Does employer's policy override CCW license?

[David Armstrong]

Now why would I make a statement like that if I were going to accept anything that pre-dates the United States court system.

Because, as Stage 2 has pointed out, the US court system is built on, and still references, case law from centuries ago in England. So I will give you your very technical case law in the US, but please realize that in the US we use case law that predates the founding of the country.

 

[David Armstrong]

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.

Sigh. If their law was a 2nd Amendment right, there is no need for the state law. The fact is that there is a distinct difference between the Constitution and State statutes. While one can attempt to belittle that fact, failing to realize and/or recognize it indicates how poorly some understand how both the government and the law work.

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.

At the risk of being repetitive, your "studies" are pretty irrelevant, as I have said over and over. We are discussing apples here, all your information on watermelons is of limited use at best. When one is discussing rights, studies about safety are of no relevance. No matter how much you claim otherwise, it doesn't change that. And if you will go and read the one book I mention, you might note that it has about 65 references and a couple of dozen studies noted in the one chapter that is pertinent to this discussion.

Also if you call a policy communist, try not to deny it in the same thread. Leads to credibility.

If you can't tell the difference between the two issues presented that is your problem, not mine, and more indicative of a lack of knowledge or understanding on your part than anything else. Leads to credibility, you know.

Before you state that there are no studies tending to indicate that CCW makes the workplace more dangerous remember that google is your friend.

Let's see if I understand your position. First you say that a study is no good, then you want to complain because I did not cite the study that is no good. Strange. And I don't suppose you have actually read the whole study, have you?? I have the study you actually reference, and it is NOT a study on CCW in the businessplace. In fact, the study makes no effort to determine if there even were any guns in the business, only if the business allowed guns or not. Again, knowing how to read the research and taking the time to find and read the entire thing, instead of just resorting to bits an dpieces that somebody else has quoted, might give a better picture.

Tear this one down for us in your spare time.

Why? It is obviously biased and presenting only one side of the position, and has no bearing on the discussion we are having. Once again, we see one of your sources/links/studies that has no relevance to the discussion.

Pointless bickering for the sake of being adverse is of limited value.

Pointing out biases, misuse of data and research, and general misunderstanding is always of value.

 

[Perldog007]

igh. If their law was a 2nd Amendment right, there is no need for the state law. The fact is that there is a distinct difference between the Constitution and State statutes. While one can attempt to belittle that fact, failing to realize and/or recognize it indicates how poorly some understand how both the government and the law work.

Got me there, everybody knows there is no relationship between the Bill of Rights and State statutes. In fact probably not one state or federal law has ever been passed to uphold individual rights. _reaches_for_kool_aid_

At the risk of being repetitive, your "studies" are pretty irrelevant, as I have said over and over. We are discussing apples here, all your information on watermelons is of limited use at best. When one is discussing rights, studies about safety are of no relevance. No matter how much you claim otherwise, it doesn't change that. And if you will go and read the one book I mention, you might note that it has about 65 references and a couple of dozen studies noted in the one chapter that is pertinent to this discussion.

In order of appearance:
a.) Cool, but cite your proof.
b.) limited use is better than no use and no information. Also, it's limited according to you.
c.) Wrong again that's why employees have a right to a reasonably safe workplace.
d.) Claims by me not withstanding, property rights do indeed go back to medieval times. Constraints on those rights including those based on safety are more modern in the odd instance here and there .
e.) So what? if you read the page I posted there are more than 200 references......

If you can't tell the difference between the two issues presented that is your problem, not mine, and more indicative of a lack of knowledge or understanding on your part than anything else. Leads to credibility, you know.

the communist position of the state being able to decide these things is far closer to your position than the capitalist free-market position I have advocated.

The business is exercising its rights to establish a working environment as the employer sees fit. Denying the employer that right is a communist policy.

As I understand your position, government interfering with the wishes of the employer is communism? But the employer interfering with my right to licensed possession of effective defense tools is liberty?

Your understanding is again questionable, as I have suggested neither of those positions.

Got me with that one, I can't crack your secret code there. It seems like you are saying something, then denying it.

If only I had spent more time in school studying what the definition of is is.
Worthless public education anyway. Damned me to a life of being kicked around by professional researchers and their secret codes.

