does not recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense in general.

Preventing licnesed people from carrying is considered responsible not negligent.

While the notion that companies and property owners have unlimited power and control over employees and or visitors to their property is patently absurd, in most cases they do have the right to restrict firearms.

Plain old common sense tells some people that these conditions need to be modified, the same tells others that these conditions need to be preserved.

The only way restricting lincensed folks from carrying makes us safer is to accept the premise than licensing ordinary citizens is dangerous. Most of America disagrees.

The debate continues, and that's good.

Bringing up the McDonald's lawsuit is a sure sign of legal ignorance. Everything you know about it is wrong, the 79 year old woman involved was an invitee not an employee and the facts were egregious. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries (3rd degree burns over 6% of her body requiring grafts), McDonalds had received hundreds of similar complaints, many of which had been settled for $500K amounts, and the jury award was greatly reduced by remittur, and would likely had been reduced further on appeal if not settled.

I was pointing out that it is reasonable to expect to prevail when you spill something on yourself, but not when a loved one is killed in a gun free zone, even if the decedent's work environment was known to be at a high risk for criminal attack.

I think everybody who follows cases like that knows the lady was not driving, as was widely assumed, and the temperature of the coffee caused her to burned through relatively heavy sweat clothes. The case is also a frequent talking point for people who talk about the lunacy of our legal system.

It is callous, reckless, and willfull to serve very hot coffee but it is not reckless to send a delivery person out and prohibiting them from carrying not only licensed firearms, but any defense tools. Same with cashiers, even when robbery and injury is likely.

Presumably it was then prudent and reasonable to hold a cup of hot coffee between your knees and take the lid off. Presumably it was also reasonable to keep the sweatpants on after they were soaked with hot liquid.

So also it must be considered reasonable and prudent to deny persons at acknowledged risk of attack any effective means of defense. Cameras to record the assualt seem to pass for reasonable care.

 

[STAGE 2]

Well here is what I have taken away from this thread. The current political climate, while being challenged in some quarters, does not recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense in general.

But you make the assumption that the constitution applies on private property. Its doesn't. You have no "right to bear arms" when in someone elses home or in someone elses business. The fact that Florida had to legislate that businesses open to the public couldn't discriminate against ccw holders should tell you that. If it was a right, then no legislation would have been needed.

Simply put, there are no "rights" for a private entity to recognize. All they have to do is not commit a crime.

Preventing licnesed people from carrying is considered responsible not negligent.

And again thats not quite accurate either. You're starting to spin your conclusions to make them more favorable to your side.

Preventing licensed people from carrying has nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with liability. One of the majory reasons that companies don't allow their employees to carry weapons is that their insurance won't allow it. That is a HUGE liability. The potential for a wrongful death case should be obvious and because the company allowed it, they will be on the hook as well.

Thus, if a court was to rule that employers had to allow their employees to carry, they would be mandating that they take on a huge liability. This is beyond the purview of the government to do. Liability decisions are ones that companies have the right to make for themselves.

Again, this isnt about denying anyone rights. There isn't anything mandating that a particular person work for an anti company. People are free to contract with whomever they like. If we are going to have economic freedom and freedom of contract, then this is part of the bargain.

 

[Perldog007]

Actually I believe that the position of prohibiting licensed carry is considered responsible by many companies. I totally agree with you on the insurance.

Like I have said, I know it is what it is, but don't quite agree with the way it works.

I guess, but have not been able to find out for sure that the no weapons policy must provide some protection from liability if an employee goes on a shooting spree. Does anybody else know for sure?

Does the company catch a break because if that happened because the employee was "acting outside the scope" and in violation of policy?

 

[STAGE 2]

Like I have said, I know it is what it is, but don't quite agree with the way it works.

In order to change this you are going to have to change the foundations of private property rights as well as the rights of private business. You won't be able to do this without destroying the premise that private ownership is based upon.

Does the company catch a break because if that happened because the employee was "acting outside the scope" and in violation of policy?

A shooting spree will always be outside the scope of employment. The issue is whether the company shares any liability. If they have a no weapons policy, there simply isn't any way anyone could recover. If the employer was fine with weapons on the property (and this was provable) then they open themselves up to some liability even though the act of the person wasn't in the course and scope of employment.

A jury could very well acquit an employer in a situation like this, but from their perspective, why take the chance.

 

[David Armstrong]

That's why i harp on safety, the employer insists that the policy creates a safe workplace. I don't believe it.

Whether you believe it or not is far different than whether there is any proof to support a position. Belief is fine, but proof is something completely different. And as said before, if you are discussing rights the safety issue is irrelevant. And if you are discussing the effects of crime reduction based on CCW in a state, that is fairly irrelevant to the discussion if businesses in the state still prohibit CCW.

Since we both have dealt with felons at work, you more than I, perhaps we can agree that felons fear armed citizens.

That depends entirely on the felon and the situation. It certainly hasn't slowed shootings between gangbangers, for example. Nor does it seem to have had an effect on mass murders as another example. But again, over and over, so what? Felons fearing armed citizens has nothing to do with business being allowed to prohibit CCW at work.

