employer "no weapon" policies

[Double Naught Spy]

If you dislike company policy find another job. Its simple as that.

Compared to some, sir, you are a rocket scientist. There is genius in simplicity, but many fail to see it.

BTW, If I ever get attack at work you beat your ass I'm suing the company for taking away my Second Amendment (and licensed CCW) Right.

This is what I am talking about. Somebody is bright enough to realize that they are working under conditions that they don't like and are are willing to put forth the effort of threatening to sue in advance, but haven't figured out they need to find anther job or won't put forth the effort to find another job.

As noted, your right wasn't taken away. You gave it up. Since YOU gave it up, who is at fault? You.

Of course, you give up a variety of rights for employment. You give up your right to free speech for example. You may choose to exercise your right of free speech and tell your boss he is a moron and be fired, or keep your trap shut to comply with not being insubordinate and hence keep your job. It really is that simple, like Tecumseh said.

Well, I have heard lots of talk that RETAIL establishments that bar CHLs here in Texas might be liable if you get injured on their grounds, since they stopped U from carrying your weapon.

I haven't seen a case yet in the courts - but this is the same concept...

You have heard it, but you probably heard about UFOs and Big Foot as well. Private property has the right to bar CHLs by Texas law. Why? Because your rights as a gun carrier do not trump their rights concerning private property, just like you don't have to allow me to carry my guns on your property.

License or not, they don't have to allow you to carry. As for suing, they only have to prove they made reasonable security accomodations, nothing more. Reasonable security accomodations do not include allowing you to CCW.

 

[txgho1911]

Get a state law through the legislature that defines reasonable measures of security for customers and employees.
Guards with airport levels of security with no pass for anyone. Metal detectors and armed escort for everyone who wants it to the parking garage or to and at the bus stop.
I have dozens of locked doors to get by at my job. I have a key. I carry in here every day and so can anyone else who does not know how to deal with a bad day.
These locked doors will only slow someone from the outside. If they intend harm do you really think a locked door will stop them?

 

[citizen510]

http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/caselaw/walmart.asp

This case may be of help.

 

[Autolycus]

Thanks for the compliment Double Naught Spy. Its sad that some people refuse to believe it. The company does not have to allow you to carry a firearm. If you want to and they say you cant then you should look for a company that does.

When you go to your next interview (after losing your current job for breaking company policy) make sure to ask them if you can carry your gun with you while your in the office. Tell them that its your 2nd Amendment right and that they cannot violate it.

Then come back and tell us how your interview went and if you got the job.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Sometimes it depends on what State you live in.
From the Brady campaign Re: Oklahoma

First state in nation to pass a law to force businesses
to allow guns in the workplace via cars in company parking lots.

From Oklahoma Self Defense Act:

No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall
be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of
prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and
storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any
vehicle.
This law shall become effective November 1, 2004.

I like living in Oklahoma!

 

[Green Lantern]

If you dislike company policy find another job. Its simple as that.

And what happens when you find out no places in the area allow CCW at work? Move? Start your own business?

Should the idiots that make these "victim disarmament" be held blameless when a criminal takes advantage of a situation like this?

Should the administrators of VT be held blameless for creating a "fish in a barrel" situation ripe for a homicidal loser use to to "make his mark?"

There are consequences to every action. Carrying against policy can and will get you fired, as an employer should be able to dictate if an employee can or can't carry.

(OTOH, NO employer has the right to tell you what to do 'off the clock,' like what to keep in your personal property. Like your home OR your CAR. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms for another time...)

But just as an employer can he held liable for not getting ice removed from the parking lot in the wintertime (thus creating a DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT), they should ALSO be held liable for making their customers or employees more "appealing" targets for criminals.

 

[jpk1md]

In many states if you are parked on the employers property the same rules apply inside and outside the building....ie no weapons if they ban them.

Be careful....most will not make a distinction and there have been arguments/cases in different states as to whether or not an Employer has a right to search you when you leave the building and that searching your car is nothing more than an extension of the above.....

Check your state laws folks.

 

[Mr.V.]

We gun owners are a wacky, crazy minority group that actually *gasp* trusts others with the same freedom we ourselves desire.

That concept is nuts to so many others though.

The trouble is, for a company now a days, they're much more likely to be damned if they allow guns than if they don't.