Let's see if I understand your position. First you say that a study is no good, then you want to complain because I did not cite the study that is no good. Strange. And I don't suppose you have actually read the whole study, have you?? I have the study you actually reference, and it is NOT a study on CCW in the businessplace. In fact, the study makes no effort to determine if there even were any guns in the business, only if the business allowed guns or not. Again, knowing how to read the research and taking the time to find and read the entire thing, instead of just resorting to bits an dpieces that somebody else has quoted, might give a better picture.

Got me there, only read this : http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/5/830

CCW is a no-no because of no weapons policies, not no ccw policies. This study supports those policies. Such policies ban ccw because they ban all weapons.

You said no such study existed. Then you say you have the whole study.

L.T. in "The Waterboy" ......

Why? It is obviously biased and presenting only one side of the position, and has no bearing on the discussion we are having.

Would that be in your opinion, or by divine proclamation? My position is that having weapon prohibition does not work because only people who follow the rules abide by it.

Employers disagree, they say having a weapon makes a person dangerous and risk for going postal even if they are licensed. They say this is more dangerous than a ban.

The truth seems to be that the ban is based on monetary considerations (shocker huh?) driven by our concept of liability.

There is one way the employer or business owner can be sued if you get hurt by a criminal act in a defense free zone though.

If you were holding a cup of coffee between your knees and the criminal attack caused you to spill the (business or employer supplied) coffee on your crotch, if the coffee is recklessly, callously, and willfully hot - you might have a claim.

I advocate property owners taking responsibility for their actions. Our current liability laws don't do that. The Arizona Gun Free Zone liability proposal does.

Pointing out biases, misuse of data and research, and general misunderstanding is always of value.

Mirror mirror on the wall....

One example, you say starting a gunfight in the middle of a robbery is a bad idea.

Survey says - the best chance for not being injured in a robbery is resisting with a firearm.

We know you said it, but illustrate why.

I generally understand that banning guns in private hands is a bad idea. There is discussion on workplace bans not just on the net but in the statehouses.

Of course since D.C. and prisons are so safe I must be confused. Oh right we are talking about businesses and workplaces like Lane Bryant, and the Mall with unarmed security in Omaha, Darn! those few stories mean nothing....

The difference between legal guns at work or at a business and no legal guns at work or at a business is the Difference between Luby's in Texas and Shoney's in Alabama.

It's the difference between VA tech and the Appalachian Law School.

It's the difference between an deliveryman looking for another job because his employer thought his life was worthless and the same deliveryman's family looking for pallbearers.

You can spin it any way you want, but having a right and being right are two different things.

 

[STAGE 2]

You seem to be missing the argument. Arguing, as you are, that is is prudent for an employer to allow folks who CCW to do so OTJ is not the same as arguing whether or not employers should have the right to decide if they want weapons on their property.

It is not a contradiction to agree with both statements, namely that it probably makes things safer to have responsible CCW people around, but the ultimate decision should be with the employer.

 

[divemedic]

All I have been saying is that if you, as an employer, claim the right to enforce any policy on your property, you should not be able to hide behind a "third party intervention" defense.

I know what the law says, and I know that an employer can currently fire an employee who violates this policy. All I am saying is that the employer should then become responsible for my safety. I think the hard hat point I made is very applicable.

I do not care if your insurance goes up- my rights are not to be violated for the sake of your bottom line- that merely puts a price on my life, measured in the cost of insurance premiums.

If I want to only sell my home to a white heterosexual male, the government has the power to force me not to discriminate. If they have the power to do this to protect a right that is not even enumerated, then they certainly have the power to protect my right to self defense.

 

[STAGE 2]

All I have been saying is that if you, as an employer, claim the right to enforce any policy on your property, you should not be able to hide behind a "third party intervention" defense.

There is no hiding. Private businesses are not nor have they ever been insurers of other peoples safety. To suggest otherwise is to upset hundreds of years of established law.

All I am saying is that the employer should then become responsible for my safety. I think the hard hat point I made is very applicable.

No, its not applicable at all. There is zero liability in forcing people to wear a hard hat. There is all sorts of liability in letting people carry at your business. You can't equate safety guidelines to carrying a weapon.

I do not care if your insurance goes up- my rights are not to be violated for the sake of your bottom line- that merely puts a price on my life, measured in the cost of insurance premiums.

