Employer Policies the new gun control.

Status
Not open for further replies.
We've had this discussion before many times - so your insights are not new.

How to change it? Lobby for legislation that disallows companies to control people's behavior that is not directly concerned with their employment.

However, that is antithetical to some views of employer, private property rights.

Recall the massive opposition to the Civil Rights act which still is mentioned by some (even candidates). A no gun ban by employers is the same idea.

The general public accepted that stopping discrimination trumped being the king of your business. Convince folks to pass legislation that trumps other employer rights - might be an interesting business, capitalist vs. populist/rights argment nuance given what's happening with the candidates lately.

As far as the snarky remarks - not needed, bad idea to continue them..
 
And you were making a political point, so you brought about a reaction you had every reason to expect.

The problem with your expectation of sympathy is that it's hard to argue that our own rights should be respected, if we don't respect the rights of others to manage their own property. Kind of a Catch-22.

So, while I agree that I'd rather see employers not put bans in place, I can't really fault them until such time as statutory law or case law develops that holds them harmless in cases where employees take armed defensive action against a crime. Expecting them to do other than they are doing is unrealistic, unless the government so indemnifies them.

Your political energies would be better expended on the legislatures, not on your employer.
 
Making employers immune to suit for the actions of their employees in using their firearm is crucial.

Besides in self-defense gone awry, one has to consider the armed employee going nuts.

Both points are made in the discussion by lawyers for reasons why employers shouldn't allow carry.

Internet hero shoots innocent in a SD gun fight.
Crazed boy friend employee shoots female ex-GF employee with legally carried gun.

That's what they worry about.
 
Washington Doc, Thanks for finally answering the questioons asked by other members and clarifying some points. I think that legitimate discussions such as these are important.

So, I do agree that it is frustrating when the "MAN" says you can't have a gun on his property. But, personally, if I couldn't live with those rules, I wouldn't take money from him in the form of a paycheck. I think I would look for employment elsewhere. Until I found it, I would follow the rules.

BTW, I'm in my 40's.
 
Again, we're a little off topic. How to change Corporate America to accept the 2nd amendment. This can be read as how to change employers to accept the 2nd amendment. Or, how to guarantee our rights to firearms in a future of corporate ownership.
Washington Doc is offline Report Post
Click to expand...

Friend, it isn't going to happen. Why? Because if we FORCE someone to accept OUR version of what should happen on THEIR property, that makes us the bad guys.

One huge part of the arguments concerning the right to keep and bear arms has always been based on old English Common Law. This concerns the part where we (gun owners) maintain hat our right to keep firearms on our own property is sacrosanct. I believe that the common quote goes along the lines of, "the roof might be caved in, rain might come through the roof, but not even the King of England dares cross the threshold" without the owner's permission.

Thus, it would logically follow that if WE have the sovereign right to kep and bear arms on OUR property that others have the sovereign right to tell us that they don't want OUR firearms on THEIR property.

And we must comply--isn't this what the basis of personal freedom entails? As we so often point out, I might add.

Bottom line: We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to do so publicly, if we choose. The remedies we have to enforce our rights to keep and bear arms on public property are enumerated by our own Constitution: We can petition the government, and have favorable laws placed into effect; we can hold or declare a referendum to remove onerous laws from the books, or we can recall those in office that we, the people, find are deficient in their duties.

But the day when we can FORCE another entity to accept our views on THEIR private property is the day that this great Nation ceases to exist.
 
Crazed boy friend employee shoots female ex-GF employee with legally carried gun.

That's what they worry about.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The folks who set the policies listen to the lawyers. For decades, the lawyers listened to folks who told them that an armed employee is a dangerous employee.

I know; I've been there and talked to them. A day-trader named Mark Barton went on a shooting spree in two businesses in Atlanta in 1999. I had a friend at one of them, and afterward, she showed me a revised policy on "recognizing the potentially violent employee." Factors included talking about guns or reading about guns at work. "Interest in the 2nd Amendment" was right next to "overthrowing the government."

(Incidentally, many of the "studies" cited, or were authored by, folks in the Brady Campaign and VPC)

This wasn't an isolated occurrence, or something done on impulse. I've seen the template used by several human resources divisions. The very mentality pervades a large part of the corporate world.

One guy openly carrying a gun to an employee picnic isn't going to change an attitude that thoroughly entrenched in the corporate psyche. It takes time, energy, and education. Even if things do turn around in some places, you'll still have the lawyers whispering prophecies of dire consequences, potential liability, and general unpleasantness in others.

In the corporate world, those whispers carry a great deal of weight.
 
I have to agree with Messrs Meyer and Servo here. The legality and liability issue is going to play a much bigger role than corporate politics or their opinion of the 2A.

