My regional manager would have a heart attack...


PDA






Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 09:28 AM
The week before last, one of my coworkers happened to notice the muzzle and end on my holster sticking out of the bottom of my shirt while we were working, and naturally he was a little bit curious as to what I had underneath there. We started talking about it, and kind of casually he mentioned that he hadn't shot a pistol since he left the Army back in '88. I took the opportunity to invite him to the range, and we went shooting on Monday.

Now he's been talking to most of our coworkers, and I was astonished to learn that most of them would also like to take a trip to the range with us. Most of them have never fired a pistol, and some of them have never even seen a gun up close.

Now on Tuesday, the company sent out a letter to all employees about "preventing violence in the workplace". They listed a few items that they claimed were examples of workplace violence, and among these were "knowledge of weapons and firearms" and "posession of a firearm". This really irked me something fierce, as I have a NH pistol permit, which gives me the right to carry concealed. It must really have struck a chord with the other workers as well, as now we're planning a trip to the range with about 9 people, out of about 24 employees at the branch where I work.

Does anyone out there know if I'm in the wrong here for sharing my hobbies with my coworkers, or if my company is in the wrong for telling me that posession of a firearm is an act of violence? Any input you have would be much appreciated ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "My regional manager would have a heart attack..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Chipperman
April 1, 2006, 09:36 AM
"Knowledge of Firearms" is workplace violence???? :confused:

The workplace is private property, so they can forbid guns there if they want. It's up to you to decide if you still want to work there if that is the case. Sounds like the letter was a "warning shot" to you.

Look at your employee manual. If it does not state that guns are forbidden, then they cannot legally take action against you without telling you first that your gun is verboten.

Take your coworkers shooting, but keep gun talk on the down low until you get a better idea of your employer's agenda.

Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 09:40 AM
Even my manager is receptive to the idea of me carrying, theres nothing in the manual that prohibits weapons of any kind, and none of the entrances are posted. The letter was sent out to all branches from the corporate office, which is in Maryland (this is the same place that sent out letters saying that a head on collision in your car at 35 MPH was equivilant to walking into a brick wall).

antsi
April 1, 2006, 09:41 AM
I think the person who sent out the letter is being a weenie, but he's not alone in that.

"Knowledge of weapons?" What are you supposed to do, go get a lobotomy so as to destroy your knowledge?

Check your company policy to see if they have rules against carrying on company property. Although you may be legally entitled to carry at work as far as the state criminal authorities are concerned, your employer can probably fire you for doing so if it is against company policy.

I would say go ahead with the range trip(s). If you are not on company time or on the company clock, I don't see how they can object to it.

Obviously I would consider more discretion when discussing firearms at work. Your buddy seems to have stirred up the company's weenie contingent by talking to everyone and their brother about your carrying.

Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 09:44 AM
Oh I also fergot to mention, about 50% of our workforce are veterans, so of course they know their way around a rifle.

DunedinDragon
April 1, 2006, 09:53 AM
They listed a few items that they claimed were examples of workplace violence, and among these were "knowledge of weapons and firearms"

Boy!!! Classic example of meaningless phrasing from a mindless beauracrat. Worthy only of being ignored....

rdbrowning
April 1, 2006, 10:19 AM
Nashmack,
If 50% of your company's workforce are vetrens, do they have a formal policy about giving vets preferential hiring treatment? If so what would be their response to having the contrdiction pointed out? Of course if you can get someone else to do the pointing, you might stay below the non-PC radar.

Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 10:21 AM
There is no policy on preferential hiring.

Chipperman
April 1, 2006, 11:06 AM
Sounds like you're in the clear then.

Go ahead and take your coworkers shooting, just tone down the gun talk at work (At least until you figure out who the weenies are).

hso
April 1, 2006, 11:10 AM
The more people that you take to the range the better. Demystifying firearms for as many people as possible is one of the surest ways to counter anti firearms folks because they depend upon the ignorance of the public for their propaganda to work.

It would be helpful if you actually posted or quoted what was sent out. Paraphrasing may lead to a biased interpretation of the actual document that you never intended.

When could we get a look?

Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 11:12 AM
I'll grab another sheet when I go to work Sunday morning and scan it in as soon as I have a chance.

bogie
April 1, 2006, 11:27 AM
Lack of knowledge is far more dangerous.

grimjaw
April 1, 2006, 11:40 AM
Our most recent company 'preventing workplace violence' training cautions us to inform on anyone that even mentions guns or weapons of any kinds. Discussions of firearms are a warning sign.

I think it's a common thread throughout corporate beehives, probably the idea of a lawyer. The corporate training is more butt-coverage than actually helpful sometimes.

jmm

Leanwolf
April 1, 2006, 12:10 PM
ANTSI -"Knowledge of weapons?" What are you supposed to do, go get a lobotomy so as to destroy your knowledge?..."
_________________________________________________________________


That is precisely what the anti-guns bliss ninnies would love to do to us.

L.W.

cbsbyte
April 1, 2006, 01:12 PM
I would call the main office and talk to someone who knows the companies rules on carry weapons on their property. I would not be suprised if they say it is not allowed. It is a decision made by their attorneys based on the fear of a lawsuit if a employee goes postal and kills people. It is now up to you decide if you still want to work there if they barr you from carrying on their property.

Chipperman
April 1, 2006, 01:24 PM
Do not ask them!!
If it's not in writing now, you're fine.
If you ask them, they will put it in writing; and then you're screwed.

Vermont Guy
April 1, 2006, 01:30 PM
Two points.

1) CCW is not a hobby

2) You were made. That was a mistake. Learn from it.

zahc
April 1, 2006, 01:32 PM
What kind of work do you do? What is you working environment like?

PlayboyPenguin
April 1, 2006, 01:32 PM
The biggest problem I have with that story is he saw your CCW. Here in oregon you can actually be carged with "brandishing" it is becomes at all visible.

whm1974
April 1, 2006, 01:33 PM
(this is the same place that sent out letters saying that a head on collision in your car at 35 MPH was equivilant to walking into a brick wall).

That's bull. I RAN into a brick wall before. Other then my pride and a few scrapes I wasn't hurt.

Now the car I would have a piss porr chance of surviving.

-Bill

TonkinTwentyMil
April 1, 2006, 01:50 PM
So, does this mean that your employer discriminates against all military veterans by NOT hiring them... because of their "firearms knowledge?" Or by selectively harrassing the ones that are there?

Any other examples out there with fellow THRs?

This could be a great Discrimination In The Workplace lawsuit in-the-making (and one that's long-overdue).

Bring it on, corporate Libsnots.

Justin
April 1, 2006, 03:15 PM
Does anyone out there know if I'm in the wrong here for sharing my hobbies with my coworkers, or if my company is in the wrong for telling me that posession of a firearm is an act of violence?

Absolutely not.

If there's a chance you could get reprimanded or fired over it, I'd keep the discussions on the down-low, but otherwise there is no need to hide your interests in shooting.

It has been my general observation that those who go on shooting sprees don't generally have much knowledge about their weapons, other than maybe reading the manual.

Waitone
April 1, 2006, 03:26 PM
Interesting linkage between thought and violence. I'm sure its all for nice and legal reasons, but it does indeed eedo take us one more step toward thought control---all for nice and legal reasons.

MatthewVanitas
April 1, 2006, 03:38 PM
Kudos for standing up for what you believe in.

If anything is going to destroy gun rights in America, it's going to be the people that are ashamed to admit their support of individual liberty.

I hope your range trips work out well, send us an update!

-MV

Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 04:06 PM
I can give ya an update on the range trip that started it all...

I took my coworker Tom to the range, along with a Hi Power, Taurus PT111 Millenium 9MM, Rossi .38 snub, and a Zastava Model 70 .32. We fired an even 400 rounds of 9MM, 50 rounds of .32, and approximately 100 rounds of .38 special +P. Tom had in his words "a helluva good time" and thanked me for bringing him, then asked me how much money I wanted for my HP. As far as accuracy is concerned, well we weren't too concerned with it, as long as we weren't hitting the target carriers, support columns, walls, or cieling tiles. 99.9% of the shots stayed on the paper, and we totally blew out the 10 rings on 4 seperate targets.