And the single reason that your argument fails is that there is nothing forcing you to work for that particular company. If carrying is paramount to you then work for someone who will let you. You have created this false dichotomy where you only have a choice between working for a company or carrying. Thats simply not the case.

If I want to only sell my home to a white heterosexual male, the government has the power to force me not to discriminate. If they have the power to do this to protect a right that is not even enumerated, then they certainly have the power to protect my right to self defense.

And I disagree with the ruling that prevents people from disposing of their private property as they see fit. However because one overreaching decision was made, does not mean that the same mistake should be repeated.

 

[Perldog007]

It is not a contradiction to agree with both statements, namely that it probably makes things safer to have responsible CCW people around, but the ultimate decision should be with the employer.

May all of your primers be soaked in WD40 for making me agree with a lawyer.

Spot on. I am not sure that I disagree with an employer having the right to make the decision. My heartburn occurs with out current state of legal affairs where the only way an employer seems to face liability for injury is by allowing weapons at work.

I have read some case law and understand the liability situation. There seems to be no judicial notice that unarmed people are more likely victims. With Insurance companies taking the path of least resistance from an exposure standpoint, do companies really have a choice?

Take the example that kmoffit provided. If his company allows licensed ccw and the insurance company finds out they may cancel his coverage. Then we have 600+ people out of a job.

The individual has the duty to protect themselves from criminal attack, not the employer not the state. While it is perfectly legal in most cases at this time, in fact nearly all cases, to mandate that a licensed person be deprived of their customary means of protection in order to make a living, is it moral?

If the ban encourages crime and injury results shouldn't the decision maker be liable for creating an especially attractive target?

Safety is relevant because if banning ccw does create a more dangerous environment than allowing it, shouldn't there be some liability in going to a "no weapons" policy. ?

I don't think too many people are advocating completely liberal policies towards weapons. To me identifying yourself to LE, getting trained, fingerprinted, submitting to a background check, and conforming to legal conditions for carry demonstrates intent to do the right thing.

Does it make any sense to ban weapons all together? How smart is it to hire armed guards from the lowest bidder instead of using trusted in house people?

One can argue with the voluntary nature of working for a specific employer, but it really is a choice at the end of a day. Maybe, possibly, usually a choice where free will is constrained by many factors, but still a choice.

Still the voluntary nature of employment is not a shield from duty in other areas.

Also I don't think that blanket policies to ban weapons are much better than requiring everybody to be armed.

Take my current job. I have been doing manual labor since recovering from a bad traffic accident a few years back. Will continue to do so as long as my mobility keeps improving.

It would be very impractical for me to keep a concealed handgun on me due to the nature of my work. There is not a safe place for me to keep one in the shop where it is always under my control.

There are other people there who could more reasonably be armed IMO. The State laws permit it (in Maryland, no less) the company can't do it or they will not be able to afford insurance.

Our current situation is no means of defense and a phone that calls a department with one officer on duty at night and on weekends.

So our policy in the event of a lunatic walking in the front door and doing harm is to call the police and report it. Is this reasonably foreseeable to be more dangerous to the employees than having a trusted manager trained and having access to a defensive tool?

Discussing this with a high stakes broker (my stepfather 30+years in commercial accounts) he thinks even self insured organizations might have problems with re-insurance. For example if UPS decided to arm some of it's drivers as a deterrent. They are self insured, but if they tried to re-insure perhaps no go on the strength of such a policy.

Also, they don't face liability due to juris prudence if an employee is killed in a robbery unless some pretty strong elements of negligence can be established. Even if they wanted to allow employee effective self defense could they afford it?

In some ways the Arizona proposal is attractive to me. The property owner has the right to decide. If it leads to harm they take the weight.

Actually getting it in place and enforcing it is another thing. The idea has merit with many and hopefully the discussion continues.

 

[Perldog007]

You have created this false dichotomy where you only have a choice between working for a company or carrying. Thats simply not the case.

For an insulin dependant diabetic it could be true. For most it is not. We have to take the risk to have benefits in most cases, unless we are LEO or Persecutors, er um I mean prostitutes, er um prosecutors (okay that was a cheap shot, you high paid folk should have ponied up more tax money for my public edumaication - then I could take expensive shots )

I know that without medical insurance it would be very difficult for me to have a home right now. When I find a company with benefits and lacking a ban I am all over it.