We have to acknowledge that legal issues are built upon foundations of precedents. And currently those precedents say that the employer controls employee access to firearms and who may enter the property with firearms. Thus, if an exception is made for an employee and known to the employer, the employer can be held liable for any injury caused by the employee or weapon. If you carry concealed, the lawsuit will still say the employer knew or should have known you were armed and failed to take prophylactic action. It will take legislation to remove or reduce the employer's liability

Property rights are only one facet of the issue but one that is a 2-edged sword. Recent legislation and rulings in a few states have trumped property rights by allowing employees to store firearms in their parked vehicles in the company parking lot. This isn't seen as a "civil rights" victory by businesses. Not when they may still be sued because they knew "Doc" always put a pistol in the trunk of his car every day and did nothing about it before he went "postal". At best, we should insist it was a victory of "practicality" or "common sense" since one could always kennel a guard dog, but there are no facilities for locking up a firearm between work and home.

Change will require the following:
  • Legislation to remove or limit the employer's liability for the employee's actions during lawful defense of self or others.
  • Legislation that limits employer liability if the employee is licensed and does not make threats in the workplace.
  • A public relations campaign to counter those who complain that there is "something wrong" with a person who feels a need to carry a firearm.
  • Legislation that requires employers to treat off-duty employees like other customers or visitors - if they allow customers with firearms, then off-duty employees are also allowed to carry.
  • Legislation to force the burden of liability onto the person precipitating the illegal action instead of the deepest pockets.
 
WOW! I have to agree with most of the posters here. (And I am 45-46, maybe 47... Old age affects my memory.)

I have a friend who does not allow gum in his home. Why? Gum has never killed anyone? When I finish chewing it I always dispose of it correctly. He does not want it stuck under the furniture. It is his property, his rules.

It is easier for him to enforce no gum with everyone than have to explain to his kids why Uncle Buck can chew it. I guess I could just give up on him and not see him any longer. I choose to dispose of my gum before I get to his yard.

But I do have to tell you, if you worked for me when I owned my repair shop and tried to get everyone to stop coming to my shop because I suspended you for breaking one of my rules, you would no longer have a job.

The smart thing to do would have been to call and ask "Hey, I am off duty, will I be allowed to carry my handgun with me to this event?"
 
Last edited:
Yet, I still don't like it when my freedoms (freedom, the thing people have died all around the world for, for ages upon ages) are taken away. Freedom may not be taken away in a bold approach as it hasn't worked well in the past, but it will be taken away piece by piece as quietly as possible, until it's all "gray" and "technicalities" will mean the end of rights. Technically you can own an incendiary bullet, but it's against the law to shoot it. Same for a silencer. You can legally build and own one non-EPA standardized vehicle. Technically, some easement belongs to some agency so you can't walk along it without a $250,000 fine and upto five years in prison. What's next? Technically the majority of the materials in your house were furnished/manufactured by Capco Corporation, so they actually own your house, not you. Or technically, city limits where expanded without public notification, so your house and property now belong to the city and they can vote you out of the community. How many lawyer derived technicalities are out there now-a-days? How much worse will it get? How far will the pendulum swing before people say "B.S." and not put up with it? Technically, even though not stated in my policy handbook, I'm an employee for life and technically, there's no end point for those policies in my personal life. Oh, by-the-way I was told by Safeway that I can shop on Safeway property on my day off (at my own store too) with a firearm and that's OK. There's an angry rant for those of you who wanted it.
Click to expand...

No, you started ranting with your opening post.

Are ages posted on these things? I'd like to know some ages of the people leaving replies. I sense a lot of older folks who have been either whipped into submission by their own experiences OR (don't be mad, there's an "or") they've simply lived long enough to know when there's a fight to be fought and when to walk away. I know that my personal fight with Safeway will go nowhere. That's why I wasn't asking for legal help or if I have a case or not. I want to know if anybody has ideas on how to change Corporate America before we all end up rolling over and letting CEO's walk all over us.
Click to expand...

You sure do a lot of posturing and calling for action for a person who is suposedly just wanting some ideas on changing corporate America.

Whipped into submission? Wow. Before you go trying to change corporate America, first get some years under your belt and try running corporate America. You want to change something you don't understand and your rants are all over the board and don't show any clear focus. Maybe that is an age thing, as you indicated.
 
So you do still work for Safeway?

Their handling of the gun situation will feel like an awards ceremony compared to what you'll get if they find out an employee is actively trying to organize a boycott.
 
So you open carried to a company event on company property and you're surprised that you got some kind of repercussion?

If you want to change this kind of policy this is the incorrect way to go about it. Maybe take your boss and coworkers shooting.

The private property end employers' rights arguments have already been hashed out in this thread.
 
Okay, starting over.

