Guns at Your Work: Coming Soon to an Office Near You

[Starboard Tack]

More than 15 states have passed legislation allowing employees to bring firearms to their work sites and several states are considering similar bills. Many of these new laws forbid companies from enforcing current "No Guns in Our Workplaces" policies. In other words, if the law in your state supports your right to bring your gun to work, and you follow the usual restriction of legal ownership and registration, having a permit, and keeping it in your car during your work day, then you're good to go.

Despite strong opposition from the Society for Human Resource Management (www.shrm.org) and other threat assessment and security experts, there is a continuing movement in this country to allow employees to arm themselves. This has arisen under the idea that guns at work will allow employees to protect themselves in the event of an "active shooter" workplace violence incident. But a May 2005 study in the American Journal of Public Health (1) offered peer-reviewed data that work sites that allow guns are five to seven times more likely to have a workplace homicide event. So why should a state law suddenly supersede a longstanding organizational policy?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-act-violence/201109/guns-your-work-coming-soon-office-near-you

[PavePusher]

1. Whole lot of assumption and assertion, backed up by no facts.

"In other words, during an active shooter situation, do you want to put your chances of survival on the shoulders (and shaky hands) of Dave in the Accounting Office or a tactically-trained police officer, wearing ballistic armor, and moving toward the sound of the gunfire with a long gun at the ready?"

Well, the hypothetical Dave (or myself) is there at the start of the incident. How long do I have to wait for the "tactically-trained police officer" to show up? While I'm waiting, are you going to explain why I'm safer being unarmed? In person?

In my work-place, there's a good chance Dave is ex-military, or a competitive shooter, or maybe just some arrogant asshole, wanting to live through the day, who thinks you shouldn't be making defensive decisions for him from the comfort of your own armchair. While we're still waiting for the police.

And the study referenced was predicated on.... Kellerman.

[one-eyed fat man]

6. Back in the day

When it was the US Postal Department, and a Cabinet Level department headed by the Postmaster General postal clerks and mail carriers were armed to the teeth. After a couple of train robberies, railway mail clerks all were issued revolvers, primarily Colt's Banker's Specials and every clerk in the car had one. Every window in the Post Office the clerk was armed with a big old M1917 .45 caliber revolver. Even letter carriers were issued H&R Defenders or S&W Terriers primarily to protect registered mail, but know to defend against vicious dogs as well. Collectors place a premium on USPO and RMS marked guns. Pilots who carried air mail were required to be armed by postal regulations. At least one hijacking in the Fifties was stopped when an airline captain used the gun the regulations required him to carry to protect the mail to shoot a hijacker.

After the the Post Office was disbanded and turned into the quasi private US Postal Service they changed the policies and by 1972 collected up all the firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal

The term going postal entered the lexicon when a dozen years after the last gun had been taken from window clerks and mail carriers the "gun-free workplace" meant the only guy with a gun was going to be the wacko.

[krispos42]

10. But, if Dave in Accounting spent his weekends doing IDPA shoots...

...reads "Guns & Ammo" or "Handguns", has a double-stack handgun loaded with premium hollowpoints, carries a spare magazine, and goes to Thunder Ranch once a year to brush up on his defensive handgun skills...


...he'd be a gun nut that a) shouldn't have a gun, and b) should be fired as a dangerous liability with delusions of Rambo.

[Starboard Tack]

14. Or he could be the one the rest need to be hiding from

[krispos42]

16. So could you.

So could I!

[Union Scribe]

17. Then I kinda doubt he'd respect a no-guns rule at work.

Work-place shooters are kinda like that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. My favorite Kellerman quote:

"If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah."

- Not whistle, not a cell phone, not pepper spray...

Thank you Arthur!

[petronius]

2. There seems to be a deliberate blurring here - does "guns at work" mean carried

inside the facility, or just stored in a personal vehicle in the parking lot?

I support a private company's right to bar the former; I support the employee's right to privacy and property rights in the latter case...

[ManiacJoe]

7. You were not supposed to notice that blurring.

[rrneck]

3. Management is worried about their own skins.

In almost every workplace shooting the shooter is looking for a specific someone or someones. Any others that get shot were just in the way.

The guns at work issue is really about oppressive management. It's not a gun thing. It's a labor thing.

