Up until very recently, I worked for a company with a no weapons policy. Despite that I carried. I was very discrete about it. I realized although I was a manager of long standing and held in favor that I may be reprimanded by my superiors. I also realized that I worked in a risky location , with large sums of cash and my facility was open well into the evening hours. This policy of no weapons was authored by upper management working in the ivory tower, a place where 9-5 was the golden rule and not a dollar was kept. I think I would rather have been fired than fired at.
Does employer's policy override CCW license?
- Thread starter DaveInPA
- Start date
Perldog007
New member
A great man, or one with a great big ego anyhow, wrote in his autobiography about Mallum Prohibitum and Mallum in se. (G. Gordon Liddy - "Will")
Mallum Prohibitum is something that is wrong because there is a rule against it. Mallum in Se is something that is wrong just because.
Like parking in the wrong place in against a rule. Harming a child is evil even without a law or rule against it.
There is also a legal doctrine that says when one is placed in a situation that no matter what they do they will be breaking the law they must choose the lesser evil.
While I personally do not carry to work, it would be a felony in the state I work in being the main reason, I would submit the following argument for discussion.
Carrying a firearm for self defense against company policy is Mallum Prohibitum. Many honorable people carry effective self defense tools for good and moral reasons. I am operating on the premise that one does not get fingerprinted, submit to a background check and get licensed to do evil.
So if it is an employer's policy that makes this wrong it is wrong because of a rule. Not because carrying a means of effective defense in today's world is an evil act in and of itself.
On the other hand, prohibiting people the means to defend themselves in an era where mass shootings in places unarmed people are found is in itself an evil act. People do not choose to work by and large, we work because we have to.
When employers almost universally prohibit legal licensed tools of self defense there is no practical choice. What is one to do? not work? Even if in business for yourself can you avoid all places where people declare defense free zones?
I am arguing that universal victim disarmament is Mallum in se and carrying an effective self defense tool for which you have been licensed contrary to policy is Mallum Prohibitum.
When faced with two choices, both illegal the law says you have to choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser: Carrying your concealed weapon in spite of policy, or knowingly putting your life and the lives of others in the hands of criminals and the hope that 911 will arrive in time?
By the logic I am suggesting, I am committing the greater evil by following the laws and policies that mandate I be an easy target for violent criminals.
Yet I believe that a vehicle accident or some other occasion that would result in my weapon being discovered by authorities is more likely than my demise at the hands of a criminal. I think a violent attack would be easier to recover from than a felony and incarceration.
One heck of a choice, the classic felony or funeral. That's why I submit we need to follow Florida's lead.
Go back and find some old articles from the early eighties and late seventies. Like the 2nd Amendment columns in Guns & Ammo. Things are changing but there needs to be a lot more changes. IMO.
While suggesting that people start their own companies, grow them to 600 employees and set their own policies is a possible solution for small percentage of the population, perhaps removing the ability of employers to place their employees at risk would be farther reaching.
Employers can, do and should restrict behavior that precludes making money (to the extent they can in today's PC world). What I want to know is how does allowing licensed people to carry their legal defense tools concealed for crying out loud interfere with business?
All we hear in rebuttal is logically flawed what if scenarios that are contrary to twenty years of documented experience with licensed citizens carrying their defense tools in our society.
Mallum Prohibitum is something that is wrong because there is a rule against it. Mallum in Se is something that is wrong just because.
Like parking in the wrong place in against a rule. Harming a child is evil even without a law or rule against it.
There is also a legal doctrine that says when one is placed in a situation that no matter what they do they will be breaking the law they must choose the lesser evil.
While I personally do not carry to work, it would be a felony in the state I work in being the main reason, I would submit the following argument for discussion.
Carrying a firearm for self defense against company policy is Mallum Prohibitum. Many honorable people carry effective self defense tools for good and moral reasons. I am operating on the premise that one does not get fingerprinted, submit to a background check and get licensed to do evil.
So if it is an employer's policy that makes this wrong it is wrong because of a rule. Not because carrying a means of effective defense in today's world is an evil act in and of itself.
On the other hand, prohibiting people the means to defend themselves in an era where mass shootings in places unarmed people are found is in itself an evil act. People do not choose to work by and large, we work because we have to.
When employers almost universally prohibit legal licensed tools of self defense there is no practical choice. What is one to do? not work? Even if in business for yourself can you avoid all places where people declare defense free zones?
I am arguing that universal victim disarmament is Mallum in se and carrying an effective self defense tool for which you have been licensed contrary to policy is Mallum Prohibitum.
