Does employer's policy override CCW license?

Now I can't even have a gun in my car while it's parked in the public parking lot without risking termination.
Click to expand...

John, that I believe is WAY overstepping bounds, and completely unacceptable.

Personal beliefs can and often do conflict with prudent business practices in this area. ME? I have absolutely no problem with CCW or OC--I'd be a serious hypocrit if I said otherwise. BUT that doesn't translate from personal belief to business practice. The problem is that from an employer standpoint in general, there is a heavy responsibility to provide a safe, secure work environment that does not discriminate. As it was explained to me when in a similar position as John. I didn't like it, but the logic is a lesser of two evils in the business world (though I DID get to keep a carry piece in my car--had to drive the six blocks to do so, rather than walk as I did before).

From an employer's or manager's perspective: Sure, you're perfectly safe and responsible. But all it takes is for one person to say they don't feel comfortable working around someone carrying a loaded gun, and then we have two choices---we both get fired, or that person leaves followed by a 5-digit lawsuit that they have nearly a 100% of winning. Likely that the company would fire you, then settle for a nice figure to keep it out of court. So how flexible do you think an employer should be willing to be on it?
 
I suppose the flip side of this debate would be: how would like it if you're hired tradesman came into your home armed and ccw permit...

The plumber shows up packing. Do you have the right to make him disarm? He's not your employee but is working for you. (He don't know if he's walkin into a crack den with a bad water heater....):D
 
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.
Click to expand...

I am sure none of the 209 people killed in workplace attacks thought they were in mortal danger going to work that day. Most likely they would not have gone. With most workplaces being defense free zones they are not safe for workers. What is happening is that while violent crime is on the decline we are seeing an increase in mass shootings where unarmed people are found.

The employees working at Shoney's in Anniston Alabama were safer because that fellow carried a gun into their workplace.

The folks in working and worshiping at that Church in Colorado were safer because Jeanne Assad carried her concealed weapon to services that day.

The students and staff at the law school in Grundy Va were safer because two students were able to get their legal defense tools.

The students and faculty in Pearl Miss, were safer when the Asst. Principal got his defense tool from his car and stopped the shooting rampage.

Louis Javelle was shot and killed in December 2006 when he was working in a place where his license to carry defense tools was invalid.

That is what's happening in workplaces and it is a matter of safer.

Very few are capable of resisting an armed attacker while unarmed themselves. Concerns over safe practices with weapons are addressed by training. I am sure there are some Ninja types out there who may prove me wrong, but I am submitting it is easier to get people trained to handle defense tools than training them to take on rampage shooters with a cell phone.

Most states require training to get a CHL, I would not see anything wrong with an employer saying "Okay you are trained, but before you carry here you get trained by our choice of instructor, course, etc.".

Don't know about ADs' those are truly rare. I am going to have to concede the point on NDs' being more frequent than intentional discharges at BGs' . The same logic was used in the flawed Kellerman study, i.e. the gun is not used unelss it is discharged into the BG.

Since two of the three incidents I cited earlier in the thread of legally armed folks stopping mass murders did not involve firing at the bad guy, but stopping them with a show of force the ND to shooting BG comparison leaves out most incidents where an aggressor is stopped by an armed citizen. I think Kleck did some research on this.

Most defensive uses of handguns do not involve shooting. Most common scenario according to the Kleck study is BG sees gun and flees. I do not accept the premise that NDs'/ADs' are more common than DGUs'. (defensive gun uses) I would need to see some research to be convinced.

I am furthering the position that if gun free zones were severely limited and those extant were protected by visible armed security that shooting sprees of unarmed victims would decline.


Are you saying laws have never been struck down for being unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
No. I am not saying, have not said that, and have no idea why you would think I said that.
Click to expand...

Because you seem to be validating laws and policies that say check your civil rights at the door when you go to work. That's why I ask the question. There seems to be a presumption that employers can ban legal defense tools not only in the workplace but in the private vehicles of employees.

I know we do it, but don't think it's legal within the framework of the constitution and juris prudence on other rights. I do believe there is a right to keep and bear arms, not from the constitution but protected by it.

An employer may have very good reasons for restricting weapons on the job. A correctional officer surrounded and outnumbered by inmates is a good example. I am saying that blanket policies against defense tools just create a victim rich defense free zone.

Here are some thoughts from John Lott in an interview
That conclusion, Lott said, is not mere speculation. He and University of Chicago Professor William Landes studied "multiple victim public shootings" from 1977 through 1999 and reported the results in The Bias Against Guns.

"The normal types of law enforcement, where you impose penalties after the fact, aren't really relevant to a lot of these guys when they commit these crimes because they seem to have some expectation that there's a high probability that they are going to die," Lott explained.

