Does employer's policy override CCW license?

Much has been said about liability. How many problems have licensed carriers caused in the workplace?

How many times have we heard news reports of killers in gun free zones causing much death and pain?
Click to expand...

Exactly! We hear all the time about workplace shootings. What are the statistics as far as legal concealed weapons used improperly in the workplace?

Some of you guys need to wake up and realize what hypocrites you are. If you think your employer's NO GUNS policy is a good one and that it makes your workplace safer, you are giving in to the anti's. Plain and simple. If you cannot see that, you ARE the slow boiling frog.

The 2nd Amendment which we all 'should' believe in with our heart and soul should not be checked at the door. Any door, with certain exceptions. I believe that a man's legal concealed weapon is no different from the shirt he wears, his shoes, his wallet, his wristwatch or the change in his pocket. I believe that no corporate entity should ever be able to strip us of our basic rights. The law needs to be changed so that employers have no authority over inanimate objects in our pockets.
 
Quote from CraigC:

"The law needs to be changed so that employers have no authority over inanimate objects in our pockets."

No craig, the law and underlying culture needs to be changed so employers can get on with their business and not spend half their day worrying about sleezebag lawyers, activist special interest groups and the current state of the media.

Let's say that an employer permitted CCW on their premises. I guarantee you that not seven sunrises and seven sunsets would elapse before someone complained about creation of a 'hostile environment'. Gays, Blacks, Lesbians, handicapped eskimos, etc are afraid to work around all those"angry white guys carrying guns." There would be hysterical idiots not reporting for work because they were afraid of getting shot. The imagined perceptions of a bunch of chronic complainers would become the basis of EEO complaints and lawsuits from any number of taxpayer and contribution funded activist legal funds.

How would this play in the media? Could a company defend itself successfully judged by a jury of sheeple morons who will believe anything a drama schooled lawyer tells them? After a couple of suits like this, the company would spend more on liability insurance than making its payroll or product.

You are not dealing with facts, logics, common sense or statistics you are dealing with the perceptions of hypersensitive always angry, easily offended troublemakers who have the ear of the media and access to publically funded legal assistance and the weight of the government.

Sorry, that's the new American way and its not going to change anytime soon.

Anybody give to the United Way? They provide major funding to those advocacy groups that are destroying the fabric of our culture.
 
I agree with Jaysouth on the basis of the way things are. I don't think it's hopeless and I don't think it can't change.

I remember Virginia in the early 1980's. Only people who could carry their guns were those who did so openly ( a strategy that carries it's own risks) and a privileged few.

That has changed now. It is changing all over. It ain't quick and it ain't easy. Twenty years after Florida led the way we are still just beginning.

What I think Jaysouth is accurately portraying is a bigotry against the culture of self defense. At one time not so long ago bigotry against most minorities, including blacks was systemic and accepted.

I can remember my mom coming home from work totally wrecked emotionally because she had four kids to support and her bosses told her they could not pay her what the men made. It was accepted at the time.

Point being that we don't have to accept injustice as carved in stone. Our cause has gained momentum.

The rationalization I took exception to earlier in this thread is to me indicative of a mindset justifying disarming people because they can't be trusted.

Heck we know the mental state of the police - they are under stress. We know their level of training because we pay for it and bitch about the price. We know their level of skill, it ain't great.

But the same people that won't let their employees carry have no problem with the police carrying.

That does not mean it's hopeless. It just means that we have to keep working.

Just remember that gun control started with bigoty and it still runs on it. Changing fear and hate isn't easy. It isn't fun. The work is not it's own reward. But it has to be done.
 
No craig, the law and underlying culture needs to be changed so employers can get on with their business and not spend half their day worrying about sleezebag lawyers, activist special interest groups and the current state of the media.
Click to expand...

How do you propose to effect this change to law and culture? I don't see how rewarding anti-gun advocacy groups with an unending stream of victories will dissuade them from their purpose.

Let's say that an employer permitted CCW on their premises. I guarantee you that not seven sunrises and seven sunsets would elapse before someone complained about creation of a 'hostile environment'. Gays, Blacks, Lesbians, handicapped eskimos, etc are afraid to work around all those"angry white guys carrying guns."
Click to expand...

When gays, blacks, lesbians, and handicapped Eskimos are all carrying themselves, then no one will remain to be offended. This change will never come about when we are the ones giving ground. Incidentally, while there may be renown and vocal anti-gun black demagogues out there supposing to speak for the Black Community, I know a number of black men who are practiced shooters and staunch supporters of gun rights. Also, as evinced by the existence of the Pink Pistols, gays and lesbians are not necessarily anti-gun by nature of their romantic dispositions. I could not find the handicapped Eskimo's website, so, for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise that they are all anti-gun. Or at least anti-angry-white-guy-with-a-gun.