[gejohnston]

4. how does SHRM and security feel

Despite strong opposition from the Society for Human Resource Management (www.shrm.org) and other threat assessment and security experts, there is a continuing movement in this country to allow employees to arm themselves.

about employees' right to free speech, freedom of association, and privacy in the work place?

[oneshooter]

5. " usual restriction of legal ownership and registration," WHAT regestration?

Only 2-3 states require it. Texas isn't one of them. The Texas law allows the weapon to be locked in your vehicle in the parking area. It is up to the company policy to allow, or forbid, carry within the buildings.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[krispos42]

8. "Society for Human Resource Management"

God, what an impersonal, soul-sucking term. And they claim they're worried about saving lives?

Maybe "avoiding inefficient use of human resources" is a better term.


When did it stop being "Personnel"?


And guess what... unless employers are scanning their employee's vehicles before work, it's just so much empty hand-wringing.

[pipoman]

32. The irony of lauding human resource managers

is so cool to see around DU...You know, the paid guns of the cheapest benefit package shoppers, annalists of reducing workers compensation packages, fighters of every unemployment claim, corporate axe men (or women)...yeah, HR managers are known for their concern for workers and workers rights...not.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. I can't wait for ohio to pass guns-in-worklace laws.

Heck, we already even have armed security at the entrance to our buildings too.

[mvccd1000]

11. Misleading in the extreme

The article suggests that employees will be armed at work, which is not the case at all, nor is it generally the reason for the law.

Instead, employees cannot be prohibited from leaving weapons in their parked cars on company property. Quite a difference, but a fact that must be ignored or glossed over in order to generate such manufactured outrage and hand-wringing.

Also ignored is the REASON most people would avail themselves of the protection provided by this law. It's not so they can run out to their car and run back in the building if someone's shooting... it's because people may have reason to carry a gun on the way TO or FROM work. Perhaps they work far from home, or have to make stops during the commute, or even have to arrive home to a potentially unsafe situation (restraining order violations, for example).

This law protects those people from being disarmed by controlling groups bent on providing "safety" for the employees.

While I support the right of a business to prohibit certain items in the premises, I believe that once they choose to allow employees' vehicles on the property, they should allow any LEGAL contents of those vehicles to remain in the vehicles.

[Starboard Tack]

15. I think it is reasonable to leave a gun in a secure vehicle

But if it is understood as a condition of employment upon being hired, then one is not forced to take the job. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with such a situation, either as an employee or employer.

[mvccd1000]

18. Agreed (mostly)

I agree with the title of your post, and I agree that nobody is FORCED to take a job if the conditions are not amenable. In this time of high unemployment and scarce jobs, however, what other legal activities should employers be exempt from allowing?

Women aren't forced to take jobs for sexist harassers. Gays aren't forced to take jobs for obvious homophobes. If we were all subject to picky and choosy employers like that, unemployment would probably be a lot higher than it is now... this is why there are laws providing certain protections for otherwise legal activities.

In most states, driving with a lawfully owned and carried pistol is legal. If employers choose to allow employees' cars on the premises, they should be required to allow all legal contents of those cars, as well. (I'm fine with employers prohibiting the cars altogether; that's a property rights issue, but if they're going to allow them, it seems ridiculous to prohibit otherwise legal contents.)

[Starboard Tack]

27. It really is a contractual issue between employer and employee

I don't see it as a civil rights issue. I know several people who legally use marijuana, but that doesn't mean they have the right to use it at work.

[mvccd1000]

30. Again, true, but again, not the issue.

"I know several people who legally use marijuana, but that doesn't mean they have the right to use it at work."

Same with this law and the protections it provides gun owners. "I know several people who legally carry guns, but that doesn't mean they can shoot them at work."

Just as an employer should not disallow legally prescribed marijuana from an employee's locked car in the parking lot, the employer should not disallow a legally carried firearm from an employee's locked car in the parking lot.

I don't think anybody is calling for allowing employees to USE either product at work... they're simply asking for protections to allow employees to keep these otherwise legal objects in their locked vehicles in the parking lot.

If you prohibit smoking in your facility, do you feel it's appropriate to prohibit employees from leaving their cigarettes in their cars? If you prohibit midriff-baring shirts in your employee dress code, do you feel it's appropriate to prohibit employees from keeping clothes in their cars? Why are firearms any different? Prohibit them in your facility, but don't stop your employees from keeping otherwise legal object in their cars that you choose to allow in your parking lot.