See, if a company allows firearms, and if some disgruntled employee, either a non-ccw with a gun or worse a CCWer, snaps and decides to shoot up the place, the company is going to be lambasted by the media, most fellow employees, and sued for egregious amount of money for creating an "unsafe work environment", even if another gun-carrying employee "saves the day". That fact will be buried as we've seen time and time again, while the company's policy will be demonized.

Like it or not, the vast majority of people don't have CCWs, and unless you work for Smith and Wesson, the vast majority of your coworkers don't either.

So a company, in this political environment, is far more likely to be successfully sued for copious amounts of cash for allowing guns and having something bad happen than they are for banning them and having something bad happen (even if many are saved by being able to defend themselves).

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Get Another Job

Sounds simple.

Sounds easy.

And, if you work in fast food, it probably is.

Outside of that, the "just get another job" concept is shallow thinking.

I work in a competitive industry that just happens to be the biggest employer -- by orders of magnitude -- in the region where I live. There are any number of things I don't like about this industry, but it shares many of the same insanity symptoms of many other risk-averse industries.

Just get another job?

Yeah.

I've been working that problem for more than two years.

I may actually have solved it, and may soon execute on that, except that I will endure a certain amount of financial trauma in the process of so doing.

Hey, got cancer? Just get another lung.

What? The cancer has spread? Now you a need a lung and a kidney and a liver? Sux to be you.

While that metaphor is pretty lame, what's clear is that we do, in fact, have a cultural cancer that makes it acceptable for employers to compromise an individual's self-defense capability.

A simple, "well, them's the roolz, tough if you don't like it," is fatalistic and shallow.

I know an outfit (high tech CRM company) that moved its operation to Bozeman for the simple reason that the company's principals decided it made no sense to live on the East Coast and have to jump on a plane and fly to Montana every time they wanted a break or a vacation. They lost some personnel in the move, but they decided the change in their standard of living and quality of life was worth going.

Know what I'd REALLY like to find? A high tech outfit that moves to Idaho or Montana or Wyoming or Nevada or [gun-friendly state here] because the 2nd Amendment is important to them.

Failing that, a group of entrepreneurial lads and lasses creating a company from scratch in one of those places, with the stated objective of fostering support for the 2nd Amendment.​

I haven't heard of any such thing, so it's just my own personal pipe dream.

So all I can do is add my small voice to the other small voices out there advocating for actual recognition of the Second Amendment as real, bona fide, legitimate LAW, in hopes that we can gain back the cultural ground we've lost over decades.

No, you will never here me dismiss someone's complaint that they can't carry at work or store in their car with the words, "don't like it? Get another job."

This idea that one must "play by the roolz" as though these "roolz" have any validity or that they are somehow right is bunk.

"Get another job" only works for as long as there are "other jobs" where one's rights are still respected. Yes, I know, private property, employer gets to make the roolz, blah, blah, blah. Clearly, when an employer proscribes carry or storage or both, he may well be within his rights but, by the same token, he's not RESPECTING yours.

What, you want RESPECT from an employer? More fool you! Hey, did you hear that? He wants respect from his employer! What a moron! Goofball, just shut up, sit down, and grab your oar. Coffee break's over.

Yeah. I want respect from my employer. And I want employers to know that, should they elect to disrespect their people, they will lose them to the MANY OTHERS who actually DO respect theirs.

And that's a cultural thing.

And we have to win that back.

And we don't get there by dismissing those who are unhappy with the sick culture we currently have.

That's my opinion. I'll send you the bill.

 

[Diggers]

Yeah the "just get a new job" statement is a little simplistic. Usually its quite a process.

BUT taking the job to begin with is something else. In doing so one knowingly agrees to the rules the employer has in place. . Kind of makes work life tough at times but that’s how it is.

Hey if they have the right, by law, to dictate if I can have a goatee on my face or not, something that in no way could effect anyone else, then they are going to be fine saying people can’t carry weapons at work also.

 

[SteveS]

While that metaphor is pretty lame, what's clear is that we do, in fact, have a cultural cancer that makes it acceptable for employers to compromise an individual's self-defense capability.

A simple, "well, them's the roolz, tough if you don't like it," is fatalistic and shallow.

It may be, but that is the way it is. I'd like to wander off into metaphor land for a second. How do you propose we encourage employers to allow carry?

So all I can do is add my small voice to the other small voices out there advocating for actual recognition of the Second Amendment as real, bona fide, legitimate LAW, in hopes that we can gain back the cultural ground we've lost over decades.