You are not dealing with facts, logics, common sense or statistics you are dealing with the perceptions of hypersensitive always angry, easily offended troublemakers who have the ear of the media and access to publically funded legal assistance and the weight of the government.
Click to expand...

All the more reason to "stick to our guns (pun intended)." These groups have made headway through persistently staying on message, despite the mountain of facts, logic and common sense arrayed against them. Why should we do less, when all those factors are on our side?

Sorry, that's the new American way and its not going to change anytime soon.
Click to expand...

When your strategy is capitulation, it will never change. Indeed, it will inevitably get worse.

If I may repeat a classic: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
 
Last edited:
On private property, weapons can be banned by the owner/leasee. I think this is true in most states. Our building is not posted, but our workplace manual clearly states that employees are not allowed to possess firearms and weapons in the workplace. They don't define weapon, but I think if they wanted to they could consider a small knife a weapon and fire you.

Our security is challenging unknown people on the floor with a "Can I help you?". Of course the president and senior executives work on a secure floor with armed security. I guess my life and safety isn't worth protecting as much as theirs. But I do choose to work there.

On the other hand, if you were to carry discretly and concealed, I don't think anyone would ever know. Is the possible loss of a job worth your safety? I think that's a decision each individual must answer for themselves.
 
WHAT is the law on stores ? Can I carry into stores which is a place of employ but as a customer ? are stores "public area" ? or not ?

for example, philadelphia archery range and shop over on ellsworth.. last time I was there there was a sign on the door.

"Unload your weapons"

what is the policy on that ? or how about if there was no sign at all ?

( I have PA carry permit )
 
In almost place I have worked I would say that if they allowed everyone that wanted to carry a gun to work to do that the odds of one employee shooting another would be about 10 times a high as someone from outside shooting them. :eek: There were a few that I was really glad did not carry a gun. I have found that having a CCW doesn't mean that they have magically been turned into a sensible law abiding citizen that knows all about proper gun handling and safety. In many states all a permit means is that they haven't been caught yet. It doesn't mean they know one thing about the law or which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
 
Cut Employers some Slack

Perldog007 continues to throw out some of the most reckless comments on this thread. Let’s remember the original question presented was, “Does my employer's no weapon policy override my right to carry concealed weapons?” Every opinion offered in defense of the employer’s legal right to establish his own workplace policies has been met with accusations of “bigotry against the culture of self defense.”

This is ridiculous. Let’s remember, Perldog2007, America is a CAPITALISTIC country where businesses operate under what remains of the freedom to do so. One of the greatest challenges facing American businesses today is finding competent honest employees who are actually willing to put in a day’s work to earn a day’s pay. Let’s walk through this employer-employee scenario from the beginning…

An employer weeds through a stack of applications looking for a new employee. Remember, most of these applicants are products of the government school system, so deciphering their infantile scribble on the applications is an uphill battle in itself. So, the employer calls in Joe Blow for an interview and he shows up with his hat on backwards, his wrinkled shirt untucked, and his baggy jeans falling off his rear end. You struggle through a few questions to which our droopy-eyed scholar answers, “What?” as his first response each time, and then you ask him if he is willing to submit to a drug test before being hired. At this, the MAJORITY disappear through the door never to be seen again. Welcome to Jobforce America 2008.

Finally, our employer scores a winner who manages to rise above the process and be hired. America’s pride and joy has a job! But, is he willing to work? Heck, just getting him to show up on time (or show up at all) is a chore. Joe is asked to do a few simple tasks and we find he doesn’t know which end of a paint brush to hold. This is no exaggeration. We supervise his treatment of customers and we find him rude, uncaring, and condescending. A customer asks about an item to purchase and is told, “We don’t have it.” The same customer then turns and finds it himself.

Payday finally arrives and Joe spends his first paycheck on a case of beer and whatever other mind-numbing substances he can afford. He’s scheduled to work the next morning and guess what…he doesn’t call in sick…he just fails to show up. The same goes for several of his co-workers.

Why am I painting this pessimistic picture? It’s accurate. The days of the good-ole American work ethic are history. Why are American companies drifting overseas? Overtaxation is but one reason. They’re searching for people who will actually work for their pay.