[Starboard Tack]

78. I don't think it is reasonable for an employer to restrict the contents of a car

belonging to an employee, but it is the right of a property owner to restrict what comes onto his property. The fact that you and I may not like his restriction is irrelevant. Realistically, it is a non-issue, because I find it inconceivable that anyone would work for an employer who was concerned about the contents of his employees' cars, unless the employee were stealing from the employer.

[pipoman]

37. Employers of the public

don't have the freedom to do what ever they please.

The meme in these threads of, 'private business should be allowed to make their own rules and if you don't like it go somewhere else', isn't the way private business works. A private business which employs outside people are subject to many rules, regulations, and laws related to employment. There are complete sections of law in every single state called 'employment law'. There are restrictions on discrimination, sexual harassment, workplace safety, bullying, requiring workers to work w/o compensation, age of workers, overtime pay, special needs employees, public restroom facilities, and the list goes on and on. Should we tell black workers they should go somewhere else instead of requiring employers to be nondiscriminatory in their hiring practices? Parents should be responsible for not allowing their 12 year old children not to work for employers who require them to work 72 hours per week?

No, there are volumes of rules pertaining to being an employer, as it should be. Democrats have been the leaders of fighting for rights of workers historically...that is until the death of the labor party, which is another issue..

[Starboard Tack]

44. What are you trying to say?

Employers should abide by all the rules imposed by the state? If so, I agree with you. Are you also saying the state should make a rule allowing employees to be armed at work? If so, I disagree.
This isn't about discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.. It's about bringing firearms into the workplace. If you think that is normal behavior, you should have no trouble finding an employer who agrees with you. Good luck.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. My employer not only has no problem with me keeping a firearm in my car

but also has no problem with me carrying into the office, or anyone else with a CCW for that matter. In addition, I work in the corporate offices of a retail chain and CCW is allowed in the stores as well by both employees and customers.

Never had a single shooting at any of them.

[Starboard Tack]

53. That's fine. It's the employer's choice, as it should be.

[pipoman]

48. I'm saying it is none of an employers business

what legally possessed items are in their employees cars. You do understand that is all this OP is about, no? This has nothing to do with "allowing employees to be armed at work", or about "bringing firearms into the workplace"...nothing. This is about legally possessed personal property in a personal vehicle being none of anyone's business. If you are an employer in this state, you will mind your own business and allow people to leave their guns in their car or face civil or criminal liability. If you are an employer in any state you will comply with a myriad of rules, regulations, and laws governing what you will and won't, can and can't do..this law is no different.

[Starboard Tack]

52. If the car is parked on the employer's property, it is his business

and if he allows it, he could be held liable.

[X_Digger]

56. What other legal items in an employee's car are an employers 'business'?

Religious texts? Political tracts? Prescription drugs?

And btw, most of these bits of legislation include immunity for liability, so there goes your objection.

[Starboard Tack]

64. I don't object personally

But I think if the parking lot is on private property, the employer has a legitimate right to decide what comes onto his property, legal or illegal. Public property (government employees for example) not so much.

[X_Digger]

68. So anything and everything? Is that the size of it?

I wouldn't have expected someone to endorse such control from corporate masters here at DU.

[Starboard Tack]

77. I don't support government control of private property

Workplaces have rules. Employers have the right to make those rules and employees are free to seek alternative employment if they don't like the rules.
I don't know what you mean by "anything and everything".

[X_Digger]

84. How do you feel about the ADA? EEOC?

Is that government controlling private property too?

Never thought I'd see it at DU..

[Starboard Tack]

86. Now you're being silly

[X_Digger]

87. So there are some controls on private property that you endorse..

Glad to see that you're not quite as out there as your posts would lead one to believe.

So you can drop the holier than thou reverence for private property..

"I don't support government control of private property

Workplaces have rules. Employers have the right to make those rules and employees are free to seek alternative employment if they don't like the rules."

So only *some* rules, eh? You would have a problem with an employer making a 'rule' about no gays, but not about keeping a gun in a locked container in a locked car in a parking garage.

"but it is the right of a property owner to restrict what comes onto his property" -- you actually don't hold that position for all items, do you?

It's only things that *you* want businesses to be able to restrict, right? Typical.