When faced with two choices, both illegal the law says you have to choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser: Carrying your concealed weapon in spite of policy, or knowingly putting your life and the lives of others in the hands of criminals and the hope that 911 will arrive in time?
By the logic I am suggesting, I am committing the greater evil by following the laws and policies that mandate I be an easy target for violent criminals.
Yet I believe that a vehicle accident or some other occasion that would result in my weapon being discovered by authorities is more likely than my demise at the hands of a criminal. I think a violent attack would be easier to recover from than a felony and incarceration.
One heck of a choice, the classic felony or funeral. That's why I submit we need to follow Florida's lead.
Go back and find some old articles from the early eighties and late seventies. Like the 2nd Amendment columns in Guns & Ammo. Things are changing but there needs to be a lot more changes. IMO.
While suggesting that people start their own companies, grow them to 600 employees and set their own policies is a possible solution for small percentage of the population, perhaps removing the ability of employers to place their employees at risk would be farther reaching.
Employers can, do and should restrict behavior that precludes making money (to the extent they can in today's PC world). What I want to know is how does allowing licensed people to carry their legal defense tools concealed for crying out loud interfere with business?
All we hear in rebuttal is logically flawed what if scenarios that are contrary to twenty years of documented experience with licensed citizens carrying their defense tools in our society.
Last edited:
Edward429451
Moderator
In a way. It's kind of like voting where one votes everyday for the lesser of two evils. Everyones out to get you because they think you have deep pockets. It's all about liability and either you want the business to have a chance at survival or you try to be fair with everyone which isn't realistic.
You have to think like a prosecuting attorney.
Perldog007
New member
I agree but I am still trying to find a business that tanked because they allowed a licensed person to carry a legal defense tool concealed to work.
In Ohio when businesses were scrambling to put "No Gun" policies into effect , Cincinnati Motor Cars went the other way. They seem to be doing fine. Their top dog correctly believes that a no gun policy would place his employees at greater risk.
Don't have to look far to find people horribly injured and killed in workplaces, schools, and other gun free zones.
source : http://www.csoonline.com/talkback/083105.html
Seems like the liability is greater when you engage in universal victim disarmament to the extreme measure of denying licensed people the legal means to protect themselves.
Insurance companies want to make money. Yet they insure mall guards for SUVs' but not firearms. If we can straighten them out the rest will follow.
Last edited:
Edward wrote:
There is no chance for discrimination there. Anyone can carry. As long as they follow the current laws and I have a copy their legal permit in their personnel file. If you feel discriminated against, go get your permit. Talk about a worry free workplace. You can't say I discriminated against you because I refused to let you do something illegal. Not even Judge Judy could burn you on that one!
There is no chance for discrimination there. Anyone can carry. As long as they follow the current laws and I have a copy their legal permit in their personnel file. If you feel discriminated against, go get your permit. Talk about a worry free workplace. You can't say I discriminated against you because I refused to let you do something illegal. Not even Judge Judy could burn you on that one!
Frank Ettin
Administrator
It seems like there's never any shortage of people who are happy to mind other folks' business. And of course, the guy with all the advice, and all the reasons why the business owner is wrong and ought to do things some other way, has neither the responsibility for implementing his notions nor bears the consequences of doing so.
If the business owner was forced to bear the consequences, and then some, of disarming and rendering defenseless his employees, perhaps there'd be a shift in this situation.
Right now, the issue of liability is twisted around to cause businesses to fear state-licensed and -vetted individuals more than violent criminals. There's a thumb on the "no guns" side of the scale, because there's no meaningful risk involved in picking that side.
Right now, the issue of liability is twisted around to cause businesses to fear state-licensed and -vetted individuals more than violent criminals. There's a thumb on the "no guns" side of the scale, because there's no meaningful risk involved in picking that side.
Perldog007
New member
I have the responsibility to follow the anti-self defense policies of my employer(s) over the years and have met that contract. I also then agree to the consequence of facing any potential criminal attack or dangerous animals unarmed. Parking lot policies mean unarmed coming and going too.
So I guess that your position is that employees have never borne the consequences of being defenseless victims of violent criminal attack?
When that happens the employees end up injured or dead. In the unlikely event that against historical experience a licensed person does something untoward with their defense tool, what does the employer lose? Money? That means more than innocent life? Citizen please!
Perhaps you are supporting the employer C'ing that A no matter how many people get killed in these mass shootings. Is the employers fortune worth more than the employee's life?