Now let’s come back to our issue. We’re labeling our employers as untrusting, unfair bigots because they don’t want to risk their futures on the frightening prospect of allowing all employees to carry weapons during the paid time when these employees are representing the employer. Give me a break. The fact that an employee holds a CCW permit is no assurance whatsoever to an employer that this employee can handle the responsibility of being armed in the workplace. Employers simply cannot afford the risk.

You want to reverse this pattern? It has to start with changing the hearts and souls of the people. Let’s put ‘em in the pews on Sunday morning rather than on the couch with a bag of chips. Let’s quit indoctrinating our children about global warming, the evils of American corporations, and the need to save the rain forests in South America. Perldog007, rather than moan and complain about American employers who have, as you put it, “a mindset justifying disarming people because they can't be trusted,” let’s consider the root causes of what creates this mindset.

We need to cut the employers some slack here. You give them some honest employees schooled (at home preferably) in common decency, with an honest work ethic, and the ability to add without using their fingers, and you’ll likely see these no-weapons-in-the-workplace policies disappear. Heck, the employers might even dish out handguns as a Christmas bonus.

Don’t look for it anytime soon.
 
In many states all a permit means is that they haven't been caught yet. It doesn't mean they know one thing about the law or which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Click to expand...

When Kellerman did his flawed study which concluded that a gun in the home was many times more likely to kill an innocent person his methodology was so flawed that funding for him and the CDC was cut by the Carter Administration.

But at least Kellerman made an attempt to make his position look logical.

I guess if I haven't been caught in 46 years odds are good I am not doing anything. In fact if you make it to 21 without any major scrapes with the law that is no certain guarantee, but is a good indicator you are not a trouble maker.

The above quoted post is a sterling argument for unilateral personal disarmament. Sounds like something you could read on the Brady site. In my last state, in my current state a permit means that you have submitted to an application process and background check, fingerprinting, and have provided proof of training.

All that having been said, how is it that we have to beg to exercise our G-d given and constitutionally protected rights.?

Jeff Cooper said it best : "Since there are more good people than bad people, what would happen if everybody were armed? Simple." or words to that effect.

We should not need background checks and permits because criminals will not bother to go through those hoops and they are an unnecessary expense for law abiding types to bear.

The criminal element imports narcotics into this country by the metric ton. To think that criminals cannot or will not obtain firearms because the rest of us jump through hoops is beyond dishonest and beyond unintelligent.

Gun Free zones? Between 1997 and 2002 32 children were shot and killed in our nation's schools including gang related kilings. During that same time period 53 children were killed playing football. How about football free schools?

To those of you validating the position of the employers, I don't buy it. I understand it but think they are wrong. So does the State of Florida. If the public is allowed in a place permit holders are good to go. One state down, many more to go.

To answer the question for P.A. YES property owners and employers can set the policy for their property. Move to Florida or get to work on some activism. :cool:
 
We’re labeling our employers as untrusting, unfair bigots
Click to expand...

Just about all of us suffer from some form of bigotry and I know I try to be fair but I am not perfect. Haven't met any human I could call perfect either. I am taking exception with a particular kind of bigotry.

Why am I painting this pessimistic picture? It’s accurate.
Click to expand...

The last two jobs I did hiring for were managing private security firms in the mountains of southwest Virginia and the mean streets of southeast D.C. In D.C. my armed SPOs' made a bit over minimum but my guards at both firms made the mandated minimum.

All I can say is that things must have really gone down hill fast. We don't see that where I work now (in a Warehouse) and I rarely saw that hiring for guards. When I did get one who called out after the first check there was no shortage of people wanting a job to replace him.

It was hard to find basic skills sometimes, but honest people were not terribly difficult to find. I had 54 boys and girls. In point of fact most of them would be stereotyped by many because they were all from rough neighborhoods and of modest means.

I made it through Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Eve and the Redskins in the Super Bowl without a single call out. This was not in the 1940's either. Maybe you need better managers. That was my first management job. I read some books and did my best. It wasn't easy but I got the company in the black by cutting overtime out and accomplished the above.

the frightening prospect of allowing all employees to carry weapons during the paid time when these employees are representing the employer.
Click to expand...

Here we have to agree to disagree. You see it was my business to hire and sally forth individuals who carried weapons with my employer's name on a four inch round Special Police Patch on each shoulder. That's what I got paid for.

These folks had less training than most ccw permit holders. They got a background check, fired 60 rounds at a range (were prohibited by law from even dry fire practice, no provisions to take their weapons to a range for practice) and they read the oath of office of a sheet of paper under plastic wrap at the Reeves Building at 14th and U streets.

It's only frightening if you project some power onto a firearm that is does not have. I would counter that having my people wear guns made them more responsible because the stakes were raised. They knew they could be injured, dead, or jailed, or sued for breach of duty or care.