[Starboard Tack]

89. No I stand by what I said.

Complying with ADA has nothing to do with it. Wheelchair ramps and braille elevator buttons are conditional on your property being accessible to the public. We're discussing a completely different principle. The state forcing someone to have armed individuals or firearms on his private property or not have them is wrong. It should be the property owner's or lessee's choice.

If I, as a business owner, choose not to serve or employ people who don't wear shoes, it is my right.
The state cannot force me to serve or employ them.

Discrimination based on personal behavior is legitimate. Gun toting is an individual choice, not a condition of birth, belief, health or accident. Like tattoos and piercings.

[X_Digger]

91. Which side of your mouth are you talking out of, this time?

EEOC, OSHA, ADA*-- all are regulations that employers must comply with.

Government is already setting rules that private property owners (employers) must comply with.

Some of those 'rules' apply to choices that employees make- like religion: http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp




*Apparently you didn't know that the ADA isn't *only* about public accommodation.
http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm

[Starboard Tack]

92. If you want to have a civil conversation you need to tone it down some.

You know exactly what we're talking about here. The state forcing guns on private property. Try to stick to that issue and it's pretty much played out. I've said all that needs to be said and so have others. If you disagree, that's fine. It really isn't that big a deal. Let's move on to more interesting things.

[X_Digger]

93. No, I'm not going to hand wave away your absolutism (except when it's not)..

There are analogous 'rules' set by the government that you're fine with. So try not to trip over your feet claiming exceptions to your own generalizations.

Cries of, "But that's diiiiiiferent!!" ring rather hollow.

[Starboard Tack]

94. Absolutism? Please explain how I am an absolutist?

[X_Digger]

95. You keep saying that employers should make their own rules..

Then try to hand wave ADA, etc away as something 'different'. (Hence my "except when you don't".)

When in reality, there are already lots of things that employers can't do, or must do.

eta: Statements like those I quoted above: "I don't support government control of private property

Workplaces have rules. Employers have the right to make those rules and employees are free to seek alternative employment if they don't like the rules."

[Starboard Tack]

96. Let's put things in perspective

Workers' rights, the rights of the disabled - of course I support them and whatever obligations an employer may have in terms of those rights.
Stretching the obligations of the employer to the point of being forced by the state to either allow or prohibit firearms in the workplace, I consider to be an abuse of government power, unless the carrying of a firearm is a necessary part of their employment, in which case, it wouldn't be an issue. If the employer is the government itself then it has the right to dictate either way. I don't think a private business should be subject to such rules.
How is that position absolutist, pray tell?

[X_Digger]

97. Did you miss my "when you don't" again?

You make sweeping statements, then harrumph away exceptions.

I like how you *attempt* to frame it as 'in the workplace', when we both know it's in the parking lot.

Keep on trying to spin. It's not working but it's fun to watch.

[Starboard Tack]

98. Already dealt with the parking lot. Bye

[X_Digger]

101. You never did actually answer my question..

"What other legal items in an employee's car are an employers 'business'?

Religious texts? Political tracts? Prescription drugs?"

Since you dodged it, I'll ask again.

Should an employer have total control over what items an employee has in their locked car? Does that control extend to things like religious texts? Political tracts?

[Starboard Tack]

102. If you had followed my other posts in this thread

you would know my answer. Nothing in the employees car is the business of anyone but the owner of the car. However, the employer has the right to decide what cars get parked on his property. Not complicated.

[X_Digger]

103. That's a tautological dodge. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You can't have both, much as you protest.

[Oneka]

62. not in Minnesota.

"Subd. 18.Employers; public colleges and universities.

(a) An employer, whether public or private, may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment. Employment related civil sanctions may be invoked for a violation.

(b) A public postsecondary institution regulated under chapter 136F or 137 may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its students while on the institution's property. Academic sanctions may be invoked for a violation.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), an employer or a postsecondary institution may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area."

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714#stat.624.714


As codified by Mn statute, what legal items i have in my own vehicle, in the parking area of my employer, really is , none of thier business.

[Starboard Tack]

63. I guess Minnesota is one of the 15 states referred to in the OP

[Oneka]

74. I would assume so.

Yet the Mighty Mississippi still does not run red.

[Starboard Tack]

76. Why would it?

Governments impose rules on property owners all over the world without blood in the streets.