If so we can go ahead and repeal a rack of labor laws.
Has an insurance company ever been sued for promoting a defense free zone prior to an attack? Why not?
And I think it's a worthwhile question to debate. If you are licensed to carry legal self defense tools and your employer in spite of factual evidence and real world data and information denies you access to your legal licensed defense tools, is that employer not liable for any injury that might result?
In twenty years of non-discretionary carry laws there are no indicators that licensed people can't be trusted in the workplace. Experience with ccw holders bears out that they tend to be among the most law abiding citizens.
All I hear supporting anti-gun policies are logically flawed what ifs that are historically disproven. If Insurance companies or special interest groups are driving this trend don't they need to held accountable?
I would argue since the policies and laws under discussion cause me to go unarmed daily in spite of more training and more competitive experience, better range scores than most peace officers, that these policies and laws are my business.
The employer does not have the right to control my gender identity, religion, social orientation at work. What is wrong with discussing changing the current situation where the employer controls your right to carry your legal defense tools even to and from work?
I don't understand those siding with the employers unless they are anti-gun to start with. Yes I recognize the way it is most places. No I do not accept that it has to stay that way.
Seems like there is no shortage of supposed gun owners who are quick to be ostriches and accept the anti self preservation policies of the sheeple.
It would be most enlightening if one of the folks siding with the employers could post some factual data to prove that legally armed employees have done more damage than gun free zones. That is not my take and I will happily concede if anybody can put up proof.
Here is an article on cns supporting my position with real life examples and recognized analysis of the situation. : http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200311\NAT20031118a.html
Last edited:
David Armstrong
Moderator
Tha basic flaw with that is what is considered mala en se and what is considred mala prohibita are culturally and socially defined, therefore there is no consistency. Something our little group might think mala in se another group might not see anything wrong with it.
To you, perhaps. To the employer and to others, it might be a mala in se issue.
Just as many honorable people disagree with such philosophy for what they consider equally good and moral reasons.
Again, that is your position, but many others, equally sincere, feel otherwise. So whose "mala" do we follow? Neither, IMO, and that is the trouble with mala en se and mala prohibita discussions.
Such logic seems to suggest then that it is OK to be dishonest and lie for the purpose of employment. If one disagrees with the policy, the rule, or the law, one should stand up and oppose it openly. To sneak around, regularly being dishonest for the purpose of employment, is an act I would consider mala in se.
No, not as long as you (generic you, not "you" personally) have voluntarily agreed to that condition. That is the crux of the argument, IMO, and tho one so many keep ignoring. NOBODY is forcing you to go to work at any particular employer. In fact, one might argue that if you think you need a gun you should probably find other emplouyment. If this is an important issue go find employment someplace else that has a policy more intune with what you believe.
Edward429451
Moderator
I think you missed my point. Just because someone has a permit does not make them competant or safe. It just means they didn't shoot anyone in the ccw class. Do you take the ability to get a permit as proof that the person is safe with weapons?
Same reason a million man rifle march to Washington wouldn't work. How to keep a large amount of people from having a stupid moment and ND'ing. I realize that most ccw people are intelligent and safe but passing a ccw class is proof of nothing. It indicates a probability of competance and nothing more. OTOH, if an employee was permitted to carry and had an ND at work, the anti's would espouse it as proof that no one is safe and all guns should be banned.
Freely giving out permission to carry at work is dicey. Suppose you did, how to ensure that your permitted people would not get depressed and go postal, or have an ND? There would be a higher standard of care required in the office with armed employees than with unarmed employees. That would cut production for babysitting duties. Not good when you're trying to build a business.
Perldog007
New member
Dave,
I find your reasoning sound, but still must agree to disagree. If I thought the mere act of keeping an effective defense tool was evil I would not.
For it to be a mala in se issue people would have to believe the gun itself is evil. If you think the person is dangerous you would have a duty to keep them off the property.
Irrational fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual retardation. Or so Uncle Sigmond thought.
While the statistic probability of violence in the workplace is still unlikely the media coverage keeps us focused on it. The people committing these acts die 70% of the time, by their own hand or by shooting it out with LEOs. They are not concerned with policies or laws.
The only people abiding the laws and policies are the victims. Unacceptable morally to me that we know ccw permit holders are safer than the general population yet we invent these flawed arguments to keep workplaces safe for criminals.
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread neither CHL holders or criminals are unknown quantities. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. CHL holders have an excellent civic record by any standard in the twenty years they have walked among us.
