Ha! My employer just modified company policy to disallow firearms on the premises...

Colt1911FE, you hit it real good. I see so many of these testosterone-laced diatribes that might make you feel good saying it; but are sheer nonsense.
I worked many years in a public school environment that at times were simply gang-infested, however a Gun Free Zone. You had to use what was between your ears when thinking about survival. Some employees said "Concealed means concealed", or "My life is more important than school policy". A few were caught: FIRED and prosecuted....Obey the law or work to change it...
 
Magyar: Gun Free Zones are exactly why no school district in the country is able to retain my services.

I've been in FOUR actual school lockdowns in my 5 years working for a school district.

I'll keep working private sector from now on, where my right to live is respected.

GFZ's really irk me when the whole property rights vs gun rights issue comes up. The penalty for trespassing on an employer's property with a firearm is merely termination. The penalty for trespassing on a GOVERNMENT employer's property is jail time. The double standard is insulting.

And, just for the record, I believe that if a particular place of employment is:
1. Incorporated;
and
2. Open to the public;

There is no right to discriminate against employees or customers based on whether they are armed or not.
 
Colt1911forever said:
Freedom is a two way door. It swings both ways. You should have the right to carry but an employer or property owner has every right to restrict your use or carry of a weapon on their property.

I have seen this discussion time and time again on the boards. People only see one side. There is a significant property rights issue at play here IMHO. I love how people think their right to carry trumps an individual or business property rights. It is simply a case of competing rights and you will loose. IMHO you should.

Property rights trumps your right to carry every time IMHO.
Click to expand...

I hope this isn't directed at me. I am well aware of the businesses right to say they do not want weapons on the premises. I was simply ranting because it's almost comical that other employees have been carrying for over a decade and this new guy comes in from Wisconsin(he's been here for about a month) and suddenly gets a rule put into place about not carrying.

The owners daughter who is also on the sales team carries in her purse. I'm not sure if he's aware of that, but I'm sure that she will raise a stink when she finds out as well.

Anyways, I don't disagree with their right to implement the rule, and I am following the rule, doesn't mean I have to like the rule. :rolleyes:
 
Unless the policy is company-wide, for every employee, it's not legal.
You sure about that? How about posting your source?
Click to expand...

It would be illegal to discriminate against an employee on that basis, but a bank could easily have a no weapons policy with an exemption for a security guard or sum such scenario. It would need to be part of a job description or written policy to have exceptions, and those could be subject to court test.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to hunt for source. As part of an HR dept, if fairly confident in my statement.
 
And, just for the record, I believe that if a particular place of employment is:
1. Incorporated;
and
2. Open to the public;

There is no right to discriminate against employees or customers based on whether they are armed or not.
Click to expand...

You can believe anything you want. I believe in little green men from outer space built the pyramids but that does not make it true. :D

Open to the public has nothing to do with it. Property owners have the right to control who is and who is not armed on their property. Sorry but it is more entrenched and established right. One that is on sounder footing than the right to carry.

Believing something does not make it so.

If you believe that work for it in a real and meaningful manner but in the end you will not win that battle.
 
No Uncle my initial reply was to all the people telling you to carry anyway. People are very hypocritical when it comes to rights. They want all of their rights to be protected and scream bloddy murder when they percieve someone is trying to restrict them but in the same breathe they have no problem trampling the rights of others. :barf:
 
Not a protected class.

You can discriminate on anything that is not covered in the protected classes.
Click to expand...

Not true...even in a right to work state (I'm tempted to give a practical example; but restraint must be the better part of valor unless it were to become public). Of course a court would make the final ruling as this is a civil matter.

Protected class is an EEOC issue. Policies and procedures not necessarily so.
 
In Florida, they can't stop you from keeping a firearm in your car on company property as long as you have a CCW.
Click to expand...
...unless you are Disney, then you can do whatever you want and the government will turn a blind eye.
 
