[srschick]

I work in Missouri, which just recently allowed concealed carry.
The problem is that my employer, a medium (~1000 employees) size manufacturing company (mostly defense related goods) has posted the dreaded "not on these premises" signs.

I'm am going to plead "our" case to to the top tier of management.

The one question I would like to ask is:
Does anyone know of any particular instances of a CCW holder foiling an attempt by another person who was going to perform a work-place shooting?

Thanks,
Steve

[Pheonix]

I am having the same problem with mine in Ohio. I do however have a corporate meeting about it with the company lawyers in about a month!!

[srschick]

How did you go about setting up a meeting with the lawers?
I was just going to go to the HR VP and if he couldn't answer, to the Board of Directors.
I will try to keep this non-political, and try to plead my case without any emotion or hostility (towards these idiots)

I wasn't planning on pushing too far, just trying to get them to see it from another prospective, other than them covering their asses.

[tc300mag1]

A few of us have tried at work to no avail even though we carry cash. Lawyer told us we were basically screwed but push on if you can.

[Michigander]

Here is a couple of excerpts from an article I found here (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200311\NAT20031118a.html)



States allow private property owners to prohibit concealed carry

In every state that grants concealed weapons permits to private citizens - and the two states that require no such permits, Alaska and Vermont - private property owners may forbid permit holders from entering their property armed. Dr. John Lott, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, believes companies that prohibit concealed carry should consider changing their policies.

"I understand people's desire to create these so-called 'gun free zones,'" Lott said. "The problem with it and the unintended consequences, though, are that the people who are likely to obey those rules are the law-abiding good citizens, who you don't have anything to worry about.

"Rather than creating safe zones for victims, I think you unintentionally create safe zones for those who are intent on trying to do the harm," Lott added.

To reinforce his point, Lott asks detractors to consider the possibility of a member of their family being stalked or threatened.

"Would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home that said, 'This home is a gun-free zone?'" Lott asks. "Would that make it less likely that they would attack you? I think most people have a pretty immediate reaction to that, realizing that it would be pretty counterproductive."

Lott believes prohibiting concealed weapons permit holders from bringing their firearms to work has the same effect.

"It encourages attacks to take place in those areas," Lott said.

Research shows so-called 'gun free zones' invite armed criminal attacks

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."



and...


"In those states that passed [right to carry laws], to the extent to which attacks still occur, they tended to be significantly related to the number of 'gun free zones' that were there," Lott explained, "and, also, they tended to be much more likely to take place in these particular areas, once they became 'gun free zones' as compared to other places.

"When the whole state, in some sense, was a 'gun free zone,' before they passed right to carry laws, you'd see a distribution across all sorts of places," Lott continued. "But it was much more narrowly concentrated in areas that were obviously 'gun free zones' after right to carry laws were passed and those places were given specific exemptions."


Maybe Dr. John Lott's work is the place to start for material. Just a suggestion.

[AZRickD]

When we were having our bit of activism here in Phoenix... see

http://www.unarmedvictimzone.com

the evil trolls at the Arizona Dept of Revenue tried to scare up an example of an armed state employee using a gun for mayhem. The only thing they came up with was an unarmed state employee who was killed by her estranged husband.

Rick

[Pheonix]

I am unfortunate enough to be in management and once a year our team of lawyers comes in and updates us on all the changes in all of the laws that are relative to our work. I have already informed many people to expect me to not keep quiet. I am surrounded by antis!!:banghead:

Today I saw all the new signs they are going to post :cuss:

I think I will post some of my own.

[Pheonix]

lets try again.

http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=895036

[whm1974]

Guys you have to remember that even if the business owner/manager supportes CCW
they do face libabitly issues.

Bill Meadows

[Trebor]

Here's my advice. Take it for what it's worth:

Don't fight the policy. You aren't going to win and all you will do is put yourself out as "someone to watch."

I DO NOT reccomend violating the law. But, in most cases, a violation of company policy is not, in itself, a violation of the law. It may be against company policy to carry a gun to work, but if it is within the law, just remember that "concealed means concealed."

If no one knows you are violating policy, how can you get in trouble? If you fight the policy ahead of time, you're just pointing yourself out as someone who wants to carry a gun at work and someone they should watch to see if you violate the ban.

Just keep your mouth shut and do what you have to do.

[Diggler]

Rather than try to get the company to be pro-carry (it's not going to happen because of liability issues), try to get their position to be that they don't have a position.