I go along with policies because that's the way society functions. I work to change them because that's how we improve.
Still, we have seen the numbers on unarmed workers against violent attack. Where are the figures showing the problems with licensed people at work. I all am seeing here is wild imaginations supporting victim disarmament and statements about liability. Two states do not let employers make the choice. Why are workplaces in these two states not having problems?
Could it be that allowing licensed people to carry to work solves more problems than it causes? Could it be that when people do "go postal" they universally disregard no gun policies with the effect that the person intent on doing harm is armed and the victims are defenseless?
I hear a bunch of people supporting the employer side. Find some factual data to back that up. If they are right should not be too hard to come up with something besides imaginary scenarios that twenty years of data disprove.
I find your reasoning sound, but still must agree to disagree. If I thought the mere act of keeping an effective defense tool was evil I would not.
For it to be a mala in se issue people would have to believe the gun itself is evil. If you think the person is dangerous you would have a duty to keep them off the property.
Irrational fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual retardation. Or so Uncle Sigmond thought.
While the statistic probability of violence in the workplace is still unlikely the media coverage keeps us focused on it. The people committing these acts die 70% of the time, by their own hand or by shooting it out with LEOs. They are not concerned with policies or laws.
The only people abiding the laws and policies are the victims. Unacceptable morally to me that we know ccw permit holders are safer than the general population yet we invent these flawed arguments to keep workplaces safe for criminals.
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread neither CHL holders or criminals are unknown quantities. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. CHL holders have an excellent civic record by any standard in the twenty years they have walked among us.
I go along with policies because that's the way society functions. I work to change them because that's how we improve.
Still, we have seen the numbers on unarmed workers against violent attack. Where are the figures showing the problems with licensed people at work. I all am seeing here is wild imaginations supporting victim disarmament and statements about liability. Two states do not let employers make the choice. Why are workplaces in these two states not having problems?
Could it be that allowing licensed people to carry to work solves more problems than it causes? Could it be that when people do "go postal" they universally disregard no gun policies with the effect that the person intent on doing harm is armed and the victims are defenseless?
I hear a bunch of people supporting the employer side. Find some factual data to back that up. If they are right should not be too hard to come up with something besides imaginary scenarios that twenty years of data disprove.
Last edited:
Rangefinder
New member
What it comes right down to is property ownership---end of story. If I own the property, I have the right as the owner to say what comes on the property or not--plain and simple. All things considered, I've met people that I wouldn't trust with a loaded toothbrush, but they had a handgun and a CCW. That doesn't mean a piece of paper guarantees they're going to be 100% safe all the time, and it doesn't mean I want them or should allow them to carry at work. That's bottom-line legal and right.
Now, if I "CHOOSE" to allow carry, I have that right as well, and to set the guidelines for what and how---on my property and in my establishment. See how ownership works? It goes both ways.
Now, if I "CHOOSE" to allow carry, I have that right as well, and to set the guidelines for what and how---on my property and in my establishment. See how ownership works? It goes both ways.
Perldog007
New member
Not always that clear cut. Going back to the Sikh and turban example. Fact is that employers have to recognize certain rights of their workers. Property is ultimately owned by the State, the states allow us to hold title to the land. Eminent Domain exists here in these Estados Unitas.
I am not proposing that anybody break the law or their contract. What I am saying is that it makes no sense for employers to say they are making the workplace safe by denying licensed people their legal self defense tools.
Your arguments again are based on imagination, show us in reality where one of these permit holders you would not trust with a loaded toothbrush has caused problems in the workplace.
I have already posted numbers for attacks in gun free workplaces, where is your data?
I am not proposing that anybody break the law or their contract. What I am saying is that it makes no sense for employers to say they are making the workplace safe by denying licensed people their legal self defense tools.
Your arguments again are based on imagination, show us in reality where one of these permit holders you would not trust with a loaded toothbrush has caused problems in the workplace.
I have already posted numbers for attacks in gun free workplaces, where is your data?
Rangefinder
New member
Quote statistics all day. Does a CCW permit mean you can walk into someone's house while carrying if they specifically state that they don't allow it? NO. And it's their legal right to do so if they wish. To believe that a property owner doesn't have the same right just because the discussion is about a commercial property rather than residential is trying to push a double standard---period. "I can set the rules on my property any way I see fit, but you can't tell me what I can or can't do on yours..." That just doesn't fly with me. If you don't like someone's rules, don't go there. It's their right to set them, and your obligation to follow them if you choose to be there.
