Does employer's policy override CCW license?

Again. . . .

I carry a small semi-auto in a very well-disguised hidden holster in my Black Eagle ballistic nylon briefcase.

I do not strut up and down the halls boasting, "By God, I have a RIGHT to carry my legally, licensed concealed carry weapon and our policy SUCKS!"

I do not advertise the fact to my fellow employees that I am armed, nor do the ones I know--or suspect--that are also armed advertise to me.

IF such a time comes when the only thing that will save my life or the lives of fellow employees, is my gun, then I will not hesitate to use it. I will not worry about being terminated from my job, rather I will worry about being terminated from Life.

Every employer I've worked for, going all the way back to the military and the Justice Department, all stated they had the right to serch my car. In over thirty years of steady, gainful employment, not once has my car been searched.

I simply do not get what the problem is.

There are too many people who do not understand the Constitution. First Amendment rights deal with government--not employers. If I write a letter to the editor saying America sucks and sign it, "Jeff, VP of WidgetsRUs," and the company gets backlash, then they can fire me.

If I hire a painter to do the inside of my house, I can tell him--legally--to leave his CCW in his van. If he insists on bringing it in, I can have him arrested.

Businesses are properties. Property rights were held precious by our Founding Fathers. If you do not like the policies of the business you work for, find another job. If you can change their policies, go for it. It happens from time to time.

But saying YOUR rights are more important than someone else's (ala business/employers) don't hold water. Constitution does not give you the right to a job anymore than it gives you the right to a driver's license, pilot's license, health insurance, etc.

Sometimes you just have to hold your nose . . .

Jeff
 
On the subject of logical fallacies

Perldog made no straw men, he was only relating anecdotes, and analyzing their meaning in the context of your Joe Blow parable. In other words, he was addressing your remarks. The only straw man I find is your Joe Blow. And I guess I am at a loss to understand how your hiring difficulties relate to concealed carry in the first place. Are you saying that a drunken layabout is representative of all permit holders? You claim to be "a committed CCW man." Are you a drunken layabout? Or do you just assume that all others are until proof arises to the contrary? Or have you simply strayed off topic, as you accuse Perldog of doing?

As to your assertion that the work ethic in this country is degrading, do you have numbers over time? And, again, how is that relevant to this discussion?

More logical fallacies:
-Characterizing Perldogs comments as "reckless" is an ad hominem attack.
-Asserting that since he does not agree with you that prohibiting firearms in the workplace means that he is "blind to the current state of immorality in our country," and "refuse(s) to see that employers need to minimize their risks in an environment of diminishing competence in the overall workforce,' is a non sequitur.
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...
-This is an example of an ad ignorantium argument. Your implication is that, since you cannot be 100% certain of the actions of every CCW permit holder, that you can trust none. In other words, they must be a danger, because you don't know that they are not a danger. This is worthwhile assumption in the face of an unknown. However, permit holders, as a group, are not an unknown. Since permit holders are statistically less likely to use a gun illegally, a more logically sound method to reduce risk would be to hire nothing but permit holders, and require that they carry at work. Since this is not practicable, the best of the possible courses of action would be to allow those that are licensed to carry at work.

Some other observations:

You want to reverse this pattern? It has to start with changing the hearts and souls of the people.
Click to expand...
A couple of things: first, hearts are emotion factories. I suggest that the mind is the key to properly directing behavior. The disposition of a soul will be the result of this process.
Second: put on your own oxygen mask before attempting to help others.

"Let’s put ‘em in the pews on Sunday morning rather than on the couch with a bag of chips."
Click to expand...
Is your faith giving you the fortitude to stand for what is right in the face of peril? To expose yourself to risk in order make a difference where others will not? Is acquiescing through establishing and enforcing policies that whittle away at our rights in keeping with the principles of your church?

