Does employer's policy override CCW license?

[Perldog007]

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

Strange but true, there is liability in that. Read this http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2002/0205/dupon051.htm

to get an idea on how the liability situation works and why.

Employers are generally not responsible for third party criminal acts, in other words you work for them you get killed by a lunatic, no biggie unless they allowed the lunatic to bring their AK to work.....

The Employer bans weapons, butt covered to an extent. That's how it generally works.

Perhaps time to talk about how to change that?

 

[Edward429451]

Well, you could go into business for yourself.

 

[Perldog007]

Well, you could go into business for yourself.

You darn sure could, and if your business is successful, there will come a time when the insurance folks want to talk to you about having a zero tolerance for violence policy and a no weapons policy in order for you coverage to continue.

Employers and employees are needed for our way of life.

 

[STAGE 2]

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?

No, but if an employer allows employees to carry on the premises, and one has a ND and injures someone, both the employee and employer will be liable. The employer has the ability to control conditions, and their action made the injury possible. If they had not allowed firearms on the premises the injury would not have happened.

You don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.

 

[Perldog007]

I agree 200% with Stage2's assessment. We have to remember that at this time most courts (judges) consider firearms in civilian hands instruments of danger rather than safety tools.

The ruling against OK by judge Kern affirms that.

 

[David Armstrong]

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

And being able to differentiate betweennuance and obvious is very important.

That's not me saying it, that's the governments stated position.

Sigh. Are you really that obtuse?? Do you honestly not understand that there is a difference between something that is "based on rights" and "having a right to" something? Here. let me try--you might have the right to a refund if your product is defective. But getting a refund is not based on any rights.

Are property rights the only relevant issue?

Yes, if that is what is being discussed. Unless, again, you want to forward the arguemnt that your rights are based on how safe the property is, which I think is absurd.

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.

But nobody has suggested that, so for you to bring it up is quite absurd.

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.

Yes. Again, only if you want to argue that your rights are determined by the safety level of the business would that have even any remote relevance.

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.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever checked the data comparing frequency of violent crime at home and at the workplace??

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

David has never said you were thick for going on and on about safety. Again, try to deal with what is said rather than what you make up.

 

[Perldog007]

From : http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/index.html

You have a right to a safe and healthful workplace. That's why Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

How does one read that and conclude that OSHA regulations are not based on rights?


As you did when you said

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

Let me try to help you, you have a right to a safe and healthful workplace - Based on those rights Congress passed the OSHA of 1970 and allowed for enforcement of the OSHA rules and regulations.

Alternatively, we do not have a right to OSHA rules and regulations. OSHA rules and regulations are based on our rights to safe and healthful workplaces.

Obtuse? I am not slow, dull, lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

Ahh yes, the ever popular ad hominem response. Usually it is a pretty good indicator that one cannot defend their position with logic, facts and reason.

Who said that???? http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2682816&postcount=199

Yes. Again, only if you want to argue that your rights are determined by the safety level of the business would that have even any remote relevance.

Don't take my word for it, and I am not arguing, that's the way it is. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071006_1_A1_hHeis85083

Gun bans don't stop criminals.

Licensed law abiding people are not dangerous.

Victim disarmament is bad.

Spurious arguments for victim disarmament based on safety need to be challenged.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8 Perhaps another viewing will help clear it up?

 

[David Armstrong]

How does one read that and conclude that OSHA regulations are not based on rights?

How does one read that and not understand the difference between something that is "based on rights" and "having a right to" something?

Obtuse? I not slow, dull, lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

That is why I ask, rather than engage in an ad hominem attack as you seem to think. Again, perhaps that is one of those subtle nuances of language that you seem to be having so much trouble understanding. So I ask again, then, as you say it is not a result of being obtuse, do you really not understand the differences being discussed or are you just intentionally disregarding them?

Don't take my word for it, and I am not arguing, that's the way it is.

Then once again you are arguing something that has not been said. Have you even read the judges opinion? There is nothing there that says one's rights are determined by safety measures at the company. Kern says the OK law is in conflict with OSHA rules and regulations. That has nothing to do with your rights. You might note Kern specifically refers to OSHA rules, not
2nd Amendment rights and so on.

Gun bans don't stop criminals.

Partially true. So what?

Licensed law abiding people are not dangerous.

Not true. I'm both licensed and law abiding, yet I'm fairly dangerous. The issues become who am I dangerous to and how dangerous am I. But again, so what?

Spurious arguments for victim disarmament based on safety need to be challenged.

True. But what constitutes a spurious argument? Is it one where someone is attempting to use macro-level data to prove a micro-level point? Is it one where a biased party cherry-picks bits of info in an attempt to sway decisions rather than using all available valid information? And of course, so what? None of that stuff has anything to do with the issue of employer/employee rights.

 

[Perldog007]

True. But what constitutes a spurious argument?

The spurious argument of gun bans equaling safety is the linchpin of the current state of affairs for most employees.

The notion that eliminating all weapons without alternative protection actually makes us safer is what I am suggesting in spurious. We get to the point where licensed people cannot keep defense tools even locked up in their cars with safety as the reason that notion needs to be examined.

You yourself have agreed that the policies dictating what one keeps in their own car may be excessive.

That has nothing to do with your rights. You might note Kern specifically refers to OSHA rules, not
2nd Amendment rights and so on.

The OSHA rules are supposedly based on the worker's rights to a safe and healthful workplace.

That right to safety is what keeps even licensed people from carrying their defense tools, even locked up in their cars.

It is accepted that depriving folks of their defense tools without any effective replacement is safer than any defense tools on the property at all.

MIght it be time to challenge that? Perhaps the watermelon experts could do some apple studies? Maybe ask for proof of the popular assumptions?