Huh? This won't make a difference. As someone has already pointed out, the BOR applies as a restraint to gov't action. Your employer can restrict your first amendment rights at work and fire you for saying certain things. They can also search you and fire you if you don't comply.

Again, what is the solution? One choice would be to mandate that employers allow carry. This won't go over with people that support property rights. Another is to create a duty to protect employees and allow them to sue of they are injured. Trial lawyers will love this, but you can bet that businesses will fight this.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Closer Reading

A closer reading of what I wrote would clarify what I meant.

It may be, but that is the way it is. I'd like to wander off into metaphor land for a second. How do you propose we encourage employers to allow carry?

The same way we encourage employers not to prohibit exposed ankles. The same way we encourage employers not to ban coffee.

Culture.

Huh? This won't make a difference. As someone has already pointed out, the BOR applies as a restraint to gov't action. Your employer can restrict your first amendment rights at work and fire you for saying certain things. They can also search you and fire you if you don't comply.

Again, what is the solution? One choice would be to mandate that employers allow carry. This won't go over with people that support property rights. Another is to create a duty to protect employees and allow them to sue of they are injured. Trial lawyers will love this, but you can bet that businesses will fight this.

And you're right.

LEGALLY they can restrict whatever they damn well please.

Right up until the day no one will do business with them because of their outrageous policies.

They can ban Christmas trees. And anyone who does business with them is free to withhold that business -- boycott them -- until they amend their policy.

It's culture.

You fight the legal battle where you can and where you should and where you must.

You fight the cultural battles on all other fronts.

Win back the culture, the "stoopid company policy" plague will either change or companies will find themselves ostracized and unable to conduct business.

Oleg's posters, articulate articles written by insightful and popular figures, and every small voice that remarks, "wow, that whole gun ban thing sure is stoopid," applies a vector to correct the current cultural sickness.

You can buy into "that's the way it is," or you can actively work to CHANGE the way it is.

Clearly, I'm gonna have to start charging more for my opinions.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

And what happens when you find out no places in the area allow CCW at work? Move? Start your own business?

Well then, it is simple, you take the job with non-CCW employer and you make sure that you carry concealed. You don't tell people you carry at work where it isn't allowed. You don't allow your CCW to be accidentally discovered. If you are in an incident where you have to produce your firearm to save your life while at work, then saving your life and getting fired is better than being terminated permanently.

Arfin, you are right, it is shallow reasoning about getting another job, but it is very simple reasoning and being shallow doesn't mean you have to look very deep to understand the concept. It doesn't have to be a deep concept. Sometimes you have to balance out those things that you want. We don't always have the great options of getting a rewarding job that pays well and that meets all of our social, political, and individual needs. Personally, I would like to have a job with a nicer boss and work in a place that allows concealed carry.

 

[SteveS]

Arfin, that makes sense and I agree with you 100%.

Clearly, I'm gonna have to start charging more for my opinions.

The check is in the mail ; )

 

[Nekron]

The biggest problem with the "just get another job" idea is this: Try finding a job with a company that doesn't have a "no weapons" policy.

It's damn near impossible.

 

[birddog]

amen.

How would they know that you are carrying a concealed weapon unless:
A. you actually use it to defend yourself, in which case losing your job is secondary in importance to losing your life.
or
B. You tell people about it
Keeping you mouth shut is an easy solution to a lot of problems..

As an employee of a multinational company who has treated me pretty well for the last 17 years, all I can say to this is "amen". I don't like my corporate policy, but also know that it was written by lawyers interested in corporate CYA, not by my direct supervisors who know the value of personal defense.

It's all a matter of being smart. If someday you need that weapon, you can face the legal and disciplinary actions of your employer when the time comes. At least you'll have a fighting chance of BEING there to face them, rather than have your estate try to sue for your wrongful death...

 

[Mr.V.]

I'm in agreement with some people voicing concerns over just how much a private employer is allowed to demand of an employee.

I understand that the employer is entitled to their property. I also understand that an employee is obligated to understand the contract they are signing and if they are unable to fulfill the duties of that job, should choose something less demanding or more compatible.

I'm far more tolerant of an employer telling an employee how they must act with customers, what they have to say in conversations with clients/customers, and what the employee must wear than I am of an employer, or anyone else for that matter, dictating what a person can and can't keep in their pockets. Even if it's a policy against carrying an UMP in the pockets of the chicken suit at the Cluck'n'Bucket.

There are certain rights that no employer should be allowed to trespass on and others that they can. Figuring out which ones and the degree to which one trumps the other is the tricky part.