Does employer's policy override CCW license?

[Perldog007]

Again, a workplace and a home are two different critters even though both may be private property. Union Station in D.C. is public property on a 99 year lease to LaSalle Partners LLC. By virtue of the lease it is private property but open to the public for commerce and transportation. Big ole twisted mess there.


Point being that all private property is not the same. As John pointed out all relationships between various types of property owners and persons on their properties differ.


Again you are providing an imaginary scenario justifying your position. Again I ask if your scenario is so likely how come we can't find an instance of this involving a chl holder when they have been out there on a shall issue basis for twenty years?

So an event that is taking place in your imagination is more compelling than hard data from the real world?

I'll answer that - YES IT IS!! Because we have allowed it to happen.

Employers always start with "safe environment" when they justify victim disarmament. We have to stop letting them get away with this lie. Experience tells us, as well as common sense, that unarmed victims are preferred by violent criminals.

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).

Aaron Zelman Open letter to from JPFO site.

 

[JohnKSa]

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?

True, but I was working at my company for MANY years before they changed their policy. Now I can't even have a gun in my car while it's parked in the public parking lot without risking termination. So the company policy not only prevents me from effectively protecting myself on company property but also during the hours it takes me to commute each day. Sure, I could "go elsewhere" but there's no guarantee that the new company wouldn't make a similar policy change the day after I started. To say nothing of the investment I have with this company that would be lost.

Is it legal for an employer to say: "I'm taking your most effective legal means of self-defense from you from the time you walk out the door until the time you get home at night and if you object or refuse to comply I will turn your life upside down"? Sure, it's perfectly legal--but is it RIGHT?

 

[Perldog007]

As an extreme test case it may not even be legal. It has to be an act in good faith. If it could be proven that an employer "should have known" under the reasonable person standard, that might touch different areas of statute.

Is it impossible that there is not one CEO out there who knows better and does not buck the system for personal gain? I don't know, but these are areas it would be nice to have a pro gun legal professional look into and report back on.

I could see a scenario where knowingly endangering your employees runs afoul of some statute.

The argument is whether allowing CHL holders to carry to work is more likely to cause danger or abet it. The problem is that we already have strong indications from actual experience that tells us the current policies are wrong.

 

[PT111]

If in a state where OC is legal can an employer ban OC based on the same principles that they can't ban CC with a pemit? I don't see any difference in the legalities of the two (CC and OC) in states permitting OC without a paemit.

 

[Perldog007]

If in a state where OC is legal can an employer ban OC based on the same principles that they can't ban CC with a pemit? I don't see any difference in the legalities of the two (CC and OC) in states permitting OC without a paemit.
Today 08:27 PM

Yes. The issue is possession not the method of carry.

 

[Derius_T]

Edward, I see what you are saying, that just squeaking by and getting a permit doesn't guarantee there won't be any accidents. And I agree. But 20 years of experience handling firearms won't guarantee there will be no accidents either.

My reasoning is that the people who are able to get their permit are generally upstanding people, with less of a percentage of violent or criminal behavior, so would be a better employment risk. I really don't see any more risk of a responsible gun owner shooting someone, than a non gun owner going crazy and stabbing you with a letter opener, or something.

 

[Perldog007]

I think the point is that 290 people are known to have been killed in workplace attacks by armed attackers. We don't have an instance of a CHL holder in 164 incidents that led to the 290 deaths.

This does not mean it could never happen. What it does mean is that denying licensed law abiding citizens their legal self defense tools places them and those around them at greater risk.

The issue is safety in the workplace. People who say that CHL holders must check their rights at the door for safety are wrong. Historical data proves this. The argument that allowing licensed people to carry defense tools in the workplace would make the situation worse in invalid.

In addition we have cases like Grundy Va, and Pearl Miss where we have licensed civilians stopping mass shootings. So the employers argument is invalid and in fact places the workers at greater risk.

As a matter of common law, employers owe a duty to provide a level of care to their employees. I am arguing that creating a safe zone for murderers, rapists, and thugs is a breach of the duty employers owe employees. History backs that argument up with factual instances and events.

The only counter to that argument is unsupported emotional imaginary arguments. Time for some common law and common sense to prevail.

To those who say employers can restrict your rights at will, this is simply not true. Check your labor laws. Don't take my word for it. I agree that the current legal and political climate allows this particular restriction. That doesn't make it right or legal.

It only means it has been accepted and not properly challenged yet. That means the truth needs to be told and somebody needs to be sued.

 

[Edward429451]

Is it legal for an employer to say: "I'm taking your most effective legal means of self-defense from you from the time you walk out the door until the time you get home at night and if you object or refuse to comply I will turn your life upside down"? Sure, it's perfectly legal--but is it RIGHT?