As soon as we get paid again, I'll be taking my coworker down to the shop where I do most of my business, and I'll be trasferring the Hi Power to him, and also picking up a 1911. I'm trying to plan another range trip for next Monday, it depends on everyone's schedules, but I'll keep yall posted as to how it turns out :)

EasternShore
April 1, 2006, 04:26 PM
From first hand experience, regardless of where your corprate office is, any letter from the corprate office is as good as an addition to the employee manual. Knowledge of firearms can be construed as openly talking about carrying, carrying at work, or knowing someone else is carrying at work and not telling a superior or hr.

Either way your employer has suddenly covered their collective butts.

And from the first hand experience files...

You can have disciplary action taken against you for talking about firearms at work. Appearently it creates a hostile work environmient.:fire:

Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 04:33 PM
Suppression of my second amendment rights creates a hostile work environment for ME. I think I failed to mention as well, my regional manager asked me if I would consider "joining the ranks of the well informed and sane" by joining the Brady campaign. This all happened after the letter was sent out, and I responded by asking him if he would like to join the NRA with me. He seemed pretty put out by this:confused:

raytracer
April 1, 2006, 05:06 PM
Well....

You might ask your supervisor if he knows what he uses to pee with.

If "knowledge" of weapons is "workplace violence", then "knowledge" of genitalia surely constitutes "sexual harassment".

Don't you feel dirty all over?

Joe

Nashmack
April 1, 2006, 05:12 PM
Raytracer I never thought of it like that, now I gotta forget how to urinate and just soil myself because it's safer than getting slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit because I know my way around my own genetalia:eek:

TonkinTwentyMil
April 1, 2006, 05:44 PM
You might just tell your regional manager that a whole buncha folks (with lawyers that HIS lawyers really don't wanta meet) are dyin' to find some blatant cases of "Discrimination in the Workplace" based upon political orientation/ideology.

And, any documentable employer reprisals/cute PC coercion bullspit games are a great launching point that'll Make Their Day.

All this is just another chapter in the Culture War... and the Angry Left's ongoing attempts to impose administratively and judicially (i.e., shove down our throats) what they cannot achieve legislatively: (a) marginalize and punish those with a non-pacifist/confrontational/self-defense mindset, and (b) gut the Second Amendment.

Hawkmoon
April 1, 2006, 06:14 PM
Does anyone out there know if I'm in the wrong here for sharing my hobbies with my coworkers, or if my company is in the wrong for telling me that posession of a firearm is an act of violence? Any input you have would be much appreciated
Your company is definitely wrong. If they wish to prohibit firearms on the premises, they have a right to do that. But sending out some BS paper equating "knowledge of firearms" with workplace violence is complete tripe, and totally over the top. Even equating possession of a firearm with workplace violence is a logical dosconnect.

There was another thread on here, just a couple of days ago, (might be in Legal & Political) where this was discussed, and I think the person who posted indicated that the manager who was making an issue of this had just attended some black managers' association conference where they must have been spewing this nonesense.

I agree on keeping talk of your "interest" low key so it doesn't get to those who should not know, but at the same time I have this subversive notion that, if the company is going to get all hinky because employees have "knowledge of" firearms, then the more workers you can make knowledgeable, the safer your job is. 25 employees? They might be able to carry on if they fired you, but what happens if they have to fire 15 people (all at the same time) due to "knowledge of firearms"?

SJG26
April 1, 2006, 06:48 PM
"Our most recent company 'preventing workplace violence' training cautions us to inform on anyone that even mentions guns or weapons of any kinds. Discussions of firearms are a warning sign."

Last week three of us were talking 'bout a group buy on some Natchez's Fed AE 223(dam good price on 55 gr BTW) in the coffee room.......................phew....good thing firearms weren't mentioned...............

Bought 500 rds and I dont even own a 223 yet....................Savage will be in hand by end of the month......................

akodo
April 1, 2006, 07:58 PM
Our most recent company 'preventing workplace violence' training cautions us to inform on anyone that even mentions guns or weapons of any kinds. Discussions of firearms are a warning sign.


Seems to me you could have all sorts of fun with this rule.

Whoever put out the written policy or who verbalized the policy, report them for 'discussions regarding firearms'. Ask 'if you aren't supposed to mention guns or weaponry in the workplace, and a co-worker says he is going to do something criminal with one, won't YOU get in trouble for relaying this information to Human Resources, as it is 'discussions of firearms'?

