Guns in the Workplace

RKG said:
Defining and regulating civil relationships amongst citizens is done by acts of the legislature created by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Acts of legislature have been proposed and defeated, or passed (i.e. Oklahoma) and strongly challenged - both based on questions of whether a 2nd A right exists and whether there is a beneficial utility for allowing guns in the workplace.

The problem is separating these two propositions:
1. Guns in the workplace are not a 2nd A right
2. Guns in the workplace are a proven danger necessitating probibitions

Help me think of a way to argue against 2 without argueing against 1 in this and similar cases. Do you think the successful strategy will be to say yup - there is no 2nd A right to have a gun at work, and the employer has every right to prohibit them, but they are really not unsafe and employers should allow them by their own choice? Just as coupled arguements of 2nd A rights and "More Guns, Less Crime" gained Shall-Issue/Unrestricted CCW options in 40 states, decoupling these issues will lose the guns in the workplace issue in as many or more states. Then CCW will become, for most people most of the time, CCW on weekends and days off.

Must one concede, with most employers prohibiting guns at work (including in the parking lot, which reverts to to & from work as well) that we need to expect that most people will have to leave the house every weekday and leave their guns at home?

I'm looking for a stratgey other than the NRA's that is not likely to disarm me from the time I leave the house to drive to work to the time I drive home, make whatever stops I need to on the way and arrive home again. I guess I'm discounting the NRA telling everyone to refuse jobs at where guns are not allowed at work - boycotting making a paycheck won't have much support.

Any thoughts?
 
1. Most of the time, whether an employer prohibits possession of firearms in the workplace or does not will have no effect on the risk that an employee will be injured or killed by another employee wielding a firearm.

2. In a very small fraction of cases, prohibiting firearms in the workplace will pretermit a spontaneous assault by an unbalance but armed employee, and thus enhance workplace safety.

3. In an equally small fraction of cases, prohibiting firearms in the workplace will pretermit a reasonable employee from terminating an assault (whether spontaneous or planned) by some other employee, thus limiting the damage done and promoting safety.

4. Since no one in the near term will ever be able to evaluate these competing influences empirically, employers will make their decisions based on emotion. As a result, most will opt for a prohibition.

5. This will change, if at all, only if there is an incident where an armed employee uses his weapon to terminate something and is widely proclaimed in the media to have been a hero who saved lives. Don't hold your breath.

6. Faced with a prohibition, you have the following choices:

A) Resign. (I've actually done this once.)

B) Make arrangements to permit you to carry to and from, but without violating the policy. (I've also actually done this once.)

C) Leave the guns at home.

D) Cheat and hope you don't get caught.

I tend to regard C) and D) categorically unacceptable, but others may disagree.
 
RKG said:
1. Most of the time, whether an employer prohibits possession of firearms in the workplace or does not will have no effect on the risk that an employee will be injured or killed by another employee wielding a firearm.

2. In a very small fraction of cases, prohibiting firearms in the workplace will permit a spontaneous assault by an unbalance but armed employee, and thus enhance workplace safety.

3. In an equally small fraction of cases, prohibiting firearms in the workplace will permit a reasonable employee from terminating an assault (whether spontaneous or planned) by some other employee, thus limiting the damage done and promoting safety.

4. Since no one in the near term will ever be able to evaluate these competing influences empirically, employers will make their decisions based on emotion. As a result, most will opt for a prohibition.

5. This will change, if at all, only if there is an incident where an armed employee uses his weapon to terminate something and is widely proclaimed in the media to have been a hero who saved lives. Don't hold your breath.

6. Faced with a prohibition, you have the following choices:

A) Resign. (I've actually done this once.)

B) Make arrangements to permit you to carry to and from, but without violating the policy. (I've also actually done this once.)

C) Leave the guns at home.

D) Cheat and hope you don't get caught.

I tend to regard C) and D) categorically unacceptable, but others may disagree.
Click to expand...

