[del4]

Has a company or government ever been sued because of a no gun policy?

For instance, you work at a job with a "no guns" policy and on your way home you get car jacked, beat-up pretty badly with a pipe and stabbed. You live, but confined to a wheelchair. If you had your gun, you could have defended yourself. You have a state cwp. Could you hold your job liable?

I've never heard of a case like this. I'm sure it's been tried before.

Del

[TimRB]

Legalities and lawsuits aside, do you really think your employer is responsible for you getting beaten up on your way home from work?

Tim

[CentralTexas]

someone won a suit against Taco Bell years ago. I think it was in a high crime area, no security and carry banned?

[Ant Mod]

For instance, you work at a job with a "no guns" policy and on your way home you get car jacked, beat-up pretty badly with a pipe and stabbed. You live, but confined to a wheelchair. If you had your gun, you could have defended yourself. You have a state cwp. Could you hold your job liable?

No.

[Lone_Gunman]

Suing isnt the same as actually winning.

[del4]

Well...he is responsible for me not being able to protect myself. People make knee jerk rules just because it makes someone else feel better without considering all angles. Your employer just voided your 2A rights to be P.C.

My point is, right now, it is just easier to ban guns at work because there is no way for them to lose. We all know that banning firearms does not keep bad things from happening.

I work for the local power co. I go from house to house installing equip. My job also includes me removing that equip. for non-payment. A lot of the time this is in a bad part of town. Friday, I was caught removing the equipment by the owner, in his backyard, pulling his meter. I was lucky that this guy was pretty passive. I was in a very bad position.

Another "what if". What if your on a state park that doesn't allow firearms and you are run down by a bear, cougar, or human preditor.

[sendec]

The plaintiff's claim that if they had been armed that the incident would not have occurred as it did is conjectural. Also note that (most) of the employees will not be armed. No court will allow that a permit holder is owed a higher standard than people without a CCW.

[sendec]

As for your state (or federal or local) park example, again no. By visiting the park you voluntarily assume certain risks. Absent negligence (bears being allowed to feed out of trash cans in campgrounds) the park will claim, and I agree, that they do not have control over the behavior of wild animals either of 2 or 4 legged varieties, within broad parameters. If the park has made a reasonable effort to 'safe" what they could, like posting warning signs and fencing off the Grand Canyon, they will successsfully defend the claim. Recreational liability is a Big Thing in litigation.

The points are really moot, though in that the parks will enjoy a certain level of immunity, and that at common law the actions of wild animals is seen as inherently uncontrollable.

[Pilgrim]

I work for the local power co. I go from house to house installing equip. My job also includes me removing that equip. for non-payment. A lot of the time this is in a bad part of town. Friday, I was caught removing the equipment by the owner, in his backyard, pulling his meter. I was lucky that this guy was pretty passive. I was in a very bad position.

Does your employer endorse a stealth removal of equipment or a 'knock and announce' policy? I would think 'knock and announce' would preclude embarrassing and possibly dangerous moments. If the owner refuses access to the equipment, you return with the Sheriff to get the equipment.

Pilgrim

[Anna G.]

In my opinion it sounds much more full of sense than suing McDonalds because you burned your tongue.

[del4]

We have knock and announce. However, if the owner is not home (or does not answer) we have to remove the equipment. The equipment belongs to the power co.

FYI, I am not sue happy and I am not looking to sue my company. I do have a hard time with some companies (most in my experiance) over-riding the 2A.

But, I guess I am wrong even though I don't fully understand it, except for the park. Thanks for the info.

[Lone_Gunman]

Your employer just voided your 2A rights to be P.C.



Nah, wrong answer. You electively surrendered your 2A rights when you chose to take the job and abide by company policy.

Nobody made you take the job. When you did you took it with the understanding you could not carry. So you, not the company, gave up the right.

If you enter a place of business that forbids weapons, you voluntary give up your weapon in return for entrance into the business. Again, its voluntary.

[Ant Mod]

FYI, I am not sue happy and I am not looking to sue my company. I do have a hard time with some companies (most in my experiance) over-riding the 2A.

I guess I have no sympathy for you at all. You CHOOSE to work for a company that has this policy. If you are that afraid for your safety either quit your job or break your company rules. Other than that, well you know the answer........

[del4]

I'm trying to have a civil debate. I asked a simple question and i'm trying to understand the answer.

I'm not asking for sympathy. Yes, I chose to work at my job (not that I had a lot of choices), and I like my job and the company that I work for. I was just pointing out that situation that put me at risk. However, like I said before, MOST of the companies that I have worked for had no gun policies and guys, I think it's catching on. So most of you can more than likely expect to be in the same position I'm in.

[Standing Wolf]

Jobs are easier to replace than lives, I've heard. I've replaced a few jobs, but to be honest, haven't yet attempted to replace my life.

[TimRB]

" So most of you can more than likely expect to be in the same position I'm in."

I've *never* worked anyplace where the employer would allow employees to be armed, and I suspect that the vast majority of workers, even in this group, are in the same boat.

You've changed the problem. In the first hypothetical situation you are attacked on your way home from work, but now you are (again hypothetically) attacked on the job. These are vastly different scenarios.

That said, I think an employer would have to be absolutely *nuts* to allow an employee whose main job is door-to-door technical utility work to carry a gun for protection against hostile customers.

Tim

[Ant Mod]

So excercise another right, the right to free speech. Walk into your boss' office and tell him he is a jack ass for not letting you arm yourself. You should have the right to carry a gun, lawsuits and insurance be damned.

You will be fired for excercising your right to free speech.

Understand?

[fjolnirsson]

That said, I think an employer would have to be absolutely *nuts* to allow an employee whose main job is door-to-door technical utility work to carry a gun for protection against hostile customers.

I think an employer would be nuts to not allow this.

To the origional poster,
Concealed means concealed. If they don't use a metal detector, you're safe unless you have to draw. JMHO. YMMV.