No, it's not right. But if it's his private property, is it right for you to want to trump his right to keep his business enviroment as he wants to?

I have a shooting buddy who has his CCW permit. He was over one night and we're sitting around the reloading room, and long story short, he ND's a LDA 45 about 18" from my face (other direction, but stil...). Minor property damage, no one hurt. He's a ccw for cryin out loud!

So, am I within my rights to have him check his weapons at the door? Whats the difference if it had ben my business and him my employee? Does his ccw trump my property rights? I think not. Even with his ccw, that only makes him an apprentice to be able to carry a weapon, which in my book, makes him able to apply for the position of ccw on my property. My discretion comes into play at that point, and his state sponsered license will be considered in making my decision, as well as his length of term of employment. Sorry, you didn't make the cut. Now, your lawyer can make me sound discriminatory and sue my pants off. Whats right about that? Your ccw permit allows you to carry on the street...and disallows my right to personal judgement as how to run my office?

It's a slippery slope either way. I retain my right to make my own decisions, and you retain your right to go work for someone else. The minute someone tries to staple a law to my forhead and force mycompliance, they're outta there.

It's not right from the employees perspective! If the shoe was on the other foot, would you want me ccw'ing in your place, or bringing in the law to try to force your compliance?

I sympathise with you guys and thank God I'm self employed.

 

[David Armstrong]

By definition, this is incorrect

Sorry, but it IS correct. Different cultures look at things in different ways, and what they consider "wrong" differs. That is why there truly is no absolute mala in se example. What is considered murder by one group another group considers honorable. What we might consider child sexual abuse these days not too long ago was considered fairly normal, and still is in many parts of the world. Thus, mala in se and mala prohibita are very much culturally and socially defined. There are few, if any universal taboos to be found.

 

[David Armstrong]

Irrational fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual retardation. Or so Uncle Sigmond thought.

Unwillingness to have weapons at a workplace and fear of weapons are two very different things. And Uncle Sig also though getting high on dope was a good thing.

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.

Again that is an assumption not in evidence. Most workplaces are fairly safe for the worker, so there is evidence that whatever is happening does seem to work. And the goal is to keep the workplace safe for the worker. NOBODY intentionally passes rules and regulations to keep workplaces safe for criminals. The goal is to keep it safe for employees and customers.

Two states do not let employers make the choice.

I've missed something here. What two states prohibit a business from allowing employees to carry?

I go along with policies because that's the way society functions. I work to change them because that's how we improve.

And I respect you for that. My gripes are (1) those who agree to follow the rules but then sneak around dishonestly and don't keep their word; and (2) those who think their rights are more valuable than the employers rights.

I hear a bunch of people supporting the employer side.

As I've said, to me it is not so much a "side" thing, it is an honesty thing. If you agree to follow the rules to get paid, then follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, don't take the paycheck.

Again I ask if your scenario is so likely how come we can't find an instance of this involving a chl holder when they have been out there on a shall issue basis for twenty years?

Perhaps it is because of all those businesses prohibiting firearms on the premises?

 

[Perldog007]

No, it's not right. But if it's his private property, is it right for you to want to trump his right to keep his business enviroment as he wants to?

Defending one's self in the face of a violent attack is not a want. It is a G-d given right which our constitution prohibits interference of. Saying that employers do not have to recognize rights because they are not the government is a flawed analysis. Google and Lawfind are your pals on this one.

Again, the government says you cannot trump certain rights as a business property owner depending on the property and your relationship to those on the property. Google some employment discrimination case law if you doubt me.

Saying that the employer is lord of the land and can disregard any constitutional rights of employees they please because the employees agree to be there is a false assumption. Again, check your labor laws and workplace discrimination case law. By all means do not take my word for it. Google will lead they way for you.

Again that is an assumption not in evidence. Most workplaces are fairly safe for the worker, so there is evidence that whatever is happening does seem to work. And the goal is to keep the workplace safe for the worker. NOBODY intentionally passes rules and regulations to keep workplaces safe for criminals. The goal is to keep it safe for employees and customers.

That is not an assumption. 164 workplace shootings resulting in 209 fatalities is not an assumption. Legally armed citizens stopping mass shootings like Jeane Assad in Colorado, the assistant principal in Pearl Miss, or the two law students in Grundy Va is not an assumption either. It's a fact.

That only 5% of 911 calls result in a crime being stopped and an arrest being made is not an assumption, it is a fact.

The position that violent criminals tend to avoid murdering, raping, robbing persons who they think may be armed is not an assumption it is a fact. Links to supporting articles and research cites have been posted for all these "assumptions" . They are not, they are facts.

So in light of these facts, what possible reason exists for employers to deny licensed people access to their legal defense tools?