If anybody knows of a major company that allows or encourages licensed ccw at work please post it up.

 

[David Armstrong]

Got me there, everybody knows there is no relationship between the Bill of Rights and State statutes.

Sigh. Once again we see that rather than deal with what was said you change it to something completely different to try to make your point. I guess if you can't deal with what was really said you can only argue with what you wish was said. State statutes and Constituional requirements are different, as I said. Sometimes there is a relationship, sometimes there is not. Maybe when you understand that we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

In order of appearance:
a.) Cool, but cite your proof.
b.) limited use is better than no use and no information. Also, it's limited according to you.
c.) Wrong again that's why employees have a right to a reasonably safe workplace.
d.) Claims by me not withstanding, property rights do indeed go back to medieval times. Constraints on those rights including those based on safety are more modern in the odd instance here and there .
e.) So what? if you read the page I posted there are more than 200 references.

a.) Cite my proof of what, that there is no proof?
b.) Not when it is being used incorrectly or without any validity. And yes, I say so. That is a big part of what I do for a living, I think I have some vague idea about it.
c.) Again, so what? Safe workplace issues are irrelevant when discussing employer rights to control behavior.
d.) Huh????
e.) studies on apples have little bearing when discussing watermelons.

Got me with that one, I can't crack your secret code there. It seems like you are saying something, then denying it.

I know, your difficulty in understanding subtle yet important nuances has popped up regularly. Let's try to make it real simple for you. Saying that the government denying an employer a specific right is a communistic policy is very different from saying the government interfering with the wishes of the employer is communism. I know you are having trouble with that, but perhaps it is symptomatic of this ongoing inability to differentiate between micro and macro level items.

You said no such study existed. Then you say you have the whole study.

No. Again, try to deal with what is really said instead of making things up. I said no study existed that said what you were claiming. Then I also said that I read the study referenced in the article you posted the link to, and it did not say what you were claiming.

Would that be in your opinion, or by divine proclamation?

Neither. It would be by the organizations own declaration of intent.

My position is that having weapon prohibition does not work because only people who follow the rules abide by it.

That is a nice position, but one without any valid support in this specific instance. You have not shown that CCW prohibition does or does not work to increase safety in the workplace, period. And as mentioned so often, I'm not sure what that position has to do with the issue of rights as is being discussed here.

I advocate property owners taking responsibility for their actions.

Yet you are also advocating taking away the right to decide what those actions should be from those same property owners. Seems somewhat hypocritical, doesn't it??

One example, you say starting a gunfight in the middle of a robbery is a bad idea.

Yes. Do you think it is a good idea?

Survey says - the best chance for not being injured in a robbery is resisting with a firearm.

And once again you might look at the whole data set instead of trying to cherry-pick certain items that you think support a position you have already decided on, as thta is only part of the issue. Again, micro versus macro.

Darn! those few stories mean nothing....

Oh, they might mean something, but only in context of the whole picture, which you keep missing. For example, part of that picture needs to include the story of the shooting at the City Council meeting outside of St Louis, where strangely enough, there were armed people there. And that prevented the attack, didn't it? Oh wait, no it didn't. In fact, it provided an additional weapon for the BG to use to inflict MORE injury.

You can spin it any way you want, but having a right and being right are two different things.

Once again you try to argue something that is not there. No spin needed because I have not said anything close to that either pro or con.

 

[Perldog007]

Sigh. Once again we see that rather than deal with what was said you change it to something completely different to try to make your point. I guess if you can't deal with what was really said you can only argue with what you wish was said. State statutes and Constituional requirements are different, as I said. Sometimes there is a relationship, sometimes there is not. Maybe when you understand that we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

First you stated that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Florida laws.You said if it was a Second Amendment right there would be no need for a statute. I pointed out that laws are passed all the time to uphold Constitutional rights. Also Marion Hammer lobbied for the Florida laws because of the belief that they would uphold a Constitutional right, namely the Second Amendment.

Cite my proof of what, that there is no proof?