My armed people caused far fewer problems of every kind than the unarmed people did. I don't think it was simply a pay difference. The SPO's I supervised at Union Station had better salaries and better benefits than my SPO's in the contract company. The unarmed SPOs' at Union Station were the most problem prone.

So i have to reject your premise and agree to disagree.

The fact that an employee holds a CCW permit is no assurance whatsoever to an employer that this employee can handle the responsibility of being armed in the workplace. Employers simply cannot afford the risk.
Click to expand...

If that is your view then that's that. I have to ask how the workplace is so different from every other place? So what you are saying is that a ccw means nothing and people should not carry ? Or that people become rabid animals at work?

Are you saying that having guns would make your people dangerous? Are you saying they can't be trusted period?

That's like saying a driver's permit is no assurance that the employee can handle rush hour traffic in a company vehicle. And rest assured that the employee with a vehicle is more likely to cause injury or death than the one with a ccw.

I would counter that if you can't trust them with guns you shouldn't trust them at all. Why not move your company into a prison. Inmates don't have guns. They still manage to kill each other though.

My point is that prohibiting weapons only deprives the law abiding. Removing guns entirely simply causes substitution for the truly committed. In the workplace since guns are prohibited but not unavailable that means bad people will have them and good people won't.

But I guess that is acceptable to some. Not to me. It was not acceptable to the folks who started this country.

In Florida if the employer allows the public in the workplace they don't get the choice. No problems from ccw there.

I just do not accept the premise that letting people arm themselves turns them into demons or boobs. If they are either and you had no choice to hire them then you need to pay more.

Heck I don't make that much and my employer does not have anybody here who would make me uneasy if they were armed. We all have trucks already. Far more dangerous than guns.

In my brief tenure here this small squad of gun free folks has done more property damage and injury with their trucks in this state than all the ccw permit holders have done in the workplace. (But this state is discretionary where I sit. still in shall issue states I can't find instances of permit holders causing anywhere near the damage my boys here have done by driving)

Oddly enough, our insurance cost would be prohibitive if the workers drove their own vehicles with their own insurance and we had them all licensed to carry. Kind of strange. Not based on what insurance companies call actuarials (dang I can say it but can't spell it) but based on knee jerk emotion. Something you would think would be anathema in running a profit based company.

Uderstand I am not attacking kmoffit for his orientation on gun rights. I am attacking the orientation itself. I used to be anti-gun. The first time I had to carry a gun to work I whined about getting a dog instead. I refused to carry it loaded. I had my eyes opened.

I am not trying to open somebody else's eyes. What I am doing is preaching to the choir and telling them that legal carry is just a start. We have more work to do.

Perldog007 continues to throw out some of the most reckless comments on this thread.
Click to expand...

Florida's law in 1987 allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed deadly weapons was called reckless and worse far and wide by the media, academia, and politicians everywhere. Don't take my word for it, google is your buddy here.

Florida's "stand your ground" statutes and laws protecting permit holders in workplaces the public is allowed in have come under similar attack from the anti-side.

The same arguments in this thread against letting people carry at work can and have been used to promote unilateral personal disarmament.

They were wrong about Florida. They are wrong about schools and they are wrong about the workplace.

If that is reckless to you I would suggest considering literature of an alternate viewpoint. Aaron has an excellent site at http://www.jpfo.org .

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that gun control in all it's various forms only disarms good people who follow rules and puts them at a terrible disadvantage against the lawless.
 
Build a Strawman...

Perldog007, you're not addressing my remarks at all. You're building your own strawman arguments, and then defeating them to make your own point. If you're blind to the current state of immorality in our country, and if you refuse to see that employers need to minimize their risks in an environment of diminishing competence in the overall workforce, than I don't know why you're even posting in this particular thread.
 
Pocket carry.

Don't say anything.

Problem solved.

DeSantisNemisisPocketHolsterPagePHOTO1.gif
 
You make a good point. Having a policy covers the company. Few are going to take the effort to perform searches, or even ask questions...
 
Perldog007, you're not addressing my remarks at all. You're building your own strawman arguments, and then defeating them to make your own point. If you're blind to the current state of immorality in our country, and if you refuse to see that employers need to minimize their risks in an environment of diminishing competence in the overall workforce, than I don't know why you're even posting in this particular thread.
Click to expand...

I was a Special Police Officer in National Capitol Public and Assisted Housing. I have seen immorality that an officer at a medium sized company would need a very broad base of experience to understand.

I insist that employers need to minimize their risks and my workplace is not exactly overflowing in competence from any level of employee or employer.