My preferences would tend toward either (A) or (D). As to point #5, I agree that there's essentially no chance of the mainstream media publicizing a successful defense with a firearm in the workplace is about the same as their publicizing any other such successful defense, i.e. nil. There is, however, an alternative an somewhat more likely possibility. A properly licensed and well trained individual could be killed or seriously injured in a workplace shooting, having complied with a "no guns" policy. They or their surviving spouse could then sue the company for creating a hazardous workplace by prohibiting self defense. While the law might tend strongly toward the employer, we all know that civil suits are very often much more the product of aggressive legal representation and juries that feel sorry for plaintiffs with whom they might identify. Whether or not such a suit was ultimately successful at the appeal level would be largely irrelevant, since it's the initial verdict the gets all the publicity. And we can all be fairly certain that if a trial jury were to find, e.g., Weyerhauser, liable for $2.5 million in actual and $250 million in punitive damages, the media would be talking about it for a long time. [That the first appeal reduced the award to $250 actual and zero punitive would be largely overlooked, as was the reduction in the McDonald's coffee case.]

Ken
 
RKG said:
1. Most of the time, whether an employer prohibits possession of firearms in the workplace or does not will have no effect on the risk that an employee will be injured or killed by another employee wielding a firearm.

2. In a very small fraction of cases, prohibiting firearms in the workplace will pretermit a spontaneous assault by an unbalance but armed employee, and thus enhance workplace safety.

3. In an equally small fraction of cases, prohibiting firearms in the workplace will pretermit a reasonable employee from terminating an assault (whether spontaneous or planned) by some other employee, thus limiting the damage done and promoting safety.

4. Since no one in the near term will ever be able to evaluate these competing influences empirically, employers will make their decisions based on emotion. As a result, most will opt for a prohibition.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, authors like Loomis claim to have addressed 1-4 above, with medical, business and academic communities accepting as fact that allowing guns in the workplace increases the risk of a fatal employee shooting 3- to 7-fold. This is the proof offerred by the media to create fear of guns in the workplace and to block pro-workplace CCW legislative action. I know of no research being conducted to prove the contrary, and I've been asking around.

RKG said:
5. This will change, if at all, only if there is an incident where an armed employee uses his weapon to terminate something and is widely proclaimed in the media to have been a hero who saved lives. Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

The many cases where guns have saved lives are usually supressed in the media, as Lott demonstrated. It's very easy to claim mass killings take place (many dead victim bodies to count) but very hard to claim mass killings were prevented (only one perpetrator body to count). So yes, I'm not holding my breath.

RKG said:
6. Faced with a prohibition, you have the following choices:

A) Resign. (I've actually done this once.)

B) Make arrangements to permit you to carry to and from, but without violating the policy. (I've also actually done this once.)

C) Leave the guns at home.

D) Cheat and hope you don't get caught.

I tend to regard C) and D) categorically unacceptable, but others may disagree.
Click to expand...

And I'll offer another:

E) Support the NRA's efforts to gain legal protections for the option to carry guns to & from (if not actually in) the workplace.

I tend to regard A) and B) as alternatives not practical for the majority of those who carry concealed guns, which will drive them toward C) (at risk of life & limb) or D) (at risk of jobs loss and legal action).

I'm hoping members of the firearms community who find E) disagreeable will not publically speak out against the effort, even if they find reasons (which I can recognize have some validity) not to support the effort. I'm looking for information on states where the NRA lost their battle to influence legislatures to understand what position, if any, the citizen in the streets presented, pro or con. If we are indeed divided, then we surely will fall.
 
Last edited:
MagnumMike said:
Here we go again! This ass will give them just another reason to restrict guns. To bad there was nobody there CCW to stop him.
Click to expand...

Only a moron would think that additional restrictions are going to curb this violence.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That is the whole premise of gun control.

If this shooting reinforces anything, it reinforces that prohibiting guns in the workplace makes people less safe, not more.
 