I'll claim the responsibility of muddling up my own words here, so I am going to start over, without the background story or anything because that seems to sidetrack people. Remove me from the equation people. Sorry for any "snarky" remarks, but I did receive plenty of them from the audience too. I was planning on deleting the entire thread, but don't seem to be able to. If the admins/moderators want to do it for me, then be my guest.
To start over again;

Does anybody else think company policies are the new gun-control? That's the question, if you've heard it already then please don't bother telling me you've heard it before. Just send a link to whatever old thread it's in because it's new to me.

Gun groups do plenty well to protect 2nd amendment rights from the government. Yet, most of us live in a world where we work for somebody else (from individual business to giant corporation) and those employers have "no gun" polices. We all understand why these policies are in place too(every postal worker knows why). They have every right to have that policy in place because it's their company and their private property.

Now, yes, we may chose to seek/relocate/find/work for other entities that do not have those policies if we don't like them, but those entities are few and far between. But, a gun does you no good if it's not with you.

There is obviously no way to force a company to change it's policies unless you are very rich (can purchase 51% of the stocks) or very insane (using violence (which only hurts gun owners as a whole)).

I have tried to think of peaceful ways for the people to influence such employers. There's;
1) Voting for a new president and hoping for the best.
2) Contacting your local govenors/senators and the legislature approach.
3) Attrition/boycotting the business.
4) Petitioning the local community for change.
5) Asking nicely.
6) Anything you suggest. Lets hear it!
Now, I think;
Number five and four would only really work for small, local independent businesses. Number one is a gamble. Number two has been the most suggested answer thus far and probably the most effective. In my energetic arrogance I thought number three was viable. As for number six, I'd love to hear it.

If a new business popped up in a town and it had a racist banner and sloagan (assuming there's no law against it), it would probably not last very long because people would not shop there. The business has the right to keep their sign just as we have the right to not shop there. It's a double edged sword. Same goes for "no-gun" policies and people not having to work/shop there. Both have their own rights.
As a hypothetical, I thought boycotting would be viable because, in the end the company needs the money and you can buy your goods elsewhere (unless it's the only store in town). The idea is that they would give in first and voluntarily change their policies. Is attrition forcing them, I don't know, I think that's the catch-22.

Again, remove me from the equation. I'm restarting this whole thing so I don't have to listen to "snarky" remarks. Or people telling me I screwed up instead of answering the original topic question. Or reading "policies are policies." I know policies are policies, I'm not asking IF they exist, or WHY they exist, or even if they SHOULD exist, we all know they exist and they're there as a part of modern society. I personally don't think they should exist and employers should be freed from the liabilty of gun owning employees too. The two questions that I asked (more or definately less) in the original post and this one is;
1) Does anybody else think company policies are the new gun-control?
and
2) Do you have any suggestions as how to peacefully influence/change a company's policies?
 
2) Do you have any suggestions as how to peacefully influence/change a company's policies?
Click to expand...

Talk to your store manager and ask who you would talk to at Corporate about the situation. They may surprise you by being open to talk about it.

I didn't go back and re-read everything, sorry if this suggestion was posted before.
 
Private entities banning guns on their private property is not the new gun control. I am not aware of any organized effort in getting private entities to disallow guns on their property other than the typical liability-lawyers and those private entities with an agenda.

As I said in an earlier post, take your boss and coworkers shooting. Show them how fun it is. There are multiple posts on this website on how to do it (a few tips, don't talk politics or self-defense at all and make a show of safety) effectively.

Boycotting and open carrying probably are not the best ways to go about it.
 
Doc, I understand your question and comments.

I still have to reply that private property is private property. I do not think it is a form of gun control. I think it is a decision of the company (Property Owner) and is probably based on what they feel is best for the company.

"I have tried to think of peaceful ways for the people to influence such employers. There's;"
1) Voting for a new president and hoping for the best.

So if the anti-gun folks get their say via a new executive officer, are you OK with this? Why should it be OK for you, but not for them? Would a new president order Safeway to allow concealed carry by all employees?

2) Contacting your local govenors/senators and the legislature approach.

Would it be OK for these people to push through legislation/ordinances that mandates all houses be painted purple? What if they wanted to push through a law that allowed the police to do random checks of your house with-out a warrant or probable cause? Who needs private property rights.

3) Attrition/boycotting the business.

That might work. But if it does not, I bet Safeway's would just close the store, putting you and a lot of others out of a job. Again, if you worked for me and I found out you were recommending a boycott of my business, you would be gone.

4) Petitioning the local community for change.

While you are asking the local community for a change, why not ask them also to pass a law that says anyone who carries must carry ONLY an Colt 1851 Navy revolver? (No reproductions!)

5) Asking nicely.

BINGO! Explain in clear, precise terms why you want them to allow you (and others) to carry a concealed weapon at work. Maybe you can get a dozen others to sign the letter.