We need to cut the employers some slack here.
Click to expand...
No we don't. Not any more than employers should cut slack to lackadaisical employees or onerous government taxation and regulation. Unless you are doing your principled best, you are a legitimate target for criticism. Holding up your business challenges as justification for a policy that contributes negatively to the problems you, yourself, decry puts you on the same moral plane as welfare queens, drunken layabouts, and pork-barrel populist politicians. All these look to others to make the changes that only they can.

The answer to the question at at hand is that yes, as a general rule of most state law, your employers policy usually overrides your permit or license. Employers have the right to establish anti-gun policies. I would remind them that they also have the right to establish pro-gun policies.

As for those who purport to be pro-gun but establish anti-gun policies, well, not all that is a right is right.
 
I think that those who actually take the time and effort to get licensed are among the most socially responsible people in society. Therefore, if you hire ONLY those licensed to carry then you will have a responsible, stable, conscientious workforce and everyone is happy. :)
 
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...

Why not, it works with driver's licenses? Every employer I've had from 1996-2005 trusted me with a company vehicle. Not only did they trust me not to destroy it but they actually expected me to maintain it, keep it clean and treat it with respect. Which I happily did. What's the difference between a company trusting an employee with a brand new $30,000-$70,000 5000-12,000lb company truck with their name plastered all over the side, to drive around all day long, and carrying a licensed concealed weapon? The difference is that that company truck is FAR more likely to cause the untimely death of an innocent person than that inanimate piece of steel strapped to the driver's hip.

Do you allow them to have pencils, pens, boxcutters and letter openers? How do you know you can trust one not to kill another with an office implement?


Let's say that an employer permitted CCW on their premises.
Click to expand...

Let's say the law prohibits employers from enforcing such policies. Then your paranoid fears have no basis. Then it's no one's business WHAT is on your person. If it's a concealed weapon, it's concealed, there is no issue.


On private property, weapons can be banned by the owner/leasee.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for Floridians, not if it's open to the public. Not only can you carry anywhere that is open to the public with certain exceptions (schools, hospitals, etc.), signage or not, but you can also legally defend yourself anywhere it is legal for you to be. Every state should follow their lead in this regard. Many are with their "Castle" doctrines.


We need to cut the employers some slack here.
Click to expand...

When employers earn it, I will cut them some slack. When employers can recongnize a good employee when they see one. When employers become concerned about anything but the bottom line. When employers realize that employees are individuals, not mindless robots incapable of making the right decision.

Sorry but you'll get no sympathy from me. Most employers have no idea what "loyalty" even means anymore. Workers have been forced to become mercenaries. You'll get cut some slack when you've earned it.
 
All I can say is check your state laws. I live in Kentucky and while my employer can ban handguns on their property and in their buildings, Kentucky state law prohibts them from banning handguns kept legally in the glove box of my vehicle. While legally, Kentucky state law protects my right to have a gun in the glove box of my vehicle, Kentucky is also an "at will" state in regards to employment. This means I can be termed for pretty much any reason, or no reason, at any time.

Clearly a this is a double edged sword.
 
kmoffit, that's a pretty good argument.

If I am a Sikh and you try to stop me from wearing my turban and you have 600 employees you will learn that you will not restrict my first amendment rights when exercising them does not preclude me from doing my duties.

The government will tell you that wearing my turban does not interfere with me doing my job..

I fail how to see hiding behind the first amendment to get out of doing your work relates to exercising your second amendment rights discreetly while doing your work. Even to the point of leaving your defense tool locked in your car for crying out loud.

I also do not see how an employer is making me safe by mandating that legal tools of self defense will not be carried by licensed persons without providing any alternative physical security.

Only 5% of 911 calls result in a crime being stopped and an arrest being made. Don't take my word for that, http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=23 read up on it.
BTW It has been my honor to meet and spend some time with the author of that tome. Richard is an eye opener to those who have stereotypical notions of pro gun activists.

By the same token, I concede that if one openly wore a sidearm and spent work time trying to convince everyone they came in contact with that being armed and ready to defend the constitution at all times was a civic duty, an employer should not have to abide that. That ain't what concealed carry is all about.