Jose said:
If this shooting reinforces anything, it reinforces that prohibiting guns in the workplace makes people less safe, not more.
Click to expand...

Quite true. The one thing that all of these recent shootings have in common is that they happened at places where guns were (and probably still are) prohibited.

When was the last shooting at an NRA convention, gun show, or sportsmans club meeting?
 
Last edited:
Jose said:
Only a moron would think that additional restrictions are going to curb this violence.
Click to expand...

Well who do u think is making these kind of laws, Morons!

Right or wrong they are only going to see this as another reason to restrict guns not let more people protect themselves.

Thats why you almost never see good CCW stories making the big headlines, it does not support their cause.
 
KMaurer said:
My preferences would tend toward either (A) or (D). As to point #5, I agree that there's essentially no chance of the mainstream media publicizing a successful defense with a firearm in the workplace is about the same as their publicizing any other such successful defense, i.e. nil. There is, however, an alternative an somewhat more likely possibility. A properly licensed and well trained individual could be killed or seriously injured in a workplace shooting, having complied with a "no guns" policy. They or their surviving spouse could then sue the company for creating a hazardous workplace by prohibiting self defense. While the law might tend strongly toward the employer, we all know that civil suits are very often much more the product of aggressive legal representation and juries that feel sorry for plaintiffs with whom they might identify. Whether or not such a suit was ultimately successful at the appeal level would be largely irrelevant, since it's the initial verdict the gets all the publicity. And we can all be fairly certain that if a trial jury were to find, e.g., Weyerhauser, liable for $2.5 million in actual and $250 million in punitive damages, the media would be talking about it for a long time. [That the first appeal reduced the award to $250 actual and zero punitive would be largely overlooked, as was the reduction in the McDonald's coffee case.]

Ken
Click to expand...


But Ken, if we agree that the probability of such a suit prevailing is low -- besides the legal question of duty, there are huge if not insurmountable issues of causation, are there not? -- then where are you going to find either (a) a contingency fee lawyer who will take the case or (b) a client with enough money to waste to hire an hour time charge lawyer to do so?

As you and I know better than most, "aggressive legal representation" doesn't come cheap.
 
EddieCoyle said:
Quite true. The one thing that all of these recent shootings have in common is that they happened at places where guns were (and probably still are) prohibited.

When was the last shooting at an NRA convention, gun show, or sportsmans club meeting?
Click to expand...

This observation gives me a chuckle and reminds me of an incident some years ago.

There is in Boston, on the Roxbury/South Boston line, an eatery known as the Victory Diner (a/k/a "the Vic"). It just so happens to be close to Ed. Everett Square (the intersection of Mass. Ave, Columbia Road and Boston Ave.), which happens to be the one place in Boston that has the lowest aggregate response time to the rest of the city.

As a result, it is a popular congregation venue for folks with citywide jurisdiction and response obligations.

Well, one night some dude -- he had to be from New Jersey, because a local would have known better -- walks into the Vic, sticks a gun in the face of the cashier (the then owner's son), and demands money. There is a pause, and then the hapless robber's attention is drawn the sound of several dozen hammers being cocked behind him.

Needless to say he dropped his piece (and some other stuff) on the floor.
 
RKG said:
This observation gives me a chuckle and reminds me of an incident some years ago.

There is in Boston, on the Roxbury/South Boston line, an eatery known as the Victory Diner (a/k/a "the Vic"). It just so happens to be close to Ed. Everett Square (the intersection of Mass. Ave, Columbia Road and Boston Ave.), which happens to be the one place in Boston that has the lowest aggregate response time to the rest of the city.

As a result, it is a popular congregation venue for folks with citywide jurisdiction and response obligations.

Well, one night some dude -- he had to be from New Jersey, because a local would have known better -- walks into the Vic, sticks a gun in the face of the cashier (the then owner's son), and demands money. There is a pause, and then the hapless robber's attention is drawn the sound of several dozen hammers being cocked behind him.