Sure workplaces are relatively safe. Why can't they be safer?

Maybe they could be. But at this point we have nothing to show that allowing CCW at work would do that.

As for voluntary, the courts see it the way you portray it.

More importantly is that the way I portray it is the standard and normal way it is seen by societyat large.

Take the convenience store. Saying that cameras protect convenience store clerks is highly debatable.

No it's not. There are all sorts of studies out there that look at the effectiveness of various safety measures at convenience stores. Cameras have proven fairly effective in reducing injury to clerks, as have other devices and training.

Why do 7/11 and Wawa have robbery procedures in writing if the danger of such is not reasonably foreseeable?

Because they are trying to reduce the danger of the robbery to the clerk, the cusotmers, and the organization. That is why employees get fired when they violate those procedures.

So why no licensed carry for the stop and rob clerks?

Because starting a gunfight during a robbery is rarely a good idea.

Still don't think the employers interests absolutely trump the basic rights of employees.

I agree, and they don't. However, ccw at work is not a basic right.

Given the mortality rate of cashiers compared to the rest of the workforce (nine of ten cashiers who die on the job are murdered),

FWIW, that information is completely worthless without also pointing out the total number of cashiers and the total number who die on the job. Without even trying to look up that info, I'm betting we are talking about a very small fraction of a percent.

but rewards millions to some ____ (insert your favorite pejorative here) who spills coffee in her lap and sues because the coffee was hot - as advertised and as is the custom when serving coffee.

Another FWIW, this is a really good example of a little knowledge being dangerous. There is a lot of stuff behind the case besides that little bit of info that makes the original finding of fault not nearly as bizarre as it sounds on its face.

Mostly true. But there are places that do recognize right to carry on private property. In Florida a business open to the public is constrained from discriminating against chl holders.

Again a failure to understand the law. The FL statutes have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and the rules you are mentioning (state laws) are not blanket exceptions at all, as there are numerous businesses open to the public that can and do prhibit CCW on the premises.

 

[David Armstrong]

Really can you cite "thousands of years" of case law in the U.S. governing concealed carry? If you can I'll buy you a gun of your choice and stop carrying my gun forever.

Let's see how far we are willing to go here. When you say "thousands of years of case law in the U.S." are you restricting to case law since the country actually became the U.S. or do we get to use case law from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence serving as the basis for laws in the U.S.?? And does the gun of choice apply to me too or just STAGE 2?

 

[DonR101395]

Let's see how far we are willing to go here. When you say "thousands of years of case law in the U.S." are you restricting to case law since the country actually became the U.S. or do we get to use case law from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence serving as the basis for laws in the U.S.?? And does the gun of choice apply to me too or just STAGE 2?

Now why would I make a statement like that if I were going to accept anything that pre-dates the United States court system. I'm not really interested in what other countries were/are doing.

 

[STAGE 2]

Now why would I make a statement like that if I were going to accept anything that pre-dates the United States court system. I'm not really interested in what other countries were/are doing.

Because by the time america came along, property rights were pretty much settled. Our common law started exactly where the english left off. Only the ignorant would ignore these origins.

And as an aside, I NEVER said "thousands of years of case law in the US". That was your addition.

 

[DonR101395]

Because by the time american came along, property rights were pretty much settled. Our common law started exactly where the english left off. Only the ignorant would ignore these origins.

So, you're saying because the English did it that way, it must be ok and shouldn't be changed. Go status quo

BTW: The poster who said lawyers get their way by intimidation and bluffing is correct. You would be a prime example.


Have fun "debating" this one.


Out here..........................

 

[STAGE 2]

So, you're saying because the English did it that way, it must be ok and shouldn't be changed. Go status quo

No, I'm saying to ignore where our law came from, what it is based on and how it evolved is stupid.

"Cause Don says so" doesn't seem like a sufficient enough reason to overturn thousands of years of precedent.

BTW: The poster who said lawyers get their way by intimidation and bluffing is correct. You would be a prime example.

Surely you aren't feeling intimidated by little old me Don. I would expect someone who is self employed to be a little thicker skinned than that.

Maybe this conversation would be more straight forward if you actually quoted me correctly. Ironically the other posted shared these same reading comprehension problems as well.

Once again I'm starting to see a pattern.

 

[DonR101395]

Surely you aren't feeling intimidated by little old me Don. I would expect someone who is self employed to be a little thicker skinned than that.

Maybe this conversation would be more straight forward if you actually quoted me correctly. Ironically the other posted shared these same reading comprehension problems as well.

Once again I'm starting to see a pattern.

Intimidated? No

Tired of responding to a pompous mouth piece, who can only respond with insults when he meets disagreement? yes

 

[STAGE 2]

Both you and I know what was said Don. Its really poor form to resort to insults, especially since you've been distorting everything I've said.

If you want to discuss this, thats fine, but don't get all huffy because the law agrees with what I've been saying.

 

[DonR101395]

Both you and I know what was said Don. Its really poor form to resort to insults, especially since you've been distorting everything I've said.

I didn't distort anything you said; I implied I didn't care about what other countries had done with property law and you began your insults with making comments about being ignorant.