You should be able to play around like this a bit, each time under these circumstances, they will have to admit that the 'exact letter of the law' does not apply. Then you can come back with 'oh, so the policy is really "discussions about violent use of weapons, or criminal use of weapons" is not allowed and a warning sign. Once they say 'yes' to that, you are in the clear.

akodo
April 1, 2006, 08:02 PM
Suppression of my second amendment rights creates a hostile work environment for ME. I think I failed to mention as well, my regional manager asked me if I would consider "joining the ranks of the well informed and sane" by joining the Brady campaign. This all happened after the letter was sent out, and I responded by asking him if he would like to join the NRA with me. He seemed pretty put out by this

Document this somehow. Take a note and date it, do similar stuff when other discussions take place. Mention to your HR person 'engaged me in a political discussion on issues we are not in agreement on, i felt uncomfortable because he was in managment'

This is the kind of stuff that can save your ass and cause the managment to hang themselves.

Can't really nail you for 'discussion of firearms' if you have records of THEM initating 'discussion of firearms' even if it is anti 2nd amendment statements.

EasternShore
April 1, 2006, 08:12 PM
Nashmack, I wish you luck. I got so fed up with the corprate HR :cuss: that I just quit. No lawyer I could find would touch it due to the fact that the antis historically win these things in court. And I tried, believe me I tried. The words the HR rep used as she handed me the writen reprimand were "your co-workers are afraid of you."

If I were you I would consult an actual attourney asap.

XLMiguel
April 1, 2006, 08:17 PM
Didn't Freud say that fear of weapons was a sign of arrested sexual development?

Ghandi said that if the choice was between violence and cowardice, he'd go with violence.

Ask your manager if the company is willing to guarantee your absolute safety at the workplace.

How easy would it be for you to find another job? Sounds like wyou work for a weenie outfit in general, you kno, the kind of company that believes the best way to prevent drunk drivng is to keep sober people from buying cars . . . :barf: :neener:

KriegHund
April 1, 2006, 08:18 PM
Good job Nashmack! And i DONT mean that sarcasticly. We need to get more people involved.

I suppose your company could fire a dozen people for "knowledge of weapons and firearms" but i find it rather unlikely.

depicts
April 1, 2006, 08:36 PM
Nashmack and others, I think you're missing the point here. The letter from home office isn't saying "Having" knowledge about firearms is wrong, it's having knowledge of firearms IN THE WORKPLACE. It may also include talking about guns in a way that creates a threatening enviorment, like saying, some sucker breaks into my house and I'll bolow him away. That might make a fellow employee think you're a little dangerous, though we know why you might be thinking it.

Nasmack, in your signature line you say, "You might learn something from me eventhough I'm young". Well I think this is a case of you needing to learn something from those of us who have been around a little longer.

The fact that a fellow employee saw your firearms was a bad mistake, however it happened. If you can't carry discreetly, like Playboy Penguin said, you could be charged with brandishing. Especially at work, you can bet that at least half the people aren't shooters, even in New Hampshire.

Then you took you buddy shooting, and in his Newbie enthusiasm, he blabbed all over the plant what you guys did, exposing you to people who have no business being into your business.

The lesss people who know you carry, the more effective it is. I know it's cool to have a permit to carry and all, and when it's legal it's such a big deal, but don't make more trouble for yoursself than you need.

Like others have said, keep the talk at work on the down-low, and if you do take people to the range, ask them to be descreet about it. If they can't do that, you shouldn't be taking them IMHO.

Before it get's to the point where you need a lawyer, why don't you ask yourself how important this job is, and if maybe you shouldn't find a job someplace else like a gunshop where you can make a living and use your permit at the same time. Otherwise, take a warning from the letter from Corporate Headquarters, and lose the gun at work, and don't try to start an in house NRA....you can't/won't win.

Standing Wolf
April 1, 2006, 09:07 PM
Some people still believe ignorance is bliss.

Hawkmoon
April 1, 2006, 10:57 PM
Nashmack and others, I think you're missing the point here. The letter from home office isn't saying "Having" knowledge about firearms is wrong, it's having knowledge of firearms IN THE WORKPLACE. It may also include talking about guns in a way that creates a threatening enviorment, like saying, some sucker breaks into my house and I'll bolow him away. That might make a fellow employee think you're a little dangerous, though we know why you might be thinking it.
Knowledge is knowledge.

