Company issue firearms?

I'd assume the policy is set by insurance company lawyers or corporate lawyers who don't really know much about firearms. In theory they have greater control of company issued firearms so that seems like a more appropriate level of risk in their opinion. They're are plenty of corporate policies out there that don't really make much sense or reflect the reality of what actually happens.

Letting a person carry whatever they want probably results in less expense for the company and realistically not any more liability assuming the employees select something reasonable.

It sounds like the policies you are aware of are all over the place, so I'd guess the answers to your question will probably be all over the place...

I don't really have an answer to the question. I do recall the armored car guy, at a previous workplace, who carried a stainless .44 Magnum in a worn-out leather holster with no trigger guard coverage. He wore it low on his hip like an old west gunfighter, and it wobbled and flopped and surely must have left bruises on his thigh. I was always mildly surprised that the gun never ended up on the floor, and while I tend to mind my own business where the professionally armed are concerned, if he'd been my employee we would have had a serious discussion.

I suspect that is where workplace regulations tend to come from - the lowest common denominator more-or-less forces employers to come up with a uniform set of rules.

Lawyers

ohihunter2014 said:

why a company weapon?

Click to expand...

Imagine, for the briefest of moments, explaining to a jury the Punisher grips on your employee's personal weapon used in a shooting.

If you aren't shrieking in horror, you don't grok civil liability trials, especially jury trials.

Ditto the "Smile and Wait for the Flash" barrel bushing, and the "Now Your ******" ejection port cover.

And these are just cosmetic changes; imagine how bad the mechanical changes can be. . .

Sounds like I know what company you applied for. I was issued a S&W 64-5 and could qualify and carry a G19 if I got on with their medical security contract. They burned me quite badly (I returned the favor) and I no longer work there. Good riddance.

As such, every answer so far plus this company is cheap and doesn't buy nice firearms. Just keeps the junk they have had in stock for decades.

This:

reddog81 said:

policy is set by insurance company lawyers or corporate lawyers

Click to expand...

Most likely related to training issues. This is why virtually all LE agencies no longer allow personal weapons. If you ever have to shoot anyone a common tactic by lawyers is to sue you, and your employer, and try to prove that it was really an accidental shooting, not self defense. And that the company you work for is responsible due to lack of training.

It is a lot easier for them to document training with only one gun. If everyone is carrying something different it leaves your employer more susceptible to these type of suits. And since the insurance company would be the one paying in the event of a lawsuit I could see the requirement.

ohihunter2014 said:

What I don't get with the whole insurance stuff is why a company weapon?

Click to expand...

Laws and regulations are not written to make sense.

That's interesting. I had a brief spell in between jobs where I was considering a armored security gig. Both companies I was looking at, Brinks and Dunbar, required you used your own supplied firearm.

Anyhow, the $11.50/hr is what ultimately made my decision.

Good Ol' Boy writes:

Both companies I was looking at, Brinks and Dunbar, required you used your own supplied firearm.

Click to expand...

That's typical here, too. Every ad I've seen states that the officer must supply their own sidearm. I remember one saying it must be a "duty-grade sidearm", and included the phrase "No Jennings or Hi-Points."

Lawyers and guns.
And you might know which "flavor" of Wash. DC reportedly receives the most lobby money from the > > Trial Lawyers Association << .

This group also has been known to, allegedly, resist tort reform (fewer lawsuits possible?), but a certain Moderator will (...could...) explain it far better.

The Trial Lawyers Association might be a major factor in my decision to have recently found the need for having carry insurance.

I am not sure of the O.P.s comments. I would take a company’s supplied gun and gear over supplying my own (assuming theirs are in good condition) without a second thought.

Around my area it is “human see, human do” when it comes to arming officers. Most top brass in police and sheriff departments are not “gun people.” A large metro police department in my part of the State issues Glock 40 caliber. When high ranking police officers retire they often become the Chief of one of the surrounding small bedroom community police departments. As they are not gun savvy they arm their officers with the same gun and calibers. A good friend that was Chief of a small department adopted Glock 40 calibers. When I asked him why he said if it good enough for them then it was good enough for him. Some of the private security companies have the same policy.

As far as carrying a company gun I would rather have it get banged up on car doors and bumping into things than my personal gun. FMJ is a poor choice and if forced to shoot I would not hesitate to put a lot of bullet holes into my attackers

Company liability is probably more concerned with workers comp than someone involved in a robbery type scenario. Having all employees issued and trained on the same equipment in theory would make NDs/ADs less likely, or at least that could be a defense when someone hurts themselves or coworker.

A big part of my job is overseeing contract preparations and limiting liability to my employer. I also supervise quite a few people and I need to limit their exposure to hazards in the field. I'm sure no lawyer and not an insurance guy though.

I am of the opinion that any such requirement is related to workman's comp claims and potential lawsuits from the family if you get killed.

They don't know if you maintain your gun properly. They don't know if it could fail and get you hurt while using it. They don't if you've been shooting nuclear loads through your gun and it is on the verge of a catastrophic failure. If you get hurt because they allowed you to use your own gun with no knowledge of how the gun is maintained, their risk goes up in court of loosing a very expensive workman's comp claim because they were not in control of the situation by issuing you your gear.

I am required to provide my personnel safety gear to use on the job. I can't let them use their own gear for the same reason. If someone's hard hat is expired, and they get hit in the head and killed, the lawyer is going to point that fact out and I'm liable. If the employee uses their own gear, and wears it out or breaks it, they may want me to replace it. I do not have the legal ability to spend funds on privately owned gear. So the employee could sue if I allow that situation to occur.

If they let you carry your own gun, and you decide you want to carry a Kimber Solo, and it jams when you need it, and you get hurt or killed, the court is going to see it as the company allowed you to use an unsafe and unreliable piece of equipment.

Stuff like this is all about limiting liability, and trying to project forward how a court might see it, or an insurance company might try to deny claims. It's that simple. Money...………… The actual legal arguments on the other hand can be very complex and go around and around when something actually does happen.

Legal arguments around hollow point ammo are likely moot at this point as law enforcement uses it everywhere. It's more likely a cost savings, and they may actually be trying to limit lethality, as the family of a dead perpetrator is likely to sue.

The whole issue of letting armed security guys carry their own weapons reminds me of the scene from Police Academy when Tackleberry shows off the gun he brought from home...