The owners daughter who is also on the sales team carries in her purse. I'm not sure if he's aware of that, but I'm sure that she will raise a stink when she finds out as well.
Click to expand...
I BELIVE that in the future this could cause a meeting I'd be tempted to bring popcorn to.:D
 
Property rights vs carry rights is a sticky subject (and possibly a topic for its own thread), but I'll say this about that: I feel that my right to live, to protect myself, does indeed trump a property owner's right to determine what's in my pocket. The business owner could say, "No employees are to carry wallets made from leather, because I love cows." While the law says he can do this, is he not interfering too heavily with the lives of his employees? That's a trivial, comedic example, but the principle applies. While one's constitutional rights are supposed to end where they infringe upon the rights of another, this situation is a two-way infringement. With this conflict, one right will have to make way for the other. If property rights trump 2A rights, then the employee may be placed in a situation that costs him his life. If the opposite holds, the employer has armed employees who are still bound by many other laws not use/abuse those arms.
 
I feel that my right to live, to protect myself, does indeed trump a property owner's right to determine what's in my pocket.
Click to expand...
yes it does as long as you're on your property.When you go on his property you are subject to his rules.If he says "Do you have a leather wallet?" and you say "yes" if he asks you to leave and you don't you are now guilty of tresspassing.
 
When you go on his property you are subject to his rules.If he says "Do you have a leather wallet?" and you say "yes" if he asks you to leave and you don't you are now guilty of tresspassing.
Click to expand...

And... if I visit a business that has other rules? No jews allowed, perhaps?

Frankly, I think religion has a great parallel to 2A carry rights on private property. What you have is a conflict of beliefs, where one belief system is trying to squash another.

Since it's obvious that GFZ's, 30.06 signs and the like do not prevent rampage shootings (and seem to actually encourage it due to the large ratio of unarmed people for the active shooter), there isn't a safety argument to be made. It's purely a flexing of ideological will.

How is the ideological will of an incorporated entity open to the public allowed to discriminate against another ideological will that is legally permissible in our country?
 
Not true...even in a right to work state (I'm tempted to give a practical example; but restraint must be the better part of valor unless it were to become public). Of course a court would make the final ruling as this is a civil matter.

Protected class is an EEOC issue. Policies and procedures not necessarily so.
Click to expand...

An employer can discriminate on just about anything they want as long as it does not have an adverse effect on a protected class.

If you do not want to employ left handed people you can do so.

Discrimination IS an EEOC issue.

We 'discriminate' all the time in hiring.

We try very hard to not hire anyone stupid.
 
Last time I looked carrying a weapon did not place you in a 'protected class.'
Click to expand...
This type of issue would most likely fall under 'employment practices'.

If an employer knowingly singles out an employee, and applies a policy about their behavior only to them, its called 'harrassment'.

In my office we had several employees who had copied their own music from cds, to listen to while they work. One employee chose to store the data on the public profile, instead of to the local hard drive. So when IT found out, everyone had to remove all personal data off the systems, even though it was only one persons actions.

One person is allergic to many odors, especially perfumes. So everyone got the memo that prohibits the wearing of perfumes/colognes, even though it was only one person that wore perfume.

Now go back and consider what started this tangent, the OP was given a directive solely because he is the only one that is known to be armed, or the first one suspected of it. A whiny liberal would complain about being harrassed if soemthing like this happened to them. They could file a lawsuit and because it was a practice of the employer to discriminate against anyone for any reason, and its documented, their insurance would have to pay. Might take years to happen.

There is a lot that goes on in the workplace that people could easily sue their employers over. Theres a lot of insurance companies that would rather settle than get a judgment in court.
 
hopefully your emplyer doesn't end up in a situation with a disgruntled employee where he needs a CCW permit holder to save his life! ;)
 
People are very hypocritical when it comes to rights. They want all of their rights to be protected and scream bloddy murder when they percieve someone is trying to restrict them but in the same breathe they have no problem trampling the rights of others.
Click to expand...

Sooooo true...they can dish it but can't take it!!


Quote:
In Florida, they can't stop you from keeping a firearm in your car on company property as long as you have a CCW.

...unless you are Disney, then you can do whatever you want and the government will turn a blind eye.
Click to expand...

Sooooo NOT true...Disney is in possession of an explosives license thereby excluding them from the "Bring Your Gun To Work Law" as well as any other business with such explosives license (ie. fireworks, dynamite)

Its a BS loophole and I don't agree with it...but it's there to be exploited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top