What's he supposed to do, check his brain at the front door when he reports to work every morning? Get serious. One can't have knowledge of firearms at home and NOT have it at work.

TonkinTwentyMil
April 1, 2006, 11:49 PM
Oh, really?

So, tell me, Mizz H.R./Mister Regional Corporate C.Y.A.:

1. What gender are those co-workers?

2. How much military experience (if any) do "they" have -- and do they honor and respect such military service?

3. Who did they they vote for in '04, and what's their current political bias?

4. Are they supporters/members of any organizations that advocate non-violent submission to criminal attack -- as opposed to resistance?

5. If I shot a burglar who broke into my house and threatened my family, would I be lauded as a hero by "them" -- or regarded as a dangerous "menace to society" (*cough*)?

6. If I DIDN'T shoot such a home invader -- and I or my family suffered significant injuries -- would "they" (and this company) make me whole, i.e., reimburse me for all physical damages and medical costs, including pain and suffering? And time away from work, including lost wages?

7. Is a feminized/pacifist political ideology required to be an employee of this particular organization?

Talk a little louder, Mizz H.R.... so I can record this for playback on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and their 20 million-plus audience...

progunner1957
April 2, 2006, 12:02 AM
They listed a few items that they claimed were examples of workplace violence, and among these were "knowledge of weapons and firearms" and "posession of a firearm".
Talking about guns will probably soon be classified as "hate speech.":barf:
Suppression of my second amendment rights creates a hostile work environment for ME. AMEN to that!!
my regional manager asked me if I would consider "joining the ranks of the well informed and sane" by joining the Brady campaign.
That right there is "Bull Feces." Since when is it okay for management to try to coerce employees into supporting their presonal political agenda? If some manager went around badgering employees to join the NRA - or any pro-gun rights organization, they would be fired ASAP. As long as it is an antigun/antifreedon bigot organization, it is apparently okay.

That is an outrage. GOD, I am so sick of the double standard!!

ezypikns
April 2, 2006, 12:45 AM
But you'll probably be looking for another job shortly. It's easier to be righteous if you're independently wealthy.

BullfrogKen
April 2, 2006, 01:35 AM
Vermont Guy said: Two points.

1) CCW is not a hobby

2) You were made. That was a mistake. Learn from it.

The place I earn my living is not the place I wish to dig my trench in the culture war.

No good can come from people knowing you carry arms. Once you share a piece of information with one other person, you loose control over who else knows it. You can decide who you tell; but you can't decide who he'll tell, and so on, and so on. Kind of like that old Pert shampoo commercial.

I would love to have discussions with like minded individuals during lunch and such, but it isn't worth the price to me. I can have those conversations and enjoy that interaction outside work.

TonkinTwentyMil
April 2, 2006, 03:52 AM
BullfrogKen, your Low-Profile advice is wise. Even the estimable trainer John Farnam advises such as a general policy.

However, the "problem" here (being "made" as a gun owner... or gun rights activist) still often rears its head if/when you do your part to advance firearms rights. Writing letters to newspapers, political officials -- all basic Free Speech practices -- may well eventually "out" you.

Then what?

In my own case, I volunteered to help the NRA fight an onerous (proposed) gun control law many years ago by signing up for their public "debate" team. And, I was very good at it, with many observers indicating I ripped my opponents to shreds. Unfortunately, one of those "shredded" opponents was the head of a prominent university's econ. dept. -- with friends in my employer's inner circles.

And that bit me. Oh, it took a while, but when those who supported my (outside the office) politics moved on, their replacements "remembered."

And that is why I'm an advocate of direct confrontation: making "them" actually specify whether Tolerance and Diversity (*cough*) IN POLITICS are actually practiced here... and exactly what the exceptions are. Of course, to do this, one must first be a strong and respected employee. It also helps to have good legal advice aforehand (from lawyers who actually SUPPORT the Second Amendment -- which automatically excludes most corporate and trial lawyers).

Jeff Cooper has written that "Criminals must be taught to fear their victims."

To which I add: And so must the SheepleState LibTwits (per NashMack's employer) who wish to use their corporate power to impose their political agenda AND punish those who oppose it.