[S_B_Jackson]

99. Most employers don't own the property their businesses are located on/in...

and further compounding the issue is that the lots of those buildings are open to the public, not JUST to employees.

The employer in such instances have a bit of a problem. Since they don't own the property, they have NO RIGHT to dictate what may or may not be in their employee's vehicles.

And for lots which are open to the public, those same employers have NOT RIGHT to dictate to the general public the contents of their vehicles......and if they can't control the one, then the 14th Amendment guarantees of "equal protection of the laws" would seem to limit the employers' ability to limit their employee's vehicles.

And just to really bollocks up your interpretations, many states declare that a person's vehicle is an extension of their person and or homestead and are subject to the exact same protections under the law.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Your vehicle may be an extension of your person. Mine is just a bicycle.

Seriously, though. My objection to government interference applies only to privately owned property where the owner, in this case the employer, has made it clear to all employees, as a condition of employment, that firearms are not permitted on his property, including in a vehicle in the parking lot. This, in my opinion, is unenforceable, unless the employee is stupid enough to announce that he keeps a gun in his car.
I find the likelihood of this happening so remote, that it is pointless discussing it further, but if you guys want to continue, have fun.

[PavePusher]

19. Why should employers be allowed to interfere with employees personal decisions on security....

while they in transit to/from their job, unless they provide security for the journey?

[Starboard Tack]

26. They shouldn't.

But they have the right to not have guns on their property. Parking is a privilege.

[PavePusher]

28. So, 50 feet of distance will make all the difference?

Ummm... whatever.

[pipoman]

34. In states with laws such as the one in the OP

they absolutely don't "have the right to not have guns on their property". They also don't have a right to employ children, discriminate because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, phisical disability. hey don't have the right to require people to come to work on their day off without compensation. They don't have the right to require workers to work without breaks. No, business which employs the public have many, many restrictions. This is no different.

[X_Digger]

12. What else should employers be able to prohibit in their employee's cars?

How about religious material that might offend other employees?

Should employers be able to prohibit anything they like in employees' private property?

[AtheistCrusader]

31. You don't have to park on your employer's property.

I don't on range day.

[pipoman]

38. There are many, many workplaces

which do not have public parking available except in company owned parking lots. Many places one can't park on the street, and if there is street parking, there are enforced time limits.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Never seen a valid example, ever.

[pipoman]

67. Really?

I could point out dozens locally, just off the top of my head. Do you really deny that many manufacturers are in industrial areas with no reasonable off site parking? Offices in urban areas with parking garages for employees with only 2 hour street parking surrounding the area?

[AtheistCrusader]

80. I am not aware of any such areas that don't have private parking you can arrange for.

Even if it's asking the company next door if you can park on their property for a monthly fee. (requirement to keep firearm off employer property fulfilled)


You can also work for a better company that doesn't force you to assume levels of risk you do not accept.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

69. Then you're REALLY not looking

I work in an office building and without my employer's parking lot, I would have no place to legally park within 2 miles of my office.

[X_Digger]

88. I work in one now.

Office complex, three buildings perched over parking garages, no street parking for at least 3/4 of a mile.

[Logical]

13. I work in Missouri and the law says I can have a gun in my car but....

My employer requires me to notify the head of HR If I do every day I do. Not worth the hassle.

[pipoman]

35. Most of these laws don't allow the employer to require

notification. Are you sure your employer is allowed to ask under Missouri law?

[spin]

20. For many years in Florida there was no problem with having a firearm in your car at work...

I remember back in 1970, a co-worker showed me three handguns he had in his vehicle in the parking lot. Through the years when one of my co-workers bought a new firearm, we would all journey out to his vehicle to admire it. One time I bought a new vehicle and was showing it off to my fellow employees. One popped open the console between the seats and was surprised to find a Ruger SP101 .357 Magnum. He foolishly asked if it was loaded.

I bought a used S&W Model 65 .357 magnum from the Sergeant of the Guard at work. Our security force was unarmed and he commented that if there was ever a need for a firearm, he knew just who to go see to get one as I had told him that I planned to use it as my car gun. I told him that he could always borrow it in an emergency, but I came attached.