Needless to say he dropped his piece (and some other stuff) on the floor.
Click to expand...

Is this a true story??? I like it! My Sigs or Glocks or 1911 or whatever wouldn't have the same effect. Maybe I should carry a 686. [wink]
 
RKG said:
But Ken, if we agree that the probability of such a suit prevailing is low -- besides the legal question of duty, there are huge if not insurmountable issues of causation, are there not? -- then where are you going to find either (a) a contingency fee lawyer who will take the case or (b) a client with enough money to waste to hire an hour time charge lawyer to do so?

As you and I know better than most, "aggressive legal representation" doesn't come cheap.
Click to expand...
There is an easier way around this. Make it illegal for employers to prohibit employees from keeping firearms in their vehicles at work.

Kentuckians figured it out.
 
RKG said:
Well, one night some dude -- he had to be from New Jersey, because a local would have known better -- walks into the Vic, sticks a gun in the face of the cashier (the then owner's son), and demands money. There is a pause, and then the hapless robber's attention is drawn the sound of several dozen hammers being cocked behind him.

Needless to say he dropped his piece (and some other stuff) on the floor.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the idiot who tried to rob a Washington State gun store several years ago... it had several customers, INCLUDING A COUPLE OF COPS, in the store at the time.
 
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBTU5T5TZE.html

"AFL-CIO Sides With NRA In Backing Employee Gun Rights
By KEVIN BEGOS The Tampa Tribune
Published: Mar 28, 2007

TALLAHASSEE - The issue was whether employees have the right to keep guns in their cars at work, and the National Rifle Association got help from an unexpected ally at a committee hearing Tuesday: the AFL-CIO labor union.

The business community strongly opposes the new NRA-supported legislation, but that's no surprise, said AFL-CIO spokesman Rich Templin, who said big businesswants sweeping new property rights.

"They're seeking to put the rights of dirt over the rights of people," Templin said. "They're seeking to say that the rights of Floridians stop at the boundaries of our property. People should not have to lose their rights simply to keep a job." Templin said the labor group was motivated by situations in other states in which workers were fired for having union material in cars.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce and other business groups said the bill attacks their right to regulate behavior on private property. The bill sponsor is Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, and an identical House bill is sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala. Peaden said the right to bear arms is the core issue in the bill.

Chamber Executive Director Mark Wilson said the bill is the biggest assault on private property rights the Legislature has been asked to consider. He noted that for many years his group and the NRA were partners in fighting to limit government power. "When the NRA sides with labor unions for bigger government, we have a problem," Wilson said.

Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Crystal River and Criminal Justice committee chairwoman, said businesses aren't the only ones with property rights. "I think there's two property rights," Argenziano said, referring to the owner of a car and the owner of a parking lot. "I think it's a great bill."

The committee voted 7-1 to approve Peaden's bill, but with an amendment that requires the guns or other private material to be kept out of sight in the car. The vote doesn't guarantee the bill will pass. Last year a similar bill passed initial committee stops, but it stalled later and was not brought to a full floor vote."


"Joining the NRA in support of the measure, however, were the AFL-CIO labor union and a trade group for trial lawyers."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...0,6474382.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state


OK - now were not just talking about employers banning guns in your car at work, we're talking bans on "Union Materials". If that doesn't work, did you know a company could ban American Flags, The Bible as well as Mom & Apple Pie?

Whoever said NRA members are just a bunch of fat, beer-drinkin', gun-totin' Southern Bubbas forgot to say they were very clever...but those trial lawyers worry me - what's up with that?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Up Next - Going after Police Trade-In guns.
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
MAGA99
MAGA99
Guns mailed into Worcester
Replies
4
Views
507
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
who hunts the big bears in the u.s. and canada?
Replies
26
Views
346
chris_1001
chris_1001
Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
14
Views
608
houdini
houdini
About that “cleaning guns” thing.
Replies
4
Views
312
allen-1
allen-1
Back
Top Bottom