Put another way, spending your work time furthering your religious convictions precludes discharging your duties. Carrying a concealed legal defense tool does not. Going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Here is one other thing. In a company of 600 employees, statistics show that only about 4% maximum of a given population will actually obtain ccw permits. Is 24 licensed people who were honest enough to get a permit really an issue?

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.
Click to expand...

The root causes of the mindset justifying disarming people because they can't be trusted is coherently explained by Dr. Thompson in the classic article "Raging Against Self Defense". Dr. Thompson is a mental health professional who can and does explain the anti-gun mindset.

For your ease of review click on the link below.



http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm
 
Last edited:
Well, you got me laughing with that Sikh & turbin curveball. I'm going to have to agree with you on the probablility of government intervention in a situation like that. I'm taking a beating on this thread today...don't know where Jaysouth went. Anyway, I think we understand each other, even if we can't agree completely. I've really got to give this one a rest...I'm missing too much over in the revolver forum. Take care...no personal offence taken or intended in all of this excitement...
 
Back in 1998 JPFO was temporarily in need of a webmaster. I was a perl programmer not a webmaster but I tried to volunteer my time. Aaron would have none of it. He wanted things done and he was willing to pay for it.

I took payment in the form of a membership to JPFO, books, T Shirts and such. Thankfully, Aaron was able to find a real webmaster and now has a very nice site. http://www.jpfo.org there is some great reading there for preparing yourself for educating non-gun owners and defusing the arguments and fallacies of anti-gunners.

Worth a click IMNSHO.

Aaron Zelman to my mind is one of the great analytical thinkers and educators in the fight against unilateral personal disarmament.

His open letter to XEROX in the wake of the Hawaii tragedy articulates the problems with anit-gun policies in the workplace better than I ever could.

Not trying to be a chest beater. Simply preaching to the choir trying to get them to sing louder. All of the arguments against carrying in the workplace were used to keep the entire citizenry from carrying in 38 states that now allow it. The same arguments are still being used in workplaces and schools and twelve other states.

Now is not the time to rest on our laurels. We need to bear down and work harder. I suggest that anyone concerned with the issue give this letter a read.

JPFO’S LETTER TO XEROX:

Dear <Mr. _>:

Your corporation suffered negative publicity recently when a
criminal killed and injured a number of Xerox employees in a
Xerox facility in Hawaii. Our organization carefully monitors
workplace conditions where citizens are placed in physical
jeopardy by the actions and policies of their government or
employers. We are writing to offer some thoughts to help and to
ask for your response.

In the last two years, there have been many well-publicized
cases in which criminals attacked unarmed and undefended
employees, teachers and school children in public places. The
incident in your facility was one among the series. While
Department of Justice figures show violent crime rates dropping
on average nationwide, there appears to be an upsurge of
murderous attacks on unarmed and undefended people in schools and
office buildings.

Each of these public attack cases occurred in places where
the innocent victims were not only undefended but were also
forbidden to defend themselves adequately. In the Xerox case,
for example, the attacker faced no armed opposition whatsoever.
It seems rather logical that the attacker would choose the Xerox
facility precisely because the attacker had good reason to
believe that he would not face any armed resistance.

We have been informed that Xerox corporate policies prohibit
employees from carrying firearms or other weapons on the premises
(security guards excepted). This policy, however, virtually
assures that Xerox employees will be unarmed and undefended
targets for violent criminals.

In effect, Xerox’s anti-weapons policy creates a dangerous
working condition for the employees and visitors on the property.
The policy "may be said to have created an especial temptation
and opportunity for criminal misconduct." Cohen v. Southland
Corp., 157 Cal. App. 3d 130, 140-41 (1994)(Southland Corp. could
be liable for failing to protect customers from criminal attack
on their premises). Although it seems like an obvious point,
recent comprehensive research has confirmed that criminals tend
to avoid assaulting, raping or attempting to murder people whom
the criminals think might be armed. See John R. Lott, Jr., "More
Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws"
(University of Chicago Press, 1998). The Xerox anti-weapons
policy sets up a favorable target for attackers.