Explain to the lawyers that posting signs and stating in the handbook the fact that you are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons opens them up to liability lawsuits if someone is killed at work by an outsider who walked right in and shot someone. Now, if they didn't have any policy and that happened, then the person would have had a choice and the chance of a lawsuit would be lessened. My work prohibits weapons and my wife is under strict orders to sue the hell out of the company if something like that happens to me.

If they remove the signs and references in the employee handbook, most won't even notice. They don't have to actively promote CCW. I think if you look at it in this way you might have a chance.

[Henry Bowman]

Do they prohibit the possession of ALL drugs, or only illegal drugs? Ask if they would change the policy to prohibit only illegal or illegally carried weapons.

[AZRickD]

"Zero Tolerance," don't ya know? If it's good enough for the children...

Good argument, HB. I'll adopt it as my own. :evil:

Rick

[Highland Ranger]

This is becoming a common enough occurence that the dance should be worked out by someone (lawyer?) somewhere.

Offhand, other than anti gun bias and fear of workplace rage incidents (like a rule would stop someone from murder), they can probably cite insurance liability costs and concerns.

On your side, you can say that if they force you to give up your right to self defense, then they accept responsibility for your security.

Pretty weak argument for you, because they are probably responsible for your security anyway . . . . . or at least no more responsible.

Hate to admit it, but aside from the obvious disclaimer that I am not recommending you break any laws, if you conceal the gun well, then they won't find out about it unless you need to use it.

In which case better to be unemployed and alive than dead.

[USMC_2674]

I have had two interactions with companies who were biased against guns.

One, I was fired for refusing to sign a "I won't carry a weapon in the building even though I am a lawfully licensed carrier". The company settled my claim for wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit out of court. It is sealed, so please don't ask what happened or why beyond the above.

The second, the company had no policy on weapons at work.. because it never even occurred to them someone might be carrying. Well after three months of working there, my brother in law (who also works there) made some stupid remark, asking if I was "packing" today. I just walked away, but not before the owner heard the comment and asked what he meant. It was then discovered that I carried everyday. He told me not to carry anymore because he wasn't comfortable with it. I told him I would continue to carry until he posted signs and then I would no longer enter the building at all (i.e. I would quit). After several days of negotiations, I now continue to carry my weapon.

Well, after the last 7 months now at this company, the owner got his CCW and is now not carrying on a daily basis, but has come around to the idea that ANYBODY could be attacked by a disgruntled employer.

So it isn't impossible to change people's minds... but you have to do it eloquently enough. John Lott quotes above are good... they are part of what I used.

It just so happened that while I was talking to the boss about this, Utah had a public slaying where a disgruntled work killed some people about 15 miles from our office building... that helped too ;)

Semper Fidelis

[Henry Bowman]

The new Ohio CCW law expressly protects the employer from liability if they ALLOW (or do not prohibit) CCW. It is silent on whether there could be liability if CCW is forbidden. An employment lawyer at my firm (who has been urging client companies to "consider" banning all weapons) agreed with this analysis and said that we would not know until there is a test case in the courts. Hopefully, the legislature will fix that and other problems on the law as soon as Ken Blackwell in Governor in 2006 before we need a test case.

[spacemanspiff]

i happened to come across a 'word' document on my server, seems eventually the entire employee handbook will be revised with all kinds of new 'dont dos'.

currently we have a 'no weapons policy'. the next handbook may or may not have been 'altered' to make it a 'no illegal weapons' policy. :D

they shoulda password protected that document.


my supervisor knows i carry, but hes told me that if the head boss finds out, i'd have to stop. i told him that i'd quit if it came to that, because i will NOT compromise.
only half of my job is do-able by anyone else, they'd be screwed if i did quit.

[fix]

Hate to say it, but quitting should not be ruled out. Simply refuse to be disarmed.

[Standing Wolf]

My life matters more to me than an employer's irrational hoplophobia—and concealed means concealed.

[Old Fuff]

On the question of a CCW licensed person stopping or preventing a workplace shooting ...

No, I don't know of such a case, and it's unlikely one would happen because so many employers prohibit arms. However there was a case where a school vice-principal used a personally owned .45 pistol to deter a teen about to shoot up a school. This of course was before the schools started prohibiting staff from carrying in most areas. Utah might be an exception.

On the other hand ask them to document a case of a CCW licensed person commiting a workplace shooting. I don't know of any of those either, and over 30 states have CCW laws.

[dischord]

I've often thought it would be fun to pepper the D.C. Metro with fliers similar to that sign.