Is possible that not one policy maker is aware of the above facts? Perhaps. Then we need to make them aware.

Is it possible that anti-self defense conditioning from the media and the politically invested have warped policy?

So again, in light of the verifiable facts known about workplace violence how is making the workplace a defense free zone protecting employees? Still we have nothing except imaginary scenarios which are contrary to historical experience.

Is an accident possible? Yes of course it is. How about another maniac shooting up another gun free workplace? Not only possible but probable.

Is the possiblity of an accident or a a person who has gone through the process to be legal "going off" more likely than another mass shooting? Not by any reliable indicator we can find.

Remember kids, not so long ago most folks could and did carry guns everywhere. In Vermont they have never needed permits. How come we don't have validation of all these "what if" scenarios supporting victim disarmament coming from Vermont?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HAPPENED! That's why.

 

[LightningJoe]

You're in somebody else's house, so, yeah, you have to do what they say or leave. It's private property. They own it. They're king. Just like in your house.

 

[Edward429451]

Defending one's self in the face of a violent attack is not a want. It is a G-d given right which our constitution prohibits interference of. Saying that employers do not have to recognize rights because they are not the government is a flawed analysis.

I'll buy that seeing it from your (employees) perspective. It's hard to argue with logic like that. But if you looked at it from an employers perspective, you might see that bringing in the law to force compliance on an employer is not right either.

Probably the best thing to do is don't ask, don't tell.

 

[Perldog007]

You're in somebody else's house, so, yeah, you have to do what they say or leave. It's private property. They own it. They're king. Just like in your house.

Not even close to right. Asked and answered many times over in the thread.

 

[KMO]

Hey P-Dog...I thought you were giving this one a rest. Weren't you supposed to be down at the pharmacy?

 

[David Armstrong]

Saying that employers do not have to recognize rights because they are not the government is a flawed analysis. Google and Lawfind are your pals on this one.

Actually they have to recognize certain rights, not all of them, and even then they may restrict those rights under certain conditions.

Defending one's self in the face of a violent attack is not a want. It is a G-d given right which our constitution prohibits interference of.

Again, though, that does come with restrictions. It can be interfered with, and is not absolute. Lots of "constitutional" claims being tossed around in this thread that just aren't accurate, assuming one believes in the rule of law.

 

[KMO]

Lots of "constitutional" claims being tossed around in this thread that just aren't accurate

David, If you read back through this thread I think you'll find your ideas supported time and again. I'm convinced the opposing view will not relent, though, no matter how much logic is injected here. There seems to be great confusion about what is "God-given" and what is declared in the US Constitution. Godly men certainly founded our country, but rights are something that governments grant. We may believe in God, but we are subject to the government (Romans 13).

Rights come with restrictions, especially in the workplace environment. At the risk of incurring another onslaught of name-calling, I'll throw out one other problem employers deal with in today's workplace. Our company calls upon our employees to enforce certain rules with our customers. This is in an outdoor recreation setting. Without exception, we find ourselves annually reinforcing our customer service standards with our managers because of a recurring problem we call the "badge-heavy syndrome."

It is not entirely predictable how otherwise good employees will perform when granted even the slightest level of authority in terms of rules enforcement. As diligent as we may be with our hiring and training, some employees will simply misuse authority. This is why law enforcement agencies have to be so careful in their own hiring practices.

We had an employee last year who went out & legally purchased some pepper spray and a special holster for it. She went a little "over the edge" with her stated plans to use it on the next customer that stepped out of line. Her manager had to ask her to put it away while working, which I supported. Aside from her badge-heavy side, this is a good employee. We simply cannot afford the risk of having her wrongfully injure a customer because of her overzealous desire to use her legal self-defense weapon.

On her own time, she is certainly willing to carry her pepper spray. While working for us, however, she has to comply with our wishes. If she is unhappy about that (she's not), she has every right to find another job. The same goes for firearms in this sort of situation. We are an open-carry state, but our employees may not carry during paid work time. That is not the customer service standard we are attempting to convey. That does not make us anti-2nd amendment. It simply means we are trying to put forward a friendly customer service image.

 

[Perldog007]

and even then they may restrict those rights under certain conditions.

Depends on what rights we are talking about. I am arguing that the right to effective self defense tools for licensed individuals should be one of the Sacred Cows.

Defending one's self in the face of a violent attack is not a want. It is a G-d given right which our constitution prohibits interference of.

Again, though, that does come with restrictions. It can be interfered with, and is not absolute. Lots of "constitutional" claims being tossed around in this thread that just aren't accurate, assuming one believes in the rule of law.

Are you saying laws have never been struck down for being unconstitutional?