For two reasons it is not enough for Xerox to respond to the
threat of criminal attack by merely providing telephones for
employees to "dial 911" for emergency help. First, less than 5
percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough
for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. Gordon Witkin,
Monika Guttman & Tracy Lenzy, "This is 911 ... please hold," U.S.
News & World Report, June 17, 1996, p. 30. As researchers put
it, "cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference
in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare."Ibid,
quoting the conclusions of the researchers, Northeastern
University Professor George Kelling and lawyer Catherine Coles.

Second, under the law in nearly every state the government
generally owes no duty to protect individual citizens from crime
or criminal attack. See e.g., Freitas v. City and County of
Honolulu, 574 P.2d 529, 532 (Haw. 1978), citing Riss v. City of
New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). To verify this legal
fact, we researched the law in all 50 states. We can supply you
with a book entitled "Dial 911 and Die," which collects the
statutes and court decisions, if the legal references will assist
you. Legally, in most cases the victims are on their own to
defend themselves.

The Xerox corporate anti-weapons policy would seem to place
Xerox in a difficult situation. By assuring the criminals that
the victims are unprotected, Xerox is creating a dangerous
workplace environment for which Xerox may face liability.
Providing handy emergency telephones and depending upon local
police forces to protect the employees under violent attack will
likely not save any lives.

Knowing the facts set forth in this letter, would Xerox
management consider adjusting the no-weapons policy to allow non-
violent, non-criminal employees to carry firearms or other
protective weapons into the workplace for self-defense? If not,
what measures will Xerox take to protect its unarmed and
otherwise defenseless employees from future attacks like the one
in Hawaii?

We look forward to your response to our questions, and
appreciate your help in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Aaron Zelman
Executive Director
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The property owner has a right to place limits on what you bring on premises. An employer has a right to stipulate conditions of employment and rules. Now, you could say that the employer is hindering your second amendment rights, and he is. But, just how does your second amendment rights trump his property rights? If you walk up to your employer and say, " I think you're an azzhole." you are exersizing your first amendment rights, yet he will still fire you.
 
Let's remember the 1st and 2nd Amendment are rights you have against government, not those individuals with which you've entered into a voluntary relationship.
 
What I find so sad and troubling is the total lack of honesty and honor that so many demonstrate when this topic comes up. To heck with the law, to heck with you rrights, what about being honest and honorable? When you take a job there is an implicit understanding that you will follow the rules. There is an implicit understanding that your employer will also follow the rules. If it is OK to cheat on your employer, shouldn't it also be OK for your employer to cheat you? Maybe just give you half the salary he promised, or something like that? What other rules are OK to violate?
 
Let's remember the 1st and 2nd Amendment are rights you have against government, not those individuals with which you've entered into a voluntary relationship.
Click to expand...

Remember, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (not granted by it) do not exist against anyone or anything. They occur naturally and exist entirely independently of government. But I understand, and agree with your point. They are protected because they pose a danger to tyrannical governments. You are right to point out that individuals can usually sign on to most any deal they wish with another private individual, inasmuch as the 1st and second amendments impose limitations (or were supposed to be) on the government. If they feel compelled by need or ambition to trade their rights, their security, or both to work at a particular place of business, well...you buy your ticket, you take your ride. I feel the same way about those who would knowingly sneak a gun into a workplace that does not allow it. It's dishonest.
 
We are talking about two different sets of rights.

The fact that the employer does not want you to carry a weapon as a condition of employment is an element of a civil contract. That is, if you carry a weapon, you are subject to termination. A purely civil situation.

If the employer finds out you have a weapon, asks you to leave, and you refuse, you are now trespassing. Criminal violation.