If you want to discuss this, thats fine, but don't get all huffy because the law agrees with what I've been saying.

I had jumped out and Mike asked a question and I answered it; you jumped in with your insulting comments. It's pretty simple, don't try to insult me and expect me to not say anything.



I'm out have fun.

 

[Perldog007]

Looking into this issue from other than an strict fundamentalist RKBA view many questions come up, maybe Stage2 or one of our legal scholars knows about these matters.

Even if the SCOTUS rules that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear for individual defense, this does not necessarily translate to a civil right from what I can glean. Civil rights are defined by the Civil Rights Act. True?

From what I can understand you can sue an employer for violating your civil rights but not your constitutional rights. Is this correct?

You have a right to a reasonably safe work environment.

My understanding is that generally, one can only prove an unreasonably unsafe work environment if the employer violates OSHA guidelines. True or False?

If an insurance company got a case of RKBA fever (right after they climbed the beanstalk to the giant's castle ) and took a bath because of it they are liable to the shareholders. Correct?

The gun free zone liability legislation seems to have one glaring problem that even an idealist like myself can see. Such a law basically states that if an entity declares a no weapons zone and somebody gets hurt because they had no reasonable means of defense, the "banning" entity is liable.

Proponents claim property rights are preserved, the property owner is simply assuming the liability for their decision.

If such ever passed, would that lead to creating a problem for jurisdictions that prevent their citizens from being armed? In other words could such a law on the books in one place give an attorney a leg to stand on for suing a city in another citing case law and Challenging the "no duty to protect" doctrine as the minority opinion did in the NYC case of the woman who got the acid attack?

In a state where the law says the employee could keep a firearm in their car, could a company requiring the employee to drive their own car for business still fire an employee for having a weapon in their car?

Example, PizzaPalooza Palace ( a fictional company) has a no weapons policy. Law states employee cannot be prohibited from keeping firearm in private vehicle. PizzaPalooza Palace employs drivers to use their personal vehicles for delivery. Driver in involved in justifiable shoot. Gets fired for violating company policy. Employee claims firearm was kept legally in car, company cannot prove otherwise. Does employee have wrongful termination claim for damages?

I am trying to find out if voluntarily using your car as a workplace would invalidate such statutory protection.

At one time in the Anglo world property rights were valued over virtually all individual human rights according to my understanding, back in feudal times. Is this correct?

If they have a no weapons policy, there simply isn't any way anyone could recover.

I suspected that to be the case. This still is puzzling because gun free zones don't seem to stop these happenings.

Reasonable and Prudent still seem to be based on the Kellerman study.

The FL statutes have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment

Thanks for clearing that up for us Dave, I'll notify the Florida State legislators and the members of the grassroots organizations who fought for those. I won't have to provide them with proof because a guy who does research professionally said so.

What the heck did I do with Marion Hammer's cell number??......

Al Gore really did not invent the net all by himself. Some people helped him. As a former perldog (one who fixes perl code others write as opposed to a perlgod who writes perl code some hapless perldog has to fix) I count myself among them and am impelled to offer you some net advice.

At the risk of being repetitive, if you could post links to studies or actual news events backing your position, like those ones I provided that mean nothing according to you, it would be easier to take you seriously. Mentioning one book is nice but I would humbly submit that I have provided more than that to back my assertions.

Also if you call a policy communist, try not to deny it in the same thread. Leads to credibility. Before you state that there are no studies tending to indicate that CCW makes the workplace more dangerous remember that google is your friend. Keeps some idiot who doesn't understand anything from proving you wrong, thus undermining your status as a fountain of truth and knowledge because you read entire studies and trade journals.

Meantime here's a page I read single paragraphs from drawing illogical conclusions without understanding anything because I am not a professional researcher.

Tear this one down for us in your spare time. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

This tells me (among many other things I have cited and many others I could) that victim disarmament is bad. History tells us that rights and liability are concepts that evolve. Fourteen years on the net and a few on the BBs' before that tells me when somebody is arguing for the sheer unadulterated thrill of it.

I am more than happy to discuss alternative viewpoints. If you read the thread you will know this. Pointless bickering for the sake of being adverse is of limited value.

 

[STAGE 2]

I didn't distort anything you said; I implied I didn't care about what other countries had done with property law and you began your insults with making comments about being ignorant.

Sure you did. You started this whole trip with saying that I said that there were 1000 years of US case law and that there was no such thing as property rights. Thats phooey and you know it. I called you on it and then you responded by saying that you don't care about other nations law.

In other words "I'm wrong but dont want to admit it".

 

[STAGE 2]

I suspected that to be the case. This still is puzzling because gun free zones clearly do not mitigate these events. Reasonable and Prudent still seem to be based on the Kellerman study.

"Gun free zones" are public property such as schools, government buildings, city hall etc.

As far as the stats go, there simply isn't anything that would support the notion of placing a duty on an employer to either allow weapons or mandate weapons. The simple fact is that for a majority of businesses out there, the odds of violence happening are minute. As such the liability far outweighs the risks of not having it.