[USMC_2674]

Ahh, but you couldn't drop the damn leaflets in DC as it is also a no-fly zone :)

No guns. No planes. No fun :(

[dischord]

Metro is the name of the subway, so I couldn't use a plane anyway ... well perhaps a really, really small ultralight. Woosh Woosh Thud ;)

[Frohickey]

I don't have any stories about a CCW licensed person stopping a workplace violent crime... but here is one story that is sorta related.

Edgewater Technologies, Wakefield, MA shooting (http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws0105.htm)

An Army veteran, Sandy had been trained to stare death in the face. He barricaded several coworkers into a room and went out to meet McDermott.

There was no naivete on Sandy's part. As an avid sportsman, he was quite familiar with firearms. He even possessed a concealed carry license from the state of New Hampshire.

[Waitone]

I can't give you an example of a shooting being stopped by a CCH holder at work.

I can give you 2 clear examples of how a shooting could have been stopped had a CCH holder been permitted to pack at work.

1>Wakefield Mass shooting. IIRC 7 people were murdered by the perp. No 3 in line to be killed was a CCH holder from New Hampshire who was unarmed because Mass law prohibited CCH in general much less CCH at work. We will never know if victim #3 could have stopped the deaths of #4, #5, #6 and #7.

2>Meridian MS at a defense contractor recently had a nut employee get PO'd and come back in shooting. I saw a report (only once) that said one of the victims who was wounded lost a hand because he attempted to wrest the gun out of the hand of the perp. If he was close enough to grab at the firearm, how much more effective would he have been if he was packing. Again, lots of whatiffin' but the principal is the same. We will never know.

Slightly tangental to the pooint at hand was the shooting at a southwest Virginia law school. News reports said two students confronted the perp after the shooting and he surrendered. The first 4 onsight reports got it right. The two students had guns in their cars and they ran to said cars, grab their handguns and confronted the perp with their hand guns. Follow-on reports on the wires curiously omit the little factoid of the guns in the hands of the students.

[Nick1911]

Pheonix - do you have a full size pic of that sign? It rocks!

[ARperson]

Both my mom and hubby work in large corporations with "no weapons" policies. I have strict instructions to sue the crap out of them for not allowing either family member means or access to such means for self-defense. My mom actually told this to the security group in one of their monthly meetings (she was lead liaison between the company and the property owner and was therefore privy to all discussions relating to security). That opened a few eyes. I don't think they'd ever thought about that possibility before.

I on the otherhand am considered an independent contractor and the worst that could happen is my "boss" could declare the premises gun-free. But I can't be forced to sign a "no weapons" statement or any of that other crap. And even if he did declare it gun free, well, it's not like he can fire me. *shrug* Besides, in my job, not carrying is almost asking for it. And yet, while a lot of the men do, most of the women dont'. Go figure.

[spartacus2002]

That law student who shot up the Appalachian School of Law a couple of years ago was stopped by (I think) a student and an asst. dean who ran to their cars, got their pistols, and ran back inside to draw on him.

[Pheonix]

I stole the sign. I could not find a larger one. Someone here may???



I am taking notes so if you have something I can toss up in front of the lawyers spit it out.

Why not sign a no weapons agreement? (And carry anyway) If they try to search you then quit.

The representitive of my company that works closest with the lawyers (head of HR) is very antigun and insists that violent crimes are going to increase after Ohios CCW goes into effect. She is also worried that our labor force, who mostly have criminal records and make less that 12,000 per yr. are all going to be armed at work. Anyways I questioned her about people locking up thier weapons in thier car since the neighborhood around our secured parking lot is a very bad place to be. The police only come in groups of three. She told me it would be fine if I left mine in the car. She just doesnt want to know about it!:rolleyes:

I told her there was no way that I would risk my job by doing so.:uhoh:

I didn't lie. I will not lock up my gun in the car. I will get a P3AT for work.:D

[Old Fuff]

>> The representitive of my company that works closest with the lawyers (head of HR) is very antigun and insists that violent crimes are going to increase after Ohios CCW goes into effect. <<

This is an unsupported opinion. Would the lady care to document this being the case in any of the 30+ states that have CCW licensing laws? Remember this “increase in violent crimes” has to involve licensed individuals.

>> She is also worried that our labor force, who mostly have criminal records and make less that 12,000 per yr. are all going to be armed at work. <<

If these people have criminal records it is unlikely they can either get a license (background checks remember) or even legally possess a firearm at all if they have felonies in their history. Additionally, if the workforce consists of current or former criminals having some armed and licensed individuals around might not be a bad idea. Considering her concerns about the workforce I hope the employer at least has an armed private security company there in the workplace.