We both want the same thing, a safe workplace. You say that telling those people who submit to background checks and fingerprinting, who have been trained in safety, marksmanship and use of force (required by the last two states I lived in) and approved to carry concealed deadly weapons they should be denied access to self defense tools in the workplace makes work safer.

I disagree. Find me an instance of a licensed ccw permit holder shooting up their workplace. We have all heard the sensationalized instances of criminals shooting up gun free zones (except when they have been stopped by legally handguns held by private citizens, those stories don't always make the front page)


You say you can't know the mental state, level of skill or training of your employees so you have to enforce a no guns policy. I say the state has licensed them to carry concealed weapons and want to know your logical basis in fact for second guessing the state.


You say the CCW permit offers no assurance to the employer that the person can be trusted with a gun in the workplace. That confuses me. The CCW permit is a certification by the state that the person can and should be trusted to carry a gun concealed.

By the no guns policy companies are offering assurance to thugs, rapists, murderers, and other criminals that your workplace is a safe place for them, because your law abiding employees have been disarmed for their convenience.


To the people who say that's the way it is and we can't change it, I say that ain't the way it is every where and we have made positive changes in the past. We have more to make in the future.

There are places where people can carry guns into schools and certain workplaces by statute. If you were correct in your position that people cannot be trusted to carry at work even if licensed how can this be?

The argument that people are incompetent to own and carry guns is a classic anti-gun mantra. Experience with twenty years of shall issue permits and thirty eight states going shall issue says you are wrong.

I agree that insurance can be a beach with an "it" and no "a". Insurance companies want to make money. If we take their money because they made a place unsafe for decent people they will see the light when they feel the heat.

Which of your remarks have I not addressed? I enjoy civilized debate and will happily expound on any point which I have not made clear.
 
But that doesn't happen. Your employer says your license is valid. Your employer doesn't make the workplace safe for criminals. Most folks working and visiting there don't feel unsafe, nobody has taken away your license. The employer simply says if you choose to voluntarily enter on my property I expect you to follow certain rules. Just as you expect your employer to follow the established rules that they have agreed to abide by.
Click to expand...

Dave, I usually agree with your posts, this time we can agree to disagree. So what you are saying is that creating a gun free zone does not make it easier for criminals to harm the innocent?

Heck if that's the case why have guns at all? I mean if keeping them out of the workplace makes us safer, wouldn't destroying all of them everywhere make us really safe?

If employers do not allow licensed persons to carry on campus or in the performance of company duties the employer is effectively nullifying the permit in states that make it illegal to ignore such a policy.

If everybody at the workplace is unarmed and an armed criminal is committing violence the armed criminal is safer and the victims are in more danger.

If my employer wants to profit from the bounty of this great land I expect them to respect the law and my rights. A licensed person who chooses to be armed does not prevent them from making money. There have been many cases of armed citizens stopping crime and saving lives.

Telling me I cannot be armed at, or en route to work or going home does interfere with my rights. Telling me I cannot defend myself with effective means even if licensed is absurd. This is anti-gun speak 101. We have been turning the tables on them for twenty years. No time to stop now.

If they expect me to use common sense I expect the same. If employers are going to decide that licensed people cannot be trusted to do what they are licensed to do how much of my trust do they expect?

Gun free zones are safe crime zones. I can think of one instance of a police station being shot up. Very rarely does somebody come into a gun range blazing. We all know about schools and gun free workplaces. This is where the mass murders occur.

Tell people that guns are against the rules and only those that play by the rules pay attention.

Have a bunch of unarmed people in one place and that makes a soft target. Yes, most of the time work will be uneventful, just like the ride home. Does that mean you should not wear a seatbelt? Hell, I have never had my workplace catch on fire, why have fire extinguishers?

Sorry folks. Gun control is bad. People that don't trust honest law abiding citizens who jump through hoops for their rights should not be trusted.
 
Last edited:
Perldog007, Let me try it this way...Let's say I'm a licensed pastor and I desire to spread the gospel of Christ to all that I encounter. I then take a secular job and part of that job is to provide service to cutomers. Rather than focus on my duty to my employer, I decide to spend my time trying to make converts of every customer I find. I may be doing a good thing for their eternal states, but am I doing what I am being paid to do during the time I am representing my employer? The answer is no. My employer has every right to restrict my first amendment rights while I am working for him. His rightful expectation is that I will perform my duties for which I am being paid. Likewise, my employer may also restrict my second amendment rights while I am on paid time. If I do not like it, I am free to terminate my employment and move on. It's really that simple...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top