Precisely. I tend to believe that laws which allow citizens to carry effective means of defense are a good idea. There is research to indicate that these laws deter crime and keep people safer than mandating defense tool bans. You counter that the watermelon of an entire state or several states has no relationship to the apple of the work environment. Are the citizens different citizens? Are the criminals different criminals? If your work has uncovered some reason that the statutes that 36 states appear to think makes their citizens safer do not apply to the workplace please share with the group.

We know the business environment is not society at large, but people are people everywhere. Why is it apparently good policy that they be armed in public, at home, but not at work?

b.) Not when it is being used incorrectly or without any validity. And yes, I say so. That is a big part of what I do for a living, I think I have some vague idea about it.

IME societal norms and conventions are not irrelevant when setting policies and practices in business. I would suggest that while society at large is beginning to see the futile nature of gun bans and carry restrictions, businesses are lagging behind - tethered by liability due to the relationship between insurance guidelines and case law concerning liability.

c.) Again, so what? Safe workplace issues are irrelevant when discussing employer rights to control behavior.

OSHA

d.) Huh????

Acknowledging that there are certainly rights for property owners, these are not absolute. Over time responsibilities and restrictions have caused the rights of individuals and property owners to evolve.

e.) studies on apples have little bearing when discussing watermelons.

Apples and watermelons are not entirely unrelated, neither are workplaces and the streets and other places outside their confines.

.
I know, your difficulty in understanding subtle yet important nuances has popped up regularly. Let's try to make it real simple for you. Saying that the government denying an employer a specific right is a communistic policy is very different from saying the government interfering with the wishes of the employer is communism. I know you are having trouble with that, but perhaps it is symptomatic of this ongoing inability to differentiate between micro and macro level items.

We were discussing the wishes of the employer relating to banning weapons on thier premises to include licensed ccw.
You are debating what the definition of is is.

No. Again, try to deal with what is really said instead of making things up. I said no study existed that said what you were claiming. Then I also said that I read the study referenced in the article you posted the link to, and it did not say what you were claiming.

The Loomis study pertained to allowing weapons in the workplace and concluded that doing such resulted in an increased risk for homicide. The study, like current policies made no distinctions between licensed ccw and blanket policies allowing employees to be armed.. There was discussion on weapons other than guns and guns in particular. The study discussion concluded with a statement that appears to advise against allowing firearms at work.

I will concede that the study did not differentiate between licensed ccw and firearms in the workplace generally, neither do the policies we are discussing in this thread.
The study is specifically referenced in articles advising against allowing licensed ccw at work. You said there were no studies that would prove allowing ccw would make the workplaces less safe. The hoplophobic community cites the Loomis study as doing just that.

Would that be in your opinion, or by divine proclamation?

Neither. It would be by the organizations own declaration of intent.

See Penn and Teller Videos on Gun Control to find out where that one falls then. The organizations intend to make money. If liability was shifted tp a company taking a huge loss whenever an employee obeying a weapons ban got injured and if customers/guests were deemed to be in the "voluntary" relationship and that shielded the company from being liable for their damage the employers might very well issue weapons to save a buck.

My position is that having weapon prohibition does not work because only people who follow the rules abide by it.

That is a nice position, but one without any valid support in this specific instance. You have not shown that CCW prohibition does or does not work to increase safety in the workplace, period

Sometimes levity is helpful in illustrating what should be an obvious point. For your viewing entertainment:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

Actually my position stated above is proven by 20.000 plus gun laws on the books that do not stop criminals from using guns. In the workplace or outside of it.


.

And as mentioned so often, I'm not sure what that position has to do with the issue of rights as is being discussed here.

Because it does not seem to be within judicial notice that banning licensed ccw in workplaces can endanger workers. If that were true, the liability situation might change.
Liability is what drives the policies from what can be learned in our discussion here. The thread is not about allowing all employees to carry, it is about having a state permit to carry and having a "no weapons" policy at work.

I advocate property owners taking responsibility for their actions.

Yet you are also advocating taking away the right to decide what those actions should be from those same property owners. Seems somewhat hypocritical, doesn't it??

It could, if one failed to notice that my position is that either the owner/employers should accept liability when the policy leads to injury or that the choice should be taken away if they will not. Either/or works for me.

One example, you say starting a gunfight in the middle of a robbery is a bad idea.
Yes. Do you think it is a good idea?