We'll never win this war by ducking a fight when "they" slap us in the face and snicker behind our backs.

BullfrogKen
April 2, 2006, 07:31 AM
TonkinTwentyMil said: BullfrogKen, your Low-Profile advice is wise. Even the estimable trainer John Farnam advises such as a general policy.

I wish I could take credit for it. But it is from fine mentors such as Master Farnam that I learned the philosophy, and saw its merit after having discussions just like this one with him.

TonkinTwentyMil said: Then what?

Then I guess I would deal with it. But that is quite a different matter than actively publicizing my political learning and passion for the second amendment at the office. One can be pro-freedom, pro-liberty, and pro-second amendment. Yet I can still appear passionately disinterested and personally detached from the use of arms in a discussion of their benefits to free men if ever directly asked by a co-worker.

I have concluded I can either make the decision remain armed everywhere and at all times, realizing that entails I must be discrete about it; or I can be passionate about firearms ownership among relative strangers and go without. I won't have both.


George Washington eventually started winning battles with his militia when he realized the right battlefield to fight on and the right tactics to use. I will not risk my livelihood fighting the culture war on a front where the enemy has strength. That is an unfair battle I am destined to loose.

Its not about what's right or wrong, constitutional rights or what not. Corporations want stability and teamwork in the workplace. A direct challenge to that, from any political angle, is disruptive and discouraged.

Tried'nTrue
April 2, 2006, 09:57 AM
Interesting linkage between thought and violence. I'm sure its all for nice and legal reasons, but it does indeed eedo take us one more step toward thought control---all for nice and legal reasons.
This hits the nail on the head. The fact is, guns are not inherently evil, nor are they a direct cause of evil (contrary to what the movie Crash insinuated :barf: ). In my opinion, the more people who experience Gun Truth*, the better chance sanity and reality have at winning. Let's let our lights shine.

Of course there are a couple of questions that need to be answered. First - is Nashmack in a financial position from which he can stand for his rights? Only Nashmack can answer that. The second question is equally important - if it comes to confrontation with his employers, does Nashmack place greater value on his job or his convictions? Again, only he can answer that question.

As I read it, Nashmack is currently above board, legally. That is, until official corporate policy changes. The fact that 9 of 24 co-workers (I hope I remember the numbers correctly) have had positive reactions to guns is some evidence that he's not creating a hostile work environment. 9 of 24 is more than one thirdof his co-workers. There's power in numbers! Therefore, until policy changes, I think that Nashmack is technically free to speak of his interests.

I know it's easier to say than to do by a long shot, but if we don't stand up for what's right, we'll lose. It's that simple. Of course, we don't need to be nasty and abrasive about it ('cause that's not right, either). But, we do need to speak the truth. Not all will listen, but some will, perhaps more than we think. First and foremost, this is a battle of the mind.

*Gun Truth - guns exist, they aren't going anywhere, and they do a necessary job of defending innocent, would-be victims from unwarranted evil against their persons. A gun only does what the user causes it to do. Guns can also provide an enjoyable past-time, as well as instill a new, positive confidence in the user.

Tried'nTrue
April 2, 2006, 10:06 AM
Corporations want stability and teamwork in the workplace. A direct challenge to that, from any political angle, is disruptive and discouraged.
I must respectfully disagree, BullfrogKen. For my evidence, I use this quote from Nashmack: my regional manager asked me if I would consider "joining the ranks of the well informed and sane" by joining the Brady campaign
Nashmack's manager caused instability in the team, directly to Nashmack, by furthering a personal political cause on company time. The manager's solicitation contained insinuated condescension towards opposing viewpoints. The corporation, however, has not issued any statements (of which we are aware) that forbid employees from using company time to express anti-gun politics or sentiments. The company has, however, conveyed disdain over employees using corporate time to express pro-firearm leanings. Therefore, I believe that this company, and basically all corporations, want employees who will not rock the boat. This is very different from merely shunning all disruption due to political and cultural beliefs.