But a couple of years before I retired, the company developed a new policy that forbid firearms in cars in their parking lot. This policy was primarily imposed for legal reasons and while the company did state that you could be fired if a firearm was found in your vehicle, they never checked. It was a don't ask, don't tell policy. My supervisors and the guard force obviously knew that I continued to have a handgun in my car as I had explained in meetings about the new policy that I worked the graveyard shift and drove to work through some dangerous areas and had absolutely no intention of traveling unarmed.

In 2008 Florida passed the "Take your Gun to Work" law which enables employees to have a firearm in their locked vehicle in their employer’s parking lot. One new requirement was that the employee must have a concealed weapons permit.

No major problems have occurred in Florida due to this law. Of course it could be pointed out that if a person wanted to commit a workplace shooting, he could merely illegally bring a gun with him into the workplace or drive home, get one and return.

The law does allow a person with a carry permit to have a handgun with him on his journey to and from work and to the places he stops at. A man who worked with me once had a road rage incident on his way to work and when he stopped at an intersection; his vehicle was approached by a very angry individual with a tire iron in his hand. My co-worker pulled his handgun and held it in his hand across the steering wheel. When the guy with the tire iron noticed the weapon, he returned to his own vehicle and all ended peacefully.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. No one should have a problem with this.

People with CCW permits are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

People should have no worries about armed CCW permit holders in their workplace.

I know people who currently leave guns out in their cars while at work. This is bad for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the firearm is out of their direct control, stored in a fairly insecure environment. Secondly, it doesn't do you much good if you don't have it when you need it.

"Not every employee who brings his or her gun to work (and we know women own and carry guns too) will have had tactical or combat training, in any form. "

So what? If the shit hits the fan, I'll take any good guy with a gun over no good guys with a gun.

[Hoyt]

24. Obviously, CCWers do not commit less gun crime than people who live without the friggin things.

Second, CCWers do not commit less crime than those who could qualify for a permit but have decided guns in public parks, restaurants, churches, etc., just isn't a good idea, or they've just decided it's not worth the hassle to tote a gun in today's society.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

25. How do you figure that?

There's nothing obvious about your statement at all. In fact, the reality is the exact opposite.

[Hoyt]

29. No, you are reading "gun culture" myths and accepting it as fact.

Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. Uh - no....

...I'm reviewing actual facts which have been presented to you numerous times.

It isn't a "gun culture myth". It is stated fact as identified in a number of states.

[Hoyt]

42. So, you actually believe someone who doesn't have a gun commits more gun crimes than toters?

You cannot be serious, or if you are serious -- rational.

And, what stats do you purportedly have that show permit holders are more law-abiding than those who qualify for a permit (ie, equally law-abiding with no felonies, mental conditions, etc.) but have made the choice not to apply for one because they have no intention of carrying a gun in public parks, restaurants, etc.

I think you are myopic and are, in fact, stuck on NRA and others' gun propaganda.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. The ownership of a gun...

in no way means the person will commit a crime. That is where your entire premise fails.

Yes, someone who has a CCW commits less crime than someone who does not. That is simple fact whether you like it or not.

As far as the stats, those have been supplied to you already. You ignored them the first 10,000 times...

[Hoyt]

45. I don't think you are capable of seeing the difference. Hope you are better at assessing situations

where you might be tempted to "touch" or draw your gun.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. The difference in WHAT?

Seriously - what difference am I not seeing?

As far as being tempted to touch or draw a gun, if i touch it, it is getting drawn and if I draw it, someone is getting shot. Simple as that. Otherwise it remains untouched in its holster.

[Hoyt]

49. Are you just being obtuse? If someone does not have a gun, how can they commit a gun crime?

As for your "I'm a tough guy with my gun" comments -- who cares? Besides, we aren't necessarily talking about you , just all the toters out there who will use their guns to intimidate and worse.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. You're intentionally equating...

CCW holders with criminals. The two are not the same thing.

You very clearly stated, and I quote, Obviously, CCWers do not commit less gun crime than people who live without the friggin things.

That statement is plainly false. A CCW holder is demonstrably less likely to commit a crime than someone without a CCW, whether or not the person without a CCW owns a gun or would qualify for a CCW.

This is a plain simple fact Hoyt.

[Atypical Liberal]

40. Obviously.

Obviously, CCWers do not commit less gun crime than people who live without the friggin things.

Of course. But no one is trying to restrict the activities of those kinds of people. We are talking about people with concealed carry permits who carry concealed weapons.