The only exception to self defense I am aware of is when the illegal action of the defender placed him in the position of having to defend himself. The classic example is shooting a bank guard during a robbery and claiming self defense.

Please expound on these restrictions and the conditions with which your right to self defense can be interfered with. Of greater import how does this bear on the topic under discussion?

Are you saying that 209 people have not been killed in 164 workplace shootings?

Are you saying that legally armed civilians have not stopped mass shootings?


Are you saying that criminals do not prefer unarmed victims?

Are you saying that there is evidence that chl holders make the workplace more dangerous? I would like to have a look at that for sure.

How in the light of the facts we know can anybody say that people are safer at work if chl permit holders are not allowed to carry to work?

Why let people carry anywhere if we believe the suppostions supporting the employers right to victims disarmament in this thread?

Why indeed even let people have arms if it is a "safety" issue, and we don't have a right to keep and bear under the rule of law?

 

[Perldog007]

Kmoffit, welcome back

While I can understand not wanting to scare the sheeple with armed folks I have provided some pretty decent customer service while armed, many times that is a function of private security.

When there was no workplace policy have also written code while armed and done client presentations while armed. If it's concealed legally no huge event.

What I object to is employers making no weapons policies and then doing nothing to provide for the safety of their employees. Telling folks to show up unarmed and call 911 if Patrick Purdy drops by ain't getting it.

I also have enforced a whole bunch of property rules and management policies doing security work. A kind word and a gun gets you further than a kind word alone. Whether you believe it or not. I know, have done both.

I just don't subscribe to the notion that otherwise trustworthy people turn into dangerous morons when they get a CHL license. Even relative morons seem to sober up a bit when you arm them for work. They know they can get into serious trouble because they are armed.

Your young lady with the pepper spray, sounds like she was trippin. But I don't know the facts, did somebody put their hands on her or get in her face, threaten her? The average man has enough hand strength to break the average females neck. Perhaps she had a valid concern.

If she had no legitimate concern and got the pepper spray just to inflict some pain on somebody who had P.O.'ed her I would be concerned. Weapons don't begin or end with things that were designed to cause pain or damage.

I obviously favor possession of self defense tools. But not to inflict retribution. Most CHL holders are the same from what I can gather.

So we understand why you don't want your employees to open carry, it's an image thing. What's the beef with those of them getting licensed carrying concealed?

What do you offer them to mitigate the loss of the most effective means of defense?

Oh yeah on that confusion of where rights come from, I remember reading something once somewhere went kind of like this - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life - or words to that effect

 

[David Armstrong]

Depends on what rights we are talking about. I am arguing that the right to effective self defense tools for licensed individuals should be one of the Sacred Cows.

Maybe it should, but it is not. And even if it were, again, there are always restrictions.

Are you saying laws have never been struck down for being unconstitutional?

No. I am not saying, have not said that, and have no idea why you would think I said that.

Please expound on these restrictions and the conditions with which your right to self defense can be interfered with.

The most obvious restriction is one of severity. Your right to use self defense is restricted to a reasonable response to the threat. Other restrictions can be geographic (no guns for prisoners), mental ability, age, etc. While the right might be expansive, how you exercise that right is restrictive.

Of greater import how does this bear on the topic under discussion?

It bears on the fact that some keep making claims regarding rights that are not accurate.

Are you saying that 209 people have not been killed in 164 workplace shootings?
Are you saying that legally armed civilians have not stopped mass shootings?
Are you saying that criminals do not prefer unarmed victims?
Are you saying that there is evidence that chl holders make the workplace more dangerous?

No. No. No. No. Haven't said anything like that, son't know where you are getting the idea that I did.

How in the light of the facts we know can anybody say that people are safer at work if chl permit holders are not allowed to carry to work?

It is not a matter of safer. Again, most workplaces are fairly safe for the worker, so there is evidence that whatever is happening does seem to work. Given that more ADs/NDs occur than intentional discharges at BGs, to claim that carrying guns at work would make the place safer is not in evidence.

Why let people carry anywhere if we believe the suppostions supporting the employers right to victims disarmament in this thread?

I do not support the employers right to victim disarmament. I support the employers right to establish rules and regulations for his business and the employee to voluntarily accept employment. Nobody can carry everywhere, but not being able to carry everywhere seems a far stretch from not being able to carry anywhere.

Why indeed even let people have arms if it is a "safety" issue, and we don't have a right to keep and bear under the rule of law?

Because there are places where one does not come into conflict with the rights of the employer.

Oh yeah on that confusion of where rights come from, I remember reading something once somewhere went kind of like this - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life - or words to that effect

Some of the same folks who were responsible for that were the same ones making sure that government could restrict and control those rights, so one can logically assume that while the meant unalienable they did not mean unrestricted or free of conditions.