IMO, a corporation does not have the same rights as a person. Rights are innate to humans, not corporations (which exist only on paper). In addition, by depriving you of your ability to defend yourself, the property owner should be held accountable for your protection. Having the right to control one's property also means having the responsibility for it, but that is not what happens. Instead, property owners hide behind "third party intervention"
 
One more time for anybody who doesn't bother to read the thread before jumping in. I work in an anti-self defense state for an anti-self defense company. I abide by the rules.

Aaron's letter does not suggest that people not respect the rights of employers. It says nothing about the second amendment. What we are talking about is the safety of employees as it relates to policies that prohibit legal self defense tools.

I have not suggested that anybody go against their employer's wishes. I am suggesting that we work to change policies that make people defenseless against violent criminal attack. I am suggesting that perhaps legislation needs to catch up to reality.

As a group CCW permit holders are more law abiding and less likely to injure others than the general population. Employers that forbid guns in the workplace create safe environments for criminals. Only those that follow the rules are affected.

If an employer does not have the right to tell you to take off your turban, how do they have the right to tell you to forfeit your legal, licensed self defense tools. What if your religion requires you to defend your life to the best fo your ability?

How does a concealed weapon interfere with your ability to preform your work? How does it endanger others? Statistically CCW holders are a safe bunch.

I am not denying that most employers in most places are anti self defense. I am saying that it isn't that way everywhere thanks to advocates putting in the work. It can be that way in more places if we stop accepting flawed logic and get back to work.

That's all, plain and simple :D
 
It seems to me that employers would want CCW carriers. They are generally among the most law-abiding people you will encounter. Most are very safety oriented people. You can KNOW beyond doubt that they are good risks, simply by the fact that they were able to obtain legal licensing in the first place. Most are not going to go through everything we go through just to lose it from being stupid or careless.

If I run or operate a business ever again, I would prefer (and hire quicker) licensed carriers. (we'll just be careful not to scare all the sheep by announcing it too loudly) ;)
 
It seems to me that employers would want CCW carriers. They are generally among the most law-abiding people you will encounter.
Click to expand...

You're thinking like a non business owner. The problem with allowing people to carry as a policy, is that word gets around that XXX is allowed to carry so can I too? Maybe from someone who they might not want to be armed for reasons of character or whatnot and then he'd sue for discrimination. Generally speaking, ccw carriers are among the most law abiding and cool but it's those isolated incidents that can kill a business. Why take the chance?
 
600 employees will not be armed. You might have 20 of that 600 who are licensed to carry a firearm. One of those 20 may someday save your life. Change your policy to state "only legally licensed" may carry a firearm/weapon and you may do more than CYA, you may SYOA (save your own ass).
Ralph
 
Generally speaking, ccw carriers are among the most law abiding and cool but it's those isolated incidents that can kill a business. Why take the chance?
Click to expand...

I guess the point is that it's not much of a chance at all. As a matter of fact, it's fair to say that a CCW permit holder committing a crime at your workplace is wildly unlikely. So unlikely, in fact, that worrying about it is pathalogically irrational. Seriously. It's like worrying so much about catching a disease from a doorknob that you walk around wearing rubber gloves. If someone did that they would be followed by whispers and giggles down every hallway. And the hell of it is, you are many times more likely to get sick from a doorknob than you are to be harmed by a CCW permit holder at work, or anywhere else.

More than irrational, denying permit holders arms is counterproductive. Logically speaking, if it's risk reduction you are after, don't hire non permit holders. Sound nuts? Well it is. At least impractical. But it is certainly no more nuts than stripping safe, responsible people of their means of protection on the ridiculous chance that they will snap. Despite what the news media would have you believe, Deadly workplace shootings are relatively rare. That's why they constitute news when they do happen. Better to let Permit holders carry at work so as to provide a defense against them in the far more likely (if you can call it likely) event that they become violent.

We in the community of gun owners have to stand up for logic and reason on issues like this. I mean no offense by this, but, "why take the chance" is shorthand for "I don't feel like thinking about it, because it makes no difference to me." Well if we keep giving inch after inch after inch, it will one day make a very big difference to all of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top