-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Guns in the Workplace
- Thread starter MaverickNH
- Start date
MaverickNH
NES Member
Keeping up the fire - my letter back to the author:
"Dear Dr. Loomis,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my message. A Google of the internet does indeed show that your 2005 publication has been taken up by parties on both sides of the gun debate, with varying degrees of misrepresentation. On the anti-gun side, the paper is most often cited accurately, but mingled in amongst other text that leads one to picture employees gunning down the boss and other employees a the brick-and-mortar workplace (office, workshop, warehouse, etc.) rather than the all-to-common news report of a cabbie, pizza driver or “Stop & Rob” convenience store robbery turned deadly. This is the misrepresentation that I find most disquieting.
I am not surprised that > 80% of the deaths reported in your study were perpetrated using guns – a much lesser figure would have cast doubt on the validity of the data, as guns are the primary mode of homicide in the US. You seem to have taken pains to gather the most complete, accurate and balanced data set possible - much better than most, by a long shot. In the end, the data are what they are, as they say.
I think you make a useful point in the concluding lines of your 2005 paper: “These findings bear directly on policy for workplace safety. In light of the evidence, it is reasonable to question the costs and benefits of policies permitting firearms in the workplace.”
Your present work focuses on the potential costs of permitting firearms in the workplace – do any of your data reflect on the potential benefits? In assessing a rcost/benefit ratio, both sides of the equation are necessary.
While it appears the initial motive for gathering the dataset was driven by assessing homicide determinants and the efficacy of safety measures, perhaps there are some questions asked that would reveal benefits. Were any questions of the controls directed toward employee use of a weapon in an act of self-defense, either in transit to, from, or at the workplace? I ask about transit, as a prohibition of guns on workplace premises would entail a prohibition of carry to and from work, including in the vehicle, which is the workplace for cabbies and food delivery drivers. With many of the test cases detailed by proxies, this question may be of lesser utility (especially where the sole employee is dead).
As the 51mo study period (1/1/94 – 3/31/98) included 23mo before and 28mo after NC enacted Right to Carry legislation 12/1/95, you might find a near 50/50 mix of before/after data (based on 28 cases in each of 1994 and 1995, as reported in your 2001 AJE paper). NC state data http://www.ncgccd.org/pubs/systats/spring97.pdf
indicates that over 20,000 CCW permits were granted in less than a year following enactment, so the ramp-up seems to have been relatively sharp. More recent data shows the trend has continued, with further increases in CCW permits issued by NC http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/other/conceal/Sept302004stats.pdf. Analysis using such figures might be another way to understand how guns in the workplace modulate worker safety. As the number of Shall-Issue/Unrestricted CCW states has increased from 30 in 1997 to 38 in 2006, this would be a very relevant comparison.
Further, as NC law allows for signage prohibiting guns on the premises “…where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises.”, should your dataset include data on such signage before and after enactment of NC’s CCW laws, that would an interesting analysis as well. Elsewhere, I have seen taxis with the “No Guns” stickers, so presumably even some cases with no brick-and-mortar worksite scene of shooting could be analyzed. While I did not find an assessment of such signage in your 2002 JAMA paper, do you have such data available? To that question, is your dataset publicly available or available on request?
Curiously, the number of fatal work injuries has drop 12.3% in the most recent 4 years of BLS data in comparison to the 1994-1997 BLS data – your study period. The rate per 100,000 has dropped from ~5 to ~4. Homicides have dropped from 2nd place to 4th place. BLS data http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0004.pdf
show the decline in homicides accounts for this drop in fatality rate, even offsetting rises in other categories. In NC, 2005 BLS data indicate worker shooting homicides rank 5th for cause of death.
One just has to wonder what significant changes have lead to a reduction in the ranking of firearms-related worker homicide in the last ten years, especially given the rise in CCW rates over that period. Indeed, the murder rate in NC has dropped from a range of 8-11 in the 1994-1997 study years to 6-7 in the most recent years reported (2002-2005).
Certainly the hypothesis proposed by John Lott, that of “More Guns, Less Crime”, is a subject of debate almost 10 years since his original proposals and 1998 book, even if the editor of the NY Times article considers guns-in-the-workplace a settled matter. If and how such an effect, as Lott proposes, might help explain the apparent data shift in NC would be a telling analysis.
Based on a review of your broad publication record, it’s clear that you make efforts to let data tell the story, even if you might have personal opinions (as we all do) on the wide range of matters your work addresses. As a scientist myself, I try to let data guide my decisions, even if I am troubled by data that challenges my expectations and current views of the world. I’ll look forward to following your work on this topic.
I note that Nevada flipped to Shall-Issue at about the same time as NC, although the reported CCW rate is almost half of NC (which may not account for the more frequent open-carry I have observed in the outback). I hope you are enjoying your new surroundings."
"Dear Dr. Loomis,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my message. A Google of the internet does indeed show that your 2005 publication has been taken up by parties on both sides of the gun debate, with varying degrees of misrepresentation. On the anti-gun side, the paper is most often cited accurately, but mingled in amongst other text that leads one to picture employees gunning down the boss and other employees a the brick-and-mortar workplace (office, workshop, warehouse, etc.) rather than the all-to-common news report of a cabbie, pizza driver or “Stop & Rob” convenience store robbery turned deadly. This is the misrepresentation that I find most disquieting.
I am not surprised that > 80% of the deaths reported in your study were perpetrated using guns – a much lesser figure would have cast doubt on the validity of the data, as guns are the primary mode of homicide in the US. You seem to have taken pains to gather the most complete, accurate and balanced data set possible - much better than most, by a long shot. In the end, the data are what they are, as they say.