Common sense tells us that should be evaluated by the person who is in danger. Being prohibited from having a licensed firearm takes that option away. Sometimes it may indeed be the best thing to do. If one has a concealed weapon they have more options. The current state of affairs says that the employer's money is more important than the employee's life.

I don't think it's wrong to discuss that situation or to disagree with it.

Survey says - the best chance for not being injured in a robbery is resisting with a firearm.

And once again you might look at the whole data set instead of trying to cherry-pick certain items that you think support a position you have already decided on, as thta is only part of the issue. Again, micro versus macro.

Relating to robbery the persons who resisted with a firearm were less likely to be injured than those who submitted.

Darn! those few stories mean nothing....
Oh, they might mean something, but only in context of the whole picture, which you keep missing. For example, part of that picture needs to include the story of the shooting at the City Council meeting outside of St Louis, where strangely enough, there were armed people there. And that prevented the attack, didn't it? Oh wait, no it didn't. In fact, it provided an additional weapon for the BG to use to inflict MORE injury.

There were armed Police Officers there. Since one was shot after the shooter entered the council chamber it seems reasonable that the shooter may have taken one of his two handguns from another officer shot before entering the chamber. I can't find the details of any officer besides Ballman being shot, and he was in the chamber. The news reports do say two officers were shot. One would think that if an officer was shot outside before the shooter entered that it may have been heard inside, but maybe not.

Then again we both know that uniformed officer's guns are at risk for being snatched because they are carried openly and the officer often is required to be in close proximity to an offender to effect an arrest. Which is all the more reason for citizens to see to their own protection and carry concealed defense tools.

In fact the only people in City Hall who were authorized to carry open or concealed handguns other than LEO were the Mayor and Council Members. There was nothing in any reports (AP based news reports) that I could find to indicate that those council members or the mayor were armed. The citizens attending the meeting where prohibited from carrying weapons. As was the shooter, who did not obey the ban.

http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

I would think that incident tends to support my position that people are responsible for their own defense, and that those predisposed to illegally act with lethal violence do not obey no weapons policies.

You can spin it any way you want, but having a right and being right are two different things.

Once again you try to argue something that is not there. No spin needed because I have not said anything close to that either pro or con.

We seem to agree that employers do have the right to ban ccw at work in general. Are you agreeing that doing so is not always the right thing to do?

 

[STAGE 2]

Damn that was a long post.

 

[David Armstrong]

First you stated that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Florida laws.

That is correct. They deal with completely different levels of the government. Florida can pass a law independent of the 2nd Amendment. Florida laws are applicable in Florida only. If the 2nd Amendment went away today the Florida law would still be in operation, and if Florida did away with its law the 2nd Amendment would still be intact.

Precisely. I tend to believe that laws which allow citizens to carry effective means of defense are a good idea. There is research to indicate that these laws deter crime and keep people safer than mandating defense tool bans.

That is nice, but again it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Proof that there are hairy apes is not proof that there is a real Bigfoot.

IME societal norms and conventions are not irrelevant when setting policies and practices in business.

That is nice, but your experience also has no relevancy. You keep wanting to mix social values, constitutional issues, workplace safety, gun bans, personal belief, and the law. They don't mix well, and each needs to be considered on its own. Sometimes they are relevant to the discussion, sometimes not.

OSHA

Sorry, but OSHA rules and regulations are not based on rights.

Apples and watermelons are not entirely unrelated,

Neither are cats and dogs. Just because something has some vague broad relationship doesn't mean they respond the same to all factors. Micro versus macro.

You are debating what the definition of is is.

First, the definition is important, which you fail to understand. Second, subtle nuances are important to recognizing differences, especially in law.

You said there were no studies that would prove allowing ccw would make the workplaces less safe.

Correct, just as I said there are no studies that prove allowing CCW would make the workplace more safe. The Loomis study does neither, in spite of your claim. Have you read the Loomis study or just what others have said about it?

See Penn and Teller Videos on Gun Control to find out where that one falls then.

No need to see anything other than the stated intent of the organization.

Actually my position stated above is proven by 20.000 plus gun laws on the books that do not stop criminals from using guns.

That's nice, but irrelevant. Note what was said: "That is a nice position, but one without any valid support in this specific instance." You keep trying to mix macro and micro. Doesn't work.

Because it does not seem to be within judicial notice that banning licensed ccw in workplaces can endanger workers. If that were true, the liability situation might change.