I guess I have a vivid imagination, but you can ask a judge in person if you like. His imagination will probably be pretty similar on this aspect.
I guess I have a vivid imagination, but you can ask a judge in person if you like. His imagination will probably be pretty similar on this aspect.
Perldog007
New member
Actually, in my home I can prohibit a whole range of things I could not control as an employer. So yes there is a double standard. A home is home. A workplace is a workplace.
Private property open to the public for commerce is another can of worms yet.
So again, why is it okay for employers to make your work environment safe for murderers, rapists, and thugs?
By your logic we should do away with concealed permits. And since people can't be trusted why not round up all the guns?
Victim disarmament is a bad policy. Everywhere, all the time.
If your employer is allowed to deny you your legal licensed defense tool why are they not required to provide equivalent protection?
How do we let them off the hook for creating a gun free zone? Why is it right? Other rights have to be respected by employers, why not our Second Amendment rights?
You seem to be conceding that you can not provide a factual basis for your support of defense free zones. What do you say about the data that is out there showing that ccw reduces crime and that criminals prefer unarmed victims.
I would also submit that with the majority of employers against self defense ( I have never read an employee manual without a policy banning weapons) that there isn't a choice for many Americans.
Actually, the last time I was before a judge was involving an incident that occurred while I had a legally licensed defense tool at work. The judge came down on my side. The prosecutor was told to get real and the cop was told to go to a safe place and give me my gun back.
So I would say your supposition would depend on the individual judge.
Serious RKBA webheads who have been at it for a while have read an account of this incident posted by Richard Stevens, the attorney who wrote "Dial 911 and Die".
That would be great book to help explain why disarming people and telling them to dial 911 is ridiculous. Telling people to go unarmed so no harm will come to them is ridiculous. Saying that when you go to work you check your civil rights at the door is ridiculous.
Private property open to the public for commerce is another can of worms yet.
So again, why is it okay for employers to make your work environment safe for murderers, rapists, and thugs?
By your logic we should do away with concealed permits. And since people can't be trusted why not round up all the guns?
Victim disarmament is a bad policy. Everywhere, all the time.
If your employer is allowed to deny you your legal licensed defense tool why are they not required to provide equivalent protection?
How do we let them off the hook for creating a gun free zone? Why is it right? Other rights have to be respected by employers, why not our Second Amendment rights?
You seem to be conceding that you can not provide a factual basis for your support of defense free zones. What do you say about the data that is out there showing that ccw reduces crime and that criminals prefer unarmed victims.
I would also submit that with the majority of employers against self defense ( I have never read an employee manual without a policy banning weapons) that there isn't a choice for many Americans.
Actually, the last time I was before a judge was involving an incident that occurred while I had a legally licensed defense tool at work. The judge came down on my side. The prosecutor was told to get real and the cop was told to go to a safe place and give me my gun back.
So I would say your supposition would depend on the individual judge.
Serious RKBA webheads who have been at it for a while have read an account of this incident posted by Richard Stevens, the attorney who wrote "Dial 911 and Die".
That would be great book to help explain why disarming people and telling them to dial 911 is ridiculous. Telling people to go unarmed so no harm will come to them is ridiculous. Saying that when you go to work you check your civil rights at the door is ridiculous.
Rangefinder
New member
And that workplace is still private property, by which the employer is allowed to set the rules, guidelines, and terms of employment for those who choose to apply. This can apply to uniform, grooming standards, language, and yes--carrying a firearm that the employer does not deem necessary to ensure personal safety--especially if the allowing of that carry causes the rest of the employees to feel "unsafe" in their work environment. And there again we get to the liability issue. Allow one, and you then have to allow everyone. OK, so what? Then someone has an AD because the clip wasn't fastened tight and their chosen carry weapon failed the "drop test", co-worker catches the round in the head, and the business owner is held accountable for the civil damages sought by the deceased's family because his insurance policy doesn't cover accidental shootings... blah-blah-blah, it just snowballs from there, covering again a whole list of things already discussed.
The employer has the right to set his/her own terms for employment. You can choose to comply, or go elsewhere. How many ways can we disect it? A CCW isn't a bright, shiney golden "I can do what I want now" pass card.
Yes and no. Yes, because either way they're still on my property. So depending on the circumstance, I can still be held accountable for what happens to them or someone else as a result. No, because the workplace has a much stricter legal standard than a residential one. If for no other reason, there are a lot more hands in the pot---employer/employee laws and regulations by the state, county, and federal gov't, worker's comp, various forms of business insurance, OSHA, you name it.