Second, CCWers do not commit less crime than those who could qualify for a permit but have decided guns in public parks, restaurants, churches, etc., just isn't a good idea, or they've just decided it's not worth the hassle to tote a gun in today's society.

A CCW permit holder is less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than a non-CCW permit holder, even non-CCW permit holders who are qualified to have a permit but choose not to.

Compared to all the rest of society, CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

[HALO141]

22. I have worked for such employers before.

My choice was to ignore their policy. If they had ever demanded to search my car or briefcase then I would have declined and probably been fired but that's the decision I made. I do not let others make these sorts of decisions on my behalf. Period. End of story.

[aikoaiko]

23. Two summers ago, guns were permitted to be in locked employee cars on college campuses.

So far no bloodshed has been attributed to such a policy change.

[pipoman]

36. For many employers, having a policy

of not allowing firearms in cars is an attempt to limit liability in case of a workplace shooting. These new laws usually have a civil protection limiting liability under the circumstances of a workplace shooting. For most employers, once they have this immunity from civil liability they no longer have a reason to care if people have a legal firearm in their car.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Personally, I don't see a problem with a secured firearm in a car.

But I think the employer has the right to decide, not the state.

[pipoman]

58. And my point throughout

has been that employers and businesses are subject to many, many rules, regulations and laws which limit their speech, how they manage their property and how they treat their employees, where they can operate, who and what they must or must not allow on their property is no new restriction. The reason these laws are passed is because there is absolutely 0 math or stats to justify prohibiting legally owned firearms in locked cars. It has and will continue to have no statistical significance.

[Starboard Tack]

59. That may be so, but life isn't all about statistics.

No law should force a property owner to allow firearms on his property.

[pipoman]

66. This is about rights

Employers can and do limit the rights of employees while at work. They can't and shouldn't be able to limit their rights while not working. The latter is the effect of not allowing employees to keep their legally possessed guns in their vehicles while at work. Contrary to the beliefs of some here, many who obtain their carry permit do so because of known threats..stalkers, violent neighborhoods, violent ex's, or some other threat. Allowing employers to disallow workers the ability to defend themselves any time they are going to or leaving work could turn out badly for these employees in particular. Again there is no statistical justification for allowing employers to effect this right, only prejudice, feelings and unwarranted fear, therefore they have no justification to disallow employees the ability to defend themselves before and after work.

All that said, we probably will not agree on this 100%. Thanks for your civil discourse. Many of my opinions have been developed by these kinds of conversations on many different topics.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Honestly, if I had any of the concerns you mention, I would do as I please.

What employer is going to search my vehicle? Or have the right to search it? The only way I could see it being a problem is if I were to advertise the fact that I kept a gun in it, which would be pretty stupid. If, as you say, one is under a viable threat, common sense should prevail, regardless of employers' whims, state laws or civil rights. Survival instinct trumps everything.

[PavePusher]

41. Can you cite a single instance where a no-guns-in-cars-in-parking lots law has stopped a criminal...

from commiting a murder or any other crime?

If so, then perhaps the law could be supposed to have a valid function.

If all it does is waste paper, ink, and time and manufacture a new group of potential criminals out of people who intend no harm to others....

IT'S A REALLY BAD FUCKING IDEA.

[Starboard Tack]

55. It may be a bad idea, but it's still the employer's right to keep his property gun free.

I think it's a bad idea to go around toting a gun, but if it's your right, you can exercise it.

[PavePusher]

60. I'd have no problem with that....

if the employer was liable for any harm that came to me due to her/his /its policy. Since I don't see that happening, I'll keep my Rights, thanks.

Remember, with Rights come Responsibilities. I seem to remember you and/or your allies stateing that repeatedly around here.

[Starboard Tack]

65. Correct, but nobody is forcing you to go on his property.

If I invite you into my home and insist you be unarmed, it's your choice to enter or not. Sometimes you just have to take a chance in life, unless you want to live at the range. It's a tough world, I know, but heck you survived the wild streets of Manchester.

[PavePusher]

70. Yeah, who needs a paycheck. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

71. The lucky few who have a job?

Not to mention a car and a gun

[ObamaFTW2012]

51. I'm the boss

and at my place of business, I carry a firearm. I have no problem with my employees being armed, as long as they follow a few basic rules:

1) don't handle your weapon unnecessarily,

2) don't ever bring it into a client's home,

3) don't discuss guns with a client unless they bring it up first, and never argue guns with or in front of a client,

4) don't threaten me with your weapon.