ScottS
April 2, 2006, 10:17 AM
The biggest problem I have with that story is he saw your CCW. Here in oregon you can actually be carged with "brandishing" it is becomes at all visible.The fact that a fellow employee saw your firearms was a bad mistake, however it happened. If you can't carry discreetly, like Playboy Penguin said, you could be charged with brandishing. Especially at work, you can bet that at least half the people aren't shooters, even in New Hampshire.
I always love it when other people insert their state laws into a situation where it obviously doesn't apply. This isn't Oregon, and open carry is perfectly legal here. No state mandate to hide weapons. Second, although I suppose you could always be charged with the catchall "disorderly conduct," there is no specific statute in the NH RSA's that deals with "brandishing."

Mousegun
April 2, 2006, 12:23 PM
You may have to make a choice (that you apparently have already made) and that is to bring as many co-workers into the fold as you can or keep it as secret as you can so that the company policy that will be formulated, if it hasn't been already, to ban carry while at work, does not become an issue.

I worked for a company that operated in NYC and NJ and believe it or not there were a number of people that for some reason or another actually had unrestricted carry permits. As an active shooter I sort of found out who they were and we enjoyed talking guns on occasion.

I strongly suggested they KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT about their carrying on the job because no policy was formulated to date.

Some of them gave it the old, "it's my right" routine and within a few months they were able to make the decision between their perceived right and keeping their job if they were caught violating the NEW company policy of no guns while working.

Choose your battle wisely.

akodo
April 2, 2006, 01:54 PM
i will concur with these guys

There is a BIG difference between letting people know you are a shooter, and talking about guns, and offering to take them shooting. There is nothing wrong with that info.

Revealing your CCW is a whole different kettle of fish. It happens, but when it happens out and about, the chances of dealing with the 1-2 people who saw it ever again are slim to none, hence, as they don;'t knwo you, they realyl can't tell anyone 'joe blankman is carrying'. Once people in your workplace see it, that knowledge will spread, which puts yourself at a big disadvantage. This increases the chance your car will be broken into (maybe his gun is in there) and if an irate employee ever returns, they will know to 'take joe blankman out first! he is carrying). For CCW, the element of suprise is a strong tactical advantage, and for the criminal, not knowing who could be carrying is a deterent. This is blown once you have established taht you and no one else has a gun at the workplace.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 2, 2006, 02:47 PM
Document this somehow. Take a note and date it, do similar stuff when other discussions take place. Mention to your HR person 'engaged me in a political discussion on issues we are not in agreement on, i felt uncomfortable because he was in managment'

This is the kind of stuff that can save your ass and cause the managment to hang themselves.

Can't really nail you for 'discussion of firearms' if you have records of THEM initating 'discussion of firearms' even if it is anti 2nd amendment statements

-akodo

I think this sums it up. If your company wants no guns at the work site, no problem. However, advising people to not discuss guns, and saying knowledge of guns=violence is stepping over the line.

As for a manager asking you to join the Brady Campaign, that is stepping over the line. That would be like a company asking you to vote for one candidate over another, etc.

Document it, and use this info in the future. However, I would also be looking for another job as well. This place clearly has decided to be anti, and I would prefer to take my skills and talents elsewhere. Thankyou very much

Nashmack
April 2, 2006, 10:27 PM
Update.

I now have the support of not only my coworkers, but also my Supervisor, Branch Manager, and the truck drivers who deliver our goods every morning (the driver for Sunday morning was actually carrying, I happened to overhear him talking about it with another of my coworkers, the driver initiated the conversation.)

I've also found 3 lawyers who will take my case pro bono if my company decides to take any actions against me whatsoever.

Hawkmoon
April 3, 2006, 12:04 AM
Good for you. Get your ducks in line, and then just lie low in ambush, waiting for the suits to walk into a trap. T'would serve them right. (Especially the one who tried to proposition you for the Brady Bunch.)

Tried'nTrue
April 3, 2006, 07:13 AM
I'm glad you took the initiative, Nashmack, to contact some lawyers and be pro-active in this affair. I'm very glad to hear that many of the people in your company are supportive of firearm ownership :)

TonkinTwentyMil
April 3, 2006, 09:12 PM
If...

1. The Republicans lose control of Congress this November, and...

2. Hillary wins in '08...

... we'll be seeing a spitpot of threads just like this one.