In fact, in more than 70 percent of the rampage shootings studied, the criminal died at the scene, either from a self-inflicted gunshot wound or after being shot in self-defense by another civilian or law enforcement officer. The pair also examined 13 kinds of gun laws - including waiting periods, background checks, bans on so-called "assault weapons," etc. - and determined that passage of only one type of law yielded a reduction in such killing sprees.

"The only one that we found that had any impact was the passage of right to carry [concealed weapons] laws, and the effect was huge," Lott said. "After states passed right to carry laws, they saw about a 60 percent drop in the rate at which these attacks occurred and about a 78 percent drop in the rate at which people were either killed or injured in these attacks."
Click to expand...
 
I suppose the flip side of this debate would be: how would like it if you're hired tradesman came into your home armed and ccw permit...
Click to expand...

Based on my brief foray into the construction business (rehab after my traffic accident, paid bills and was cheaper than pt/gym) I would say if you get one that can get a chl you are ahead of the game. :D

This kind of thing is hard for me to understand, probably because I have spent so much time around the worst gun handlers, LEOs and SOs. Minimally trained and in many cases carry because they have to.

So a civilian who takes the time and trouble to go legal just does not scare me like it seems to concern some people. YMMV
 
One's home is one's castle. The homeowner gets to decide who can be armed in his house, period. And, yes, we're allowed to profile. An armed tradesman comes into your house, you get to make the decision.
 
Perldog007>> One question I have to ask is this: Have you ever been a licensed business owner, with employees, with payroll, with customers, with all the insurance and liability regulations? If not, try it for a few years and then get back to those of us who have been there and dealt with it so you can tell us how terribly wrong we're seeing the business world. Otherwise you're armchair quarterbacking to the Nth degree.

Every area is different. Every job is different. Every employer is different. Blanket dictating is not going to solve anything anywhere. I've had some jobs that CCW was never an issue. While running construction crews, I always carried, especially in remote areas. While I played desk-jockey for a short time, it was not only unacceptable, but very unnecessary because I needed a security clearance and 6-digit passcode to even get into the building. At the moment, the company I'm attached to has a strict policy against weapons, but they could care less if I sit on the ridge by the generator station with a rifle and pop yotes while I eat my lunch so long as it's during the 'off' season. There are so many factors involved, it's ridiculous to think it should be one way or the other--black or white.

My suggestion is that if you aren't capable of complying to the terms of your employment and the employer won't negotiate, find another employer who better suits your needs.
 
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.
Click to expand...
If you want to include every culture in the world from time immemorial to the present, then you can get to where you apparently want to be. Unless your goals are obfuscation and endless debate, perhaps we could limit things to the context of this discussion.
 
Perldog007>> One question I have to ask is this: Have you ever been a licensed business owner, with employees, with payroll, with customers, with all the insurance and liability regulations? If not, try it for a few years and then get back to those of us who have been there and dealt with it so you can tell us how terribly wrong we're seeing the business world. Otherwise you're armchair quarterbacking to the Nth degree.
Click to expand...

No, and no. I have not been in that position. I understand why those that are go with the flow most of the time.

I am advocating grass roots pressure to change the situation currently existing which makes victim disarmament in the workplace acceptable and widespread.

Maybe I am mistaken but I would think that we would hear of anybody in a workplace being harmed by a ccw permit holder given the general anti-gun bias of the news. Since I have missed these reports supporting your position would you be kind enough to post links?


Every area is different. Every job is different. Every employer is different. Blanket dictating is not going to solve anything anywhere. I've had some jobs that CCW was never an issue.
Click to expand...

The most common policy in the workplace today is banning weapons at work, even to the point of not allowing them in vehicles in the parking lot. That is blanket dictating and you are right it doesn't solve anything. I have also had jobs where ccw was never an issue, or it was allowed with proper permission.

My beef is with policies that prohibit legal licensed defense tools with the excuse of making the workplace safe. If you need a cipher lock combo and security clearance to get into the work space that is obviously secure.

Most workplaces are easier to access and having no security at all except calling 911. Guards if present are likely to be unarmed. Calling 911 is not effective and this has been documented.

People with concealed weapon premits are among the safest of citizens and this has been documented.

Armed citizens shoot and kill more BGs' than police officers and are less likely to shoot the wrong person. This has been documented.

While it should seem obvious, comprehensive research has confirmed that criminals tend to avoid murdering, raping and robbing victims they feel might be armed. John Lott "More Guns, Less Crime". So armed people are a deterrent to criminals, this has been documented.

What has not been documented is ccw permit holders being a danger in the workplace. In order for the position of supporting victim disarmament to be valid this would have to be proven.

As pointed out earlier in the thread arguments to the effect that concealed permit holders can't be trusted at work are ad ignoratum arguments, because concealed weapon permit holders are not an unknown quantity.