[sch40]

Pheonix,
I have a much larger copy of the sign, in Adobe PDF format. I can't remember where I got it, perhaps GOA or JPFO (Gun Owners of America, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, by the way). I'll post the file when I get back to my regular computer sometime tomorrow.

stay safe, all.
sch40

[sch40]

The "Defense-Free Crime Zone" sign file is attached. It's in Adobe PDF format, and has a good enough resolution to make a decent-sized sign. Thanks go out to whomever made this sign -- sorry I can't remember!

[bogie]

I think that a major issue is that folks who are not part of the "gun culture" assume (and I had a drill sergeant who had a saying about that...) that anyone who is armed is either a cop or a criminal. And since you're not a cop...

It is obvious that the HR person (and many other people who knee-jerk into putting up "no concealed carry" signs) _does not know_ that the only people who can legally receive concealed carry permits are those with no criminal backgrounds. It's our duty to educate them. Don't scare them - they already live in fear. Just educate 'em.

[Taipei Personality]

http://www.wmsa.net/gratia-hupp_1992.htm

An interesting story about the negative effects of victim disarmamnt zones.

[FTG-05]

This is what I sent to our site executive on 7/10/03 and few days after the Meridian, MS shooting at the Lockheed-Martin Plant. This was in response to her e-mail to all employees concerning employee safety. Names, both personal and company have been omitted.


Her e-mail:




Subject: A Safe & Secure Workplace

A tragedy occurred Wednesday, not far from the Alabama border, at the Lockheed Martin facility in Meridian, Mississippi, when an employee allegedly entered that facility and took the lives of five people in addition to his own. This is a terrible incident for the industry, and a great personal loss to the friends and families involved. Our condolences go out to those families, the company and the community involved.

In light of this situation, I want to assure you that providing a safe working environment for every employee is of paramount importance to me, to [company name omitted] and to your Huntsville Leadership Team. Yesterday, we again reviewed our Threat Management plan to ensure that all preventive measures needed to guard against this type of incident have been taken, and that the ongoing security measures are in place to guard against these kinds of events. Just last week, your Leadership Team spent an entire afternoon working through emergency scenarios and responses for the Huntsville site.

Safety and security at work is everybody's business. You have a right to expect a safe and secure work environment without having to worry unduly about threats, attacks, or being injured by anyone, regardless of their connection to our company. One of the best ways you can help is by using the local Threat Management Process. [name omitted] heads the local threat management team. That team's aim is maintaining a safe work environment. This multi-disciplinary team has received special training in preventing and responding to threats of violence in the workplace. The team is also an excellent resource for information about Security and Medical/Employee Assistance Program services.

Verbal threats or violent behavior are unacceptable, and should be reported promptly to Security at [phone number omitted]. You may also report issues to your management or your Human Resources representative. All reports are taken seriously and investigated. In many cases, a quick response can prevent or minimize more serious threats or acts of violence.



My response:


From your e-mail below:

"This multi-disciplinary team has received special training in preventing and responding to threats of violence in the workplace."

With all due respect, my bet that if the [company name omitted] Huntsville site (God Forbid) ever encounters a situation such as this, this "multi-disciplinary team", nor armed Security, will be anywhere near where it will be needed in the event of such a tragedy.

The fact of the matter is that by direct [company name omitted] policy, a former or current employee, intent on killing, are given a free pass to kill anyone they want on [company name omitted] property, knowing that [company name omitted] employees are defenseless and helpless against an armed attack. I'm sure that Lockheed-Martin in Meridian has exactly the same policy in place as [company name omitted] does.

While I agree that early warning signals be aggressively and thoroughly investigated, the fact remains that once the shooting starts, [company name omitted] employees are, by [company name omitted] policy under threat of immediate termination, helpless. Armed Security 5-10 minutes away in another building is 5-10 minutes too late.

I don't expect this [company name omitted] policy to change based on this attack. A series of major lawsuits, perhaps as a result of the Lockheed attacks, perhaps not, where employers are held liable for not allowing their employees to protect themselves plus not taking the necessary steps to protect them, might.

My .02.



I never got a response from her.

In case you can't guess, L-M and my company are in related businesses; you might even say they're almost "twins".

My recommendation: Don't make waves unless A) you plan to retire soon or B) recently won the lottery.


I hope this helps.

Albin