So far it has worked very well. When our schedule allows, I will take a Saturday off with the guys to go out shooting. It's fun for me, and it helps build morale and a sense of "team" with the guys.

I don't see why guns are such a big deal to the handwringers.

[Starboard Tack]

54. That's your choice and your employees are OK with it. What's the problem?

I have no problem with it.

[one-eyed fat man]

73. One teeny weeny question?

How come there don't seem to be any workplace shootings in police stations? They get attacked. The IRA was big on attacking police stations in England when Bobbies were unarmed. Postal shootings didn't happen until after the Postal Service became a "gun free" workplace.

Were postal workers happier when they had guns? Are policemen less likely to become disgruntled former employees?

Or maybe, like the old joke goes, just because they are crazy doesn't mean they are stupid. Perhaps they recognize going on a wild killing spree in revenge is safer when the targets are unable to shoot back?

[Starboard Tack]

75. I don't know where your info comes from, but here's a teeny weeny answer

I recall no attacks on police stations by the IRA or anyone else in England, where bobbies are still not routinely armed. Only part of the UK where the police are routinely armed is in Northern Ireland (Ulster), for obvious reasons.
Policemen in the UK are far less likely to be disgruntled employees. It is an integral part of their training not to allow personal feelings to interfere with the job.
Postal workers, I wouldn't know. I've never met a happy one inside a post office. They all look pretty depressed to me. Can't say as I blame them. Hard to imagine a more soul destroying job than sorting and delivering junk mail all day, except for those exciting moments when they get to handle a parcel for someone who hasn't yet discovered UPS or Fedex. The letter carriers are armed with pepper spray, I think.

[one-eyed fat man]

79. IRA fun and games

I thought about just posting the list between 1970 and now, but relented in case any DU member was still on dial up and wouldn't have the couple of hours it'd take to download one post.

If I went all the way back to the first use of the Thompson submachinegun in combat, 16 June 1921, when a group led by Oscar Traynor, ambushed a train at Claude Road, Drumcondra carrying the West Kent Regiment, wounding three soldiers. the download would be stupendous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1970-1979)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1980-1989)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(1990-1999)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(2000-2010)

Oddly enough, it has been reported that no one who died during "The Troubles" was counted as a gun homicide by the Home Office.

[Starboard Tack]

85. All very fascinating, but I'm not seeing any reference to your statement

"The IRA was big on attacking police stations in England when Bobbies were unarmed."

[cbrer]

81. My Homies...

Not having waded through the thread in it's entirety (my A.D.D. kicked in), I cannot for certain say that this issue wasn't covered, smeared, slathered, or shot up at some point. But here goes.

The point of weapons control in the work place is simply liability. All these moral justifications, and second amendment arguments are well founded and worded. But finally pointless. Companies don't really give a rodents rectum about your safety, except possibly in terms of (loss of) productivity. Lest we forget the nation in which we reside, there are simply too many financial liabilities in death/injury on company property. Lawyers get paid big bucks to make all these fine arguments. But money talks...

PS- Santa carries a Colt National Match Gold Cup .45 ACP

[pipoman]

82. I mentioned this upthread

Liability is the reason many large employers have these rules. Many of these laws, in various states, which allow legally carried weapons in locked cars have limits of liability built into them to protect employers from civil liability in case of a workplace shooting.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Lot of truth to what you say, but it's also about property rights.

Most workplaces are private property and the owner should have the right to allow or disallow firearms on his property.

[petronius]

90. But workers also have privacy and property rights, which are not negated by

the decision to accept a particular job. So this issue, like many others, represents a tension between the rights of employers and those of employees, and in such a balance I give a lot of weight to the worker - the individual - over the corporation.

In general, I think the pendulum has swung too far toward the employer on a lot of fronts, such as drug-screening and health/tobacco-use mandates. I'd like to see some push-back against employers' desires to get involved in the contents of employees' bodies, pockets, or vehicles.

On this specific issue, I think the car door is an appropriate point of division. Employers may choose whether or not to provide parking, but if they do so I don't agree that they should have any interest in the contents of the vehicle, which is the private and personal space of the employee. (Somewhat grandiose analogy: it's like embassies are little pockets of sovereign territory inside another country.)