My suggestion is that if you aren't capable of complying to the terms of your employment and the employer won't negotiate, find another employer who better suits your needs.
Click to expand...

Again we seem to be dealing with a reading comprehension issue. I have stated this more than once but let's try it again.

I comply with the no-weapons policy where I work because I agreed to abide by the employee manual when I took the job.

Heck, I worked unarmed in D.C. Public and Assisted housing for forty days when an official at the Special Officer's Management Branch got in a urination contest with me and suspended my armed license for forty days before IA could straighten them out.

In truth nobody searches my backpack/laptop case, my truck, or my person. It would be easy for a person of my experience to conceal a weapon and minimize my legal exposure if discovered.

But I don't because I agreed to it, and in the state where I work it is a felony that would divert police resources from other crimes.

I do not agree with these policies and see nothing wrong with advocating change, including on line debate.

What have you got besides ad ignoratum (ccw permit holders are dangerous in spite of evidence to the contrary) and ad hominem (suggesting that I am an armchair quarterback who lacks self control instead of debating the basis of your position) ?
 
Progressive? That sounds a little left-leaning for you, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Hence my "right wing" outburst herein. Overcompensation perhaps?

:D

In the course of due diligence I have found a study done in North Carolina which came to the conclusion that a person in a workplace that permits firearms therein is five times more likely to be a victim of homicide at work.

The same study cited Kellerman as valid and had a grant from CDC.

That would mean that of the 209 victims of workplace shootings mentioned in earlier posts that 175 of them must have been in workplaces that allowed firearms to be carried. I am thinking this can't be right.

Other sources state that 60% to 70% of workplaces ban firearms. Need to look into this.

Other than that one study, can't find anything but proclamations of people perhaps going postal (presumably other people with permits would not be able to stop them) or going out to their cars and coming back and blasting their way to the top (everybody knows that if a person so enraged and inclined had to drive all the way home to get a firearm they would not go to the trouble).

Any study resting on Kellerman after the Carter Administration (not exactly a Kabal of RKBA thought) cut funding in the wake of that tragic attempt at justifying stricter victim disarmament has got to suspect just on that one point.

On the other hand there is plenty of real data to support allowing people to keep their defense tools at work. I am interested to know of any incident involving a CHL permit holder accidentally or intentionally harming a co-worker. Any one finding a news link please post.

Insurance rates are a viable concern.

Which is why I advocate legal reforms and lawsuits when people are hurt in defense free zones. They will see the light when they feel the heat.


Again, in case anybody is confused - I DO NOT ADVOCATE CARRYING A FIREARM IN VIOLATION OF YOUR AGREEMENT WITH YOUR EMPLOYER!!!!!

I do advocate raising awareness and trying to change policy.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Well gee, I gues if God said it, it must be an absolute truth we all recognize. Maybe I missed it. Does anyone have a link showing the interview where the proclamation was made? Is it on Youtube? I would like to bookmark it for my possible upcoming court appearance.:rolleyes:
 
Employment is a voluntary relationship. You enter into it with the understanding that you will follow the employer's rules. You don't have the right to carry a gun because you voluntarily gave it up when the employer showed you its policy.
 
Well gee, I gues if God said it, it must be an absolute truth we all recognize. Maybe I missed it. Does anyone have a link showing the interview where the proclamation was made? Is it on Youtube? I would like to bookmark it for my possible upcoming court appearance.
Click to expand...

Less time on Youtube and more time reading the federalist papers would clear up that confusion. Our Founding fathers recognized Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness an inalienable rights we are endowed with by our Creator.

It then followed that if we had a right to life then there was a right to defend that life. You could search YouTube, but the federalist papers would clear you up on the intent of the framers of the constitution.

My understanding is that the federalist papers were actually letters written during the time our form of government was first being designed and codified. But Youtube is probably more interesting to folks today.

Employment is a voluntary relationship. You enter into it with the understanding that you will follow the employer's rules. You don't have the right to carry a gun because you voluntarily gave it up when the employer showed you its policy.
Click to expand...

No argument there, that's why I follow the rules of my employer. I disagree with the school of thought that says letting licensed people carry in the workplace makes it unsafe.

Since employers have to recognize other rights, it makes sense that we work to pass more legislation that limits their right to curtail our RKBA. Also to educate people to the facts which outweigh the possibly well intentioned but flawed policies of victim disarmament.

The right of the employer to ban defense tools is not absolute in all places in America. The laws that make that so need to be passed in more states.
 