Get ready to be crucified, marginalized, pacified -- and punished -- my fellow 2A supporters. Y'all's just gonna love the forthcoming mega-doses of PC NannySheepleState attitude/thought control that's gonna be shoved down our knuckle-draggin', violence-prone, Neanderthal (*cough*) throats.

But take heart, folks. It'll all be For The Common good. And... The Children

Been there. Seen the movie (in 1992-2000).

Nashmack
April 4, 2006, 06:35 AM
If the Demo-rats win, then they're going to have to pry my firearms out of my cold dead fingers. As it is I'm stocking up on 30 round magazines because I know that in the event of another Demo-rat regime the price of hi-caps is going to soar...

PlayboyPenguin
April 4, 2006, 06:40 AM
Hilary will never win in '08. There is just absolutely no chance. I am not sexist but there will never be a female president without there first being a female vice president. Hilary in '08 is just a lame scare tactic by a bunch of neo-cons that have horribly mismanaged this country and are aware that most people have come around and realized it. They know that most americans are tired of their over spending, shipping jobs overseas, corporate favoritism and mishandle of the war and the economy and this is the only way they can think of to try and scare peope into voting them in again. So do not lose any sleep thinking Hilary is going to be president. She isn't.

Nashmack
April 4, 2006, 06:48 AM
How bout a Libertarian PlayboyPenguin?

PlayboyPenguin
April 5, 2006, 12:09 AM
How bout a Libertarian PlayboyPenguin?

Well, I am afraid it is unlikely seeing how much control the far left and far right have of our political system but you never know...how bad could they screw it up anyway. I am almost a libertarian but I still have that side of me that says you have to have some judicial/authoritarian oversight or mob mentality will rule.

halfgone
April 5, 2006, 03:19 AM
but in regards to mob-rule, y'all should check out the _Anti-Federalist Papers_, the signet edition has a great intro basically outlining the knife's edge line between strong, central government and mob rule. Oh the blessings of a constitutional republic. If only we could have kept it.

Back on track...

good on ya Nashmack. Fight the good fight and keep converting them to freedom's side.

HG

SSN Vet
April 5, 2006, 11:04 AM
New Hampshire is an "employ at will" state. My understanding is that the labor laws favor the employer in most employment disputes.

Political side note....this is likely not insignificant to very good economy & low un-employment enjoyed here in NH. Businesses migrate from Maine and Mass to NH every day.

Nashmack
April 5, 2006, 11:13 AM
Correct SSN. An employer in NH does not need a reson to terminate your employment. As for the job market, while they may not be glamorous, many of the minimum wage brigade are currently hiring.

MD_Willington
April 5, 2006, 02:23 PM
"Knowledge of weapons?" What are you supposed to do, go get a lobotomy so as to destroy your knowledge?


I was thinking the same thing... there sure are a lot of pointy writing implements and sharp scissors in the supply room... I even have test equipment in my cubicle that weighs enough to crush someones skull if I dropped it on their head.

:rolleyes:

V4Vendetta
April 5, 2006, 02:43 PM
"I've also found 3 lawyers who will take my case pro bono if my company decides to take any actions against me whatsoever."

:eek: Wow. Do those lawyers have any pro-gun lawyer friends in NC? I could use a good lawyer on hand. Never know when they might be needed. I'm glad you have the support of your fellow employees. Strength in numbers.:)

Devonai
April 5, 2006, 05:00 PM
There is a reason why work I prefer armed security work. Nobody ever questions the presence or necessity of a weapon.

In all other cases, my policy was "don't ask, don't tell, concealed means concealed."

BullfrogKen
April 5, 2006, 07:48 PM
Now that you've reached to need to contact legal counsel, lobby for support amongst coworkers, and begun documenting every misstep your management makes, doesn't it seem wearisome and distracting from actually earning a living?


I referred to this kind of drama and defensive posturing needed to remain gainfully employed when I mentioned not making the place I earn a living the battle of a culture war. Maybe some others here are OK fighting this battle to keep a job and while at the same time enjoy your desire to broadcast the fact you are armed. It would stress me to no end.

Nashmack
April 5, 2006, 09:44 PM
Bullfrogken, I actually find the battle to be a kind of a stress reliever from the pressures of making sure everything at the branch stays together, as opposed to falling to pieces.

If you enjoyed reading about "My regional manager would have a heart attack..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!