 

[David Armstrong]

The spurious argument of gun bans equaling safety is the linchpin of the current state of affairs for most employees.

I would suggest that your argument concerning safety is the spurious argument for this issue, which is one of employer rights.

The notion that eliminating all weapons without alternative protection actually makes us safer is what I am suggesting in spurious.

Again you argue against what nobody has said. There are many alternatives, you just don't like them or think that they are as good as what you want.

The OSHA rules are supposedly based on the worker's rights to a safe and healthful workplace.

Sigh. Once again, there is a difference between something that is "based on rights" and "having a right to" something.

MIght it be time to challenge that?

Might be. And if so, perhaps you will get some actual valid evidence to support your contentions. And then maybe you will quit arguing with all this irrelevant stuff and get back to the actual issue, which is the "based on right" issue for the employer and the employee.

 

[Perldog007]

I would suggest that your argument concerning safety is the spurious argument for this issue, which is one of employer rights.

In the great state of OK, the legislature decided that employers could not prevent employees from keeping firearms locked up in their cars. This was challenged in court. At the present time the ruling has come down on the side of the employers being able to ban the guns.

It's not based on employer rights. Judge Kern's ruling is based on employer responsibility to respect the employee rights to a safe workplace as regulated by OSHA.

Again you argue against what nobody has said. There are many alternatives, you just don't like them or think that they are as good as what you want.

Again, in the case of my current employer, all they have to do is to ban weapons to escape liability. We have no other means of protection except hoping 911 will come in time. That happens about five percent of the time when people call 911.

This is the norm at workplaces with no weapons policies. Not all workplaces, but a great many simply prohibit the employees from having their customary means of defense. Quite a few augment this with a "zero tolerance for violence" policy.

Quote:
The OSHA rules are supposedly based on the worker's rights to a safe and healthful workplace.

Sigh. Once again, there is a difference between something that is "based on rights" and "having a right to" something.

"having a right to something" Congress says we have a right to a safe workplace.

"based on rights" Based on those rights we have the OSH Act of 1970.

Sigh away at full speed if necessary, that's the situation. I am not the one sighing or forwarding the position that OSHA rules and regulations are not based on rights.

Might be. And if so, perhaps you will get some actual valid evidence to support your contentions. And then maybe you will quit arguing with all this irrelevant stuff and get back to the actual issue, which is the "based on right" issue for the employer and the employee.

I have presented valid evidence of my contentions. I am not arguing every point to absurdity. I am responding to your arguments.

The actual issue "based on right" has been decided by one Federal court as being the right to a safe workplace.


Depriving people of their customary means of defense incurs predictable results. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Unarmed people have a much harder task when they endeavor to stop a spree shooter than armed people do.

If you need studies confined to workplaces to in order to confirm and comprehend the above statements you may be beyond our ability to help you here. Perhaps you should seek other assistance.

 

[David Armstrong]

It's not based on employer rights. Judge Kern's ruling is based on employer responsibility to respect the employee rights to a safe workplace as regulated by OSHA.

Sigh. For about the 100th time, then it is irrelevant to this discussion. No matter how many times you try to side-track it, the question here is employer rights versus employee rights.

We have no other means of protection except hoping 911 will come in time.

So, that is an alternative, right? One you may not like, but it is an alternative. And there are more. Lots and lots of businesses operate just fine without allowing CCW by their employees. Anyone who thinks their safety is defined by having a gun on them is probably wrong anyway. ANd of course, safety is irrelevant to the rights issue.

Sigh away at full speed if necessary, that's the situation.

Apparently it is the situation. If you cannot understand the difference between those two issues we are at an impasse, and it certainly explains your inability to understand so many other issues that have come up here.

I have presented valid evidence of my contentions.

No. You have provided evidence to support sertain contentions. But those supp[orted contentions are not necessarily the same as the contentions you keep trying to apply them to, such as workplace safety and property rights.

Depriving people of their customary means of defense incurs predictable results. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Unarmed people have a much harder task when they endeavor to stop a spree shooter than armed people do.

That's nice. It has nothing to do with whether or not the employer has the right to ban CCW in his business.

If you need studies confined to workplaces to in order to confirm and comprehend the above statements you may be beyond our ability to help you here.

Studies don't need to be confined to the workplace, but they do need to be relevant to the workplace. Unfortunately, yours lack that. And given that you seem unable to understand that crucial difference between macro and micro-level concepts, it is apparent that we cannot discuss this in an intelligent and knowledgeable manner. You may certainly have the last word. I'm fairly certain it will not be relevant to the discussion, but you may have it anyway. Bye now.

 

[Perldog007]

If we are talking about employer employee rights then people who think that an armed populace is the natural defense of a free state may question the employers right to restrict an employees means of defense.

I don't necessarily question that right out of hand. I do believe that if we deprive persons of their customary means of defense an additional duty arises. The courts tend to disagree at this time. There has been and will be more legislation proposed to change this equation.

Whether or not you believe that OSHA rules and regulations are based on rights, the employee's right to a safe and healthful workplace can supersede property rights of the employer, and/or the employers right to do business any way they wish.

If in fact these gun bans make employees and workplaces more attractive to those disposed to evil and therefore more dangerous, it needs to be discussed. If these bans are preventing legitimate self defense and creating hazardous work environments they need to go.

We may not have proof, but there are strong indicators.

There is plenty of data and historical experience to suggest that prohibitions of desired items in general, and gun prohibitions in particular do not work.

There is a lot of ground between a total ban and everybody carrying their basic infantry weapon, pistol, and spare ammo for the SAW. Some might even suggest a reasonable ground. Does it make more sense to search for the reasonable solutions?

Or should we remain at the extremes?