With most workplaces being defense free zones they are not safe for workers.
Click to expand...
Actually they are pretty safe, and given the propensity to prohibit carry at workplaces claiming that carrying would make them safer is a completely unsupported claim. It is a nice wish, a nice theory, but until you can provide some proof that is all it will be. When one can take into account the AD/ND issue, when one can find valid comparison of violence at non-CCW business compared to violence at similar but CCW-friendly business, then one can start making some valid claims.
I am going to have to concede the point on NDs' being more frequent than intentional discharges at BGs' .
Click to expand...
And one then must consider the ND factor into the equation to determine safety.
Because you seem to be validating laws and policies that say check your civil rights at the door when you go to work.
Click to expand...
There is no civil right to carry a firearm everywhere you want, whenver you want.
An employer may have very good reasons for restricting weapons on the job.
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest our sole point of disagreement is what constitues a good reason. I take the position that since it his his business, or his property, his wishes are a very good reason.
I am saying that blanket policies against defense tools just create a victim rich defense free zone.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. I am saying that it is the empoyer's right to do so, and if one voluntarily chooses to work in that environment there is a moral obligation to follow those policies.
 
If you want to include every culture in the world from time immemorial to the present, then you can get to where you apparently want to be. Unless your goals are obfuscation and endless debate, perhaps we could limit things to the context of this discussion.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how clarifying a point would in any way constitue obfuscation. Words and terms have meaning, and they should be used within those meanings. And one doesn't have to include every culture from time immemorial to prove the point, although the fact that what is considered mala in se and what is prohibita does change over time and among cultures, which sort of indicates the fallacy of the entire mala en se concept . Even in our current American culture one finds evidence. Abortion is a good example. Gun control in general is a good example. Spouse and child abuse are others. Different cultures look at things in different ways, and thus mala in se and mala prohibita are very much culturally and socially defined.
 
I take the position that since it his his business, or his property, his wishes are a very good reason.
Click to expand...

Yet many employers have been forced into recognizing rights of employees over the years despite their wishes. Do labor laws, EEOC regulations exist because employers wish for them?

Traveler's Insurance in 1968 would not pay my mother what men in the same position made because they did not wish to. Do they now pay equal wages because their wishes changed or because the law changed?

I had to concede the ND point because nobody can know for sure. And it's irrelevant because ND's causing death or injury in the workplace are not known to cause the loss of life and injury that unopposed armed criminals are.

The idea that permit holders as a group are dangerous is unsupported through analysis of available data. Take one anti-self defense site : http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk4one.htm we are titillated to learn that CHL holders have been arrested 5143 times between 1996 and 2001.

In 2006 alone according to one source 1,078,961 arrests were made in Texas. Source: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2007/09/texas-law-enforcement-made-more-than.html


So 5143 arrests in five years is a tiny percentage. Then we consider that 1.72 percent of Texans are licensed to carry concealed firearms. Source:
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html

CHL holders clearly have a better civic record than non-permit holders.

People argue that employees may get mad at work and might go postal.

Two things - if somebody does that is a policy going to stop them? Can their unarmed co-workers stop them? Recent events tell us the answer to both questions is no.

We talk about accidents. Guns were carried everyday by all kinds of people for a long time before anti-self defense laws became popular. Elmer Keith flew with his .44 magnum on him and it wasn't until 1972 that it became a problem.

We should be able to hold up some data of gun accidents in the workplace from past and present situations where guns are allowed in the workplace.

I'm all eyeballs - post the link.

In 2000 there were 600 fatalities from unintentional firearm injuries. In the same year 3400 perished from choking on ingested objects. Source : http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Would it not make more sense to ban ingesting during work hours? When you factor in the 11,700 deaths by poisoning and consider that people can and do survive eight hours without food or drink all the time, shouldn't we restrict the rights of employees to eat or drink on the job only granting exceptions for medical reasons?

What about liability? How can any employer bear the risk of letting people chuff snacks, drinks, even entire meals when under the stress of the workplace?

If you can't know what they are thinking or how well they are trained to handle poisoning or choking emergencies shouldn't you enforce a no eating or drinking on company property and time policy?

There is no civil right to carry a firearm everywhere you want, whenver you want.
Click to expand...

Neither do employers everywhere have unlimited power to curtail RKBA of employees. Employers also do not have unlimited power to curtail other rights.



Actually they are pretty safe, and given the propensity to prohibit carry at workplaces claiming that carrying would make them safer is a completely unsupported claim. It is a nice wish, a nice theory, but until you can provide some proof that is all it will be.
Click to expand...

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3117

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316322,00.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200311\NAT20031118a.html

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/LOCAL/801020457

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3234

http://www.sacsconsulting.com/ccw_RealStories.htm

There you have it my main man. One joe with a chl killed in a defense free zone where he was unarmed by his employer's wishes and statute.

Four incidents of armed citizens thwarting bad guys in workplaces, And the church in Colorado, which was a workplace for some of those folks therein.

Your turn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top