Again, I'm not sure what that position has to do with the issue of rights as is being discussed here. You keep saying it does, you keep wanting it to, but it just doesn't work that way.

The current state of affairs says that the employer's money is more important than the employee's life.

Sigh. You keep tossing these little tidbits out that sound real good but have no basis in reality.

Relating to robbery the persons who resisted with a firearm were less likely to be injured than those who submitted.

Again, that is a nice cherry-pick of one part of the bigger picture.

I would think that incident tends to support my position that people are responsible for their own defense

And I could suggest it causes your entire "guns at work make it safer" position out the door. See how that works? In reality I would not suggest that because we need to look at valid, representative information to come to these conclusions, and a few stories pro or con are just that, a few stories.

Are you agreeing that doing so is not always the right thing to do?

I am saying that whether or not I think something is the right thing to do is totally irrelevant to whether or not there is a right to do it.

 

[Perldog007]

Nuances are wonderful, but having an intuitive grasp of the immediately obvious is a good thing too.

The current trend of empowering citizens with their own defensive tools which has swept most of America is based on our belief that the Second Amendment affirms an inherent right. Feel free to disagree, it's a free country.

We have arguably gotten to the point of the absurd with this back and forth. Among the most glaring examples may be your statement,

Sorry, but OSHA rules and regulations are not based on rights.

You have a right to a safe and healthful workplace. That's why Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/index.html

That's not me saying it, that's the governments stated position. I am terribly sure that I must have missed some important nuance in your ten word sentence (YIKES!! nine words and an acronym - another instance of nuance non-recognition!!). Just pretend that at least one other person reading this thread is as dense as I am and break it down for us.

While I would defend your right to have your opinions of my positions, and your right to express them to the extent that I have sworn to, it does not mean agreement is a foregone conclusion.

Proof that criminals are deterred by armed citizens is irrelevant. Worker safety is irrelevant. Liability is irrelevant. Are property rights the only relevant issue? Then let's discuss them.

Perhaps those of us without credentials should fall silent and wait for the "official results" to come in. Such is not in my nature. I purchased a Senseo coffee maker and took it to work with nothing blind faith to assure me that it would perform in the workplace as it did at home. Guess I just got lucky with that one.

Property rights and the concept of liability have been around for a long long time. They are not static. The rights of employers much the same.

I am saying that whether or not I think something is the right thing to do is totally irrelevant to whether or not there is a right to do it.

Which to us knuckle dragging non nuance understanding types means having a right and being right are not always the same thing.

If a person is motivated to commit a capitol offense, misdemeanors, low grade felonies, and company policies are no deterrent. To suggest otherwise is the height of absurdity.

You keep insisting this is irrelevant but a simple google on "No Weapons Policy" provides examples of company policy, consultants and advocates of these policies insisting that a "no weapons" policy is the way to make the workplace safe.

Instead of suggesting that the delivery person is safer unarmed, the hoplophobes will say "what if he doesn't like his tip?". Suggesting that the citizen who took the trouble to get licensed will now start blasting away for the perceived slight of being under tipped.

The policy wonks are just plain wrong. When a court rules that working in a gas station at night alone in a bad part of town or as a cashier in a liquor store exposes one to no more risk than they would be at home or on the street, that court is jacked up with no back up.

No big deal in the long run, that's why we have a system of judicial review. If laws were set in stone we would not need it.

Is having a right to do wrong a good thing? Does it make sense to debate and discuss? Some state legislatures evidently think so.

Even as Oklahoma and Conoco slug it out over the parking lot in court, there is a state senator in OK desiring to pass a law that would over ride the employer's wishes regarding licensed ccw.

Don't waste your energy on me, better go and set them right before this lack of nuance understanding and mixing macro watermelons and cats with micro apples and dogs gets out of hand.

 

[Frank Ettin]

IMHO this whole thread has gotten "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" silly. Whether anyone thinks things ought to be different, and however anyone's particular utopia is organized, the reality is that today an employer's policy trumps your CCW. Folks can, and have in this thread, come up with all kinds of sometimes pretty fanciful arguments about why it should or should not be thus. Nonetheless, that is the way it is.