I have heard people talk about their Constitutional Rights before and they do not fully understand what those rights are. Your First and Second Amendment Rights stop on my front lawn. As a private property owner, with a few exceptions, I have the right to stop your First and Second Amendment Rights
at my property line.

Write a letter to the company. Get like minded co-workers to sign the letter. But be prepared for it to be denied.
 
Washington Doc said:
1) Does anybody else think company policies are the new gun-control?
and
2) Do you have any suggestions as how to peacefully influence/change a company's policies?
Click to expand...

1) No. Small businesses employee over half of the labor force. Concern about impersonal national corporations instituting gun control through their corporate policies is overblown.

2) While employees may have little influence over mega-corporations, most workers can talk directly to decision makers in the small businesses they work for.
 
Uncle Buck, in general I agree with you.

However, there is some disagreement about whether a public entity, such as a store, really counts as somebody's "front lawn."

IE, if you are open to the public, you already give up a lot of the rights that would attach to your home.

I don't have to allow Basques, algebra teachers, country singers, Lutherans or mimes into my home if I don't want to. (My father-in-law is Lutheran, guys, I'm just using random groups, and have nothing against the ones I've listed... except maybe the mimes.) But if I open a cafe, and decide I don't want to allow people in because they belong to those groups, it's a two-sided coin. On the one side, I can refuse to serve anybody in my establishment; on the other, as a public entity, I am liable for lawsuits and loss of license if it can be proven that I have discriminated against those groups (again, with the possible exception of mimes).

So there is a potentially valid argument that a business that is open to the public does not have all the rights that an individual would have. IE, my second amendment rights may carry, or perhaps should carry, more weight at a public market than they would at the business owner's home.

The problem with that whole approach, though, is that (at least in at-will states), employers could come up with a host of other reasons to get rid of an employee who was trying to force such an issue.

Therefore, I still think the only real fix to the problem is tort reform. Take away the sword of liability hanging over the business owner's head, and much of the motivation for firearms bans will go out the window.
 
You are right (of course, dang-it!) that there are differences between private property being used for a business and private property that I own for my personal use and enjoyment.

Either Florida or Texas, I can not remember which one, passed a law recently that said employees can leave a handgun in their cars while working. (Very rough interpretation of the law.)

The point I am trying to make is: What if the government made every company hire a mime? What if every company had to allow a mime to do what they do on your business property? What if every company had to give mime breaks?

(Thanks, now I can not get Marcel Marceau out of my head.)

Therefore, I still think the only real fix to the problem is tort reform. Take away the sword of liability hanging over the business owner's head, and much of the motivation for firearms bans will go out the window.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, but until that happens, I think the best response is still the letter writing.
 
I believe that private property rights are the second most important rights we have, second only to life.

All other rights hinge on private property rights. Without being able to own and CONTROL private property, all other rights can be eliminated by manipulating private property.

Freedom of speech? What's it mean without a place to practice it?

Religion? No good if I can't practice it.

If I can control property, I can build a church. If I can control property, I can stand there and speak and no one can tell me I can't.

Without private property, I am under someone else's control.

I expect to be able to control my property and I expect other people to do the same.

Government buildings restricting my rights are one thing.... that's MY property (and yours). It doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to US. The government, which also belongs to us, should not be able to tell us that we can't do peaceful things on property that belongs to us. Silliness.

Business is different. It's private property. Aside from a few restrictions regarding race and creed... they have the right to control who accesses their property, under what conditions and why.

I don't buy the "there are no viable options" argument. What if that place goes out of business? Are they going to be forced to stay open because there "are no viable options"? Horse hockey. Patronizing a business is voluntary.

Freedom of speech... I can put up signs that say "No shirts with profanity in this establishment." and I can kick people out who ignore the rule and I can have them arrested for trespassing if they do not comply.

Freedom of religion... not on MY property. You can't come in hear and just start worshipping satan and the "monks" from the airport aren't allowed either, if they're proselytizing. Believe what you want but what you DO or BRING to MY property is MY choice, not yours.

Freedom of the press... Not on my property. You can stand OFF my property and take pictures, yell questions, write articles about what a jerk I am... but not ON my property.

The right to "bear arms".... it's MY option on MY property. Just like speech and the press and all the other rights (except life). My property, my rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Now, on the flip-side, I do support boycotts of businesses that restrict concealed carry. Why? I think it's unreasonable and it's my right to boycott them if I think they're being stupid. Just like the guy who wants to wear the t-shirt with profanity can boycott me if he thinks my restriction is unreasonable. It's called freedom. If there were some rationale explanation for banning concealed carry in businesses, I might support doing it. There's not, least none I've ever heard or seen, so I don't.

However, not supporting it and even actively trying to convince people not to do it isn't the same as believing that it should be illegal or it violates my rights. It doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top