If anyone wants to test things, he is welcome to go to work with his roscoe on his hip and his CCW in his wallet; and if his employer has a "no guns" policy and finds out, he'll get fired. He can then hire a lawyer and sue his employer and see how things turn out. My guess is that after ten years or so in the courts, and after impoverishing himself while making some lawyers rich, he'll still be fired.

Now for all of you who have what you think are swell reasons why this should not or would not be the case, well give it a try and see how things work out. All your fine arguments really don't mean anything unless a judge buys them, so give it a whirl. The arguments aren't going to get tested on the Internet. The only test that matters is in court. It's not us you need to convince; it's the judge.

And if you agree that this is the current state of the law and think it should be something else, why waste time here in cyberspace? Write your elected representatives, write your pro-gun lobbyists, start a grassroots campaign, circulate petitions to get an initiative on the ballot, etc. In other words, do something.

All this Internet blather is worthless.

 

[MarkoPo]

Wont happen. The constitution is a restraint on government. A private entity can violate the hell out of your rights and generally there is no recourse.

Just like you have zero freedom of speech on this board, you have no second amendment rights on private property.

From brady bill site:
Kentucky - State law forces employers and businesses to allow guns on their privately held property. This dangerous law seeks to turn companies into criminals if they ban guns on their private property.

Seems Kentucky disagrees with you here. Oklahoma is the same way, or am I reading something wrong here?

 

[STAGE 2]

From brady bill site:
Kentucky - State law forces employers and businesses to allow guns on their privately held property. This dangerous law seeks to turn companies into criminals if they ban guns on their private property.

Seems Kentucky disagrees with you here. Oklahoma is the same way, or am I reading something wrong here?

I was waiting for some evidence of troll activity and here it is. If your ignorance of the constitution combined with your attitude towards gun rights wasn't enough, quoting the brady website as authoratitive puts you over the top.

Admit it, you are here to disturb the community.

 

[Frank Ettin]

What you're missing MarkoPo, is that the site you're referring to belongs to a virulent anti-gun organization, and it's trying to make Kentucky and Oaklahoma sound as bad as possible from its perspective.

 

[MarkoPo]

I know exactly what the Brady Campaign stands for. Heard the phrase keep your friends close and your enemies closer? I think it is funny how you some how see me as a troll or a threat. Like I said earlier you belief's seem absloute, all or nothing, black or white, your way or no way. I am just offering prospective on how one could inturpet the laws. I can't say I have an answer as to a public place should be forced to allow concealed to be carried. If it were purely for safety sake why not. I guess I don't see how it infringes on the property owners right, espically if it is concealed he shouldn't know you have it in the first place. On the other hand most all employment is at will, so yea you can be fired for anything not protected under law. It is a touchy subject indeed. I do have an open mind and I am a free thinker, obviously something you find to be a fault.

 

[Perldog007]

I think it's funny that Dave Armstrong keeps telling me how thick I am for going on and on about safety.

Conoco Phillips challenged the OK law and won the first round, litigation continues.

The Federal Court Judge ruled (incorrectly, many would say) that the Oklahoma Law kept Conoco from fulfilling their obligation to provide the employees a safe workplace as required by OSHA.

The company's property rights were not the reason for the injunction.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071006_1_A1_hHeis85083

All this Internet blather is worthless.

Discussion worse than strapping on a roscoe and going to work with my ccw? That would actually be a pretty serious offense because of where I work. So I will indulge in worthless internet blather since my representatives have been and will be contacted on this and many other issues.

I would counter that when you have a professional researcher jumping up and down talking about safety and OSHA being irrelevant and these issues being cited by the court to strike down RKBA friendly legislation, we need to have the discussion.

To quote the modern day poet Jay Z "If you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward".

 

[ornithoid]

There is all sorts of liability in letting people carry at your business. You can't equate safety guidelines to carrying a weapon.

There's liability in allowing people to do, legally, what the state has licensed them to do? That seems really really odd.

People are legally allowed to walk around. They are legally allowed to push a shopping cart. If someone pushes her shopping cart into my ankle and causes a laceration requiring medical attention, and possibly crippling me, is the store the one that is liable?

People also are legally allowed to sneeze; if someone sneezes on me in a store (a misuse of the legal right to sneeze) can I sue the store, because after all, they are to be held accountable for what people do with their legally defensible abilities and rights...?