I think you make a useful point in the concluding lines of your 2005 paper: “These findings bear directly on policy for workplace safety. In light of the evidence, it is reasonable to question the costs and benefits of policies permitting firearms in the workplace.”
Your present work focuses on the potential costs of permitting firearms in the workplace – do any of your data reflect on the potential benefits? In assessing a rcost/benefit ratio, both sides of the equation are necessary.
While it appears the initial motive for gathering the dataset was driven by assessing homicide determinants and the efficacy of safety measures, perhaps there are some questions asked that would reveal benefits. Were any questions of the controls directed toward employee use of a weapon in an act of self-defense, either in transit to, from, or at the workplace? I ask about transit, as a prohibition of guns on workplace premises would entail a prohibition of carry to and from work, including in the vehicle, which is the workplace for cabbies and food delivery drivers. With many of the test cases detailed by proxies, this question may be of lesser utility (especially where the sole employee is dead).
As the 51mo study period (1/1/94 – 3/31/98) included 23mo before and 28mo after NC enacted Right to Carry legislation 12/1/95, you might find a near 50/50 mix of before/after data (based on 28 cases in each of 1994 and 1995, as reported in your 2001 AJE paper). NC state data http://www.ncgccd.org/pubs/systats/spring97.pdf
indicates that over 20,000 CCW permits were granted in less than a year following enactment, so the ramp-up seems to have been relatively sharp. More recent data shows the trend has continued, with further increases in CCW permits issued by NC http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/other/conceal/Sept302004stats.pdf. Analysis using such figures might be another way to understand how guns in the workplace modulate worker safety. As the number of Shall-Issue/Unrestricted CCW states has increased from 30 in 1997 to 38 in 2006, this would be a very relevant comparison.
Further, as NC law allows for signage prohibiting guns on the premises “…where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises.”, should your dataset include data on such signage before and after enactment of NC’s CCW laws, that would an interesting analysis as well. Elsewhere, I have seen taxis with the “No Guns” stickers, so presumably even some cases with no brick-and-mortar worksite scene of shooting could be analyzed. While I did not find an assessment of such signage in your 2002 JAMA paper, do you have such data available? To that question, is your dataset publicly available or available on request?
Curiously, the number of fatal work injuries has drop 12.3% in the most recent 4 years of BLS data in comparison to the 1994-1997 BLS data – your study period. The rate per 100,000 has dropped from ~5 to ~4. Homicides have dropped from 2nd place to 4th place. BLS data http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0004.pdf
show the decline in homicides accounts for this drop in fatality rate, even offsetting rises in other categories. In NC, 2005 BLS data indicate worker shooting homicides rank 5th for cause of death.
One just has to wonder what significant changes have lead to a reduction in the ranking of firearms-related worker homicide in the last ten years, especially given the rise in CCW rates over that period. Indeed, the murder rate in NC has dropped from a range of 8-11 in the 1994-1997 study years to 6-7 in the most recent years reported (2002-2005).
Certainly the hypothesis proposed by John Lott, that of “More Guns, Less Crime”, is a subject of debate almost 10 years since his original proposals and 1998 book, even if the editor of the NY Times article considers guns-in-the-workplace a settled matter. If and how such an effect, as Lott proposes, might help explain the apparent data shift in NC would be a telling analysis.
Based on a review of your broad publication record, it’s clear that you make efforts to let data tell the story, even if you might have personal opinions (as we all do) on the wide range of matters your work addresses. As a scientist myself, I try to let data guide my decisions, even if I am troubled by data that challenges my expectations and current views of the world. I’ll look forward to following your work on this topic.
I note that Nevada flipped to Shall-Issue at about the same time as NC, although the reported CCW rate is almost half of NC (which may not account for the more frequent open-carry I have observed in the outback). I hope you are enjoying your new surroundings."
MaverickNH
NES Member
... and look at how the Brits wrote up the article in the British Medical Journal http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/330/7499/1043
"Workers in petrol stations, grocery stores, and other locations who take weapons with them to work are three to seven times as likely to be murdered at work than workers in equivalent jobs in which weapons are prohibited, a study has found (American Journal of Public Health 2005;95:6-8)"
Nowhere did the AJPH paper say the victims actually had guns when the were killed. The author actually disclaimed knowledge of if and when the guns were at the workplace and whether they were the deceased emplyees' guns or those of an external attacker. In fact, most killed workers were solitary workers who were robbed at gunpoint and shot dead in companies that did not ban CCW of firearms. Are we to suppose they all were robbed by unarmed thugs who took their guns and killed them with their own guns? As noted by others, "policies allowing guns" are really either no policies or policies not referring to guns. Having excluded police and military from their study, one would be hardpressed to find any company that specifically states, in their policies, that guns are allowed at work.
The article also cites statistics from 10 years ago as though they were today's homicide rates, even though rates have declines (post above) and staes with CCW have gone up.
The medical establishment is very willing to negligently fabricate misinterpretations of very limited data to "prove" guns in the workplace result in employees shot dead. To see this in the most respected British medical journal is disgusting.
The author of the BMJ article, Janice Hopkins Tanne, is supposedly an award-winning science writer. I wrote a scathing (but civilized) letter to BMJ - let's see if it gets posted.
"Workers in petrol stations, grocery stores, and other locations who take weapons with them to work are three to seven times as likely to be murdered at work than workers in equivalent jobs in which weapons are prohibited, a study has found (American Journal of Public Health 2005;95:6-8)"
Nowhere did the AJPH paper say the victims actually had guns when the were killed. The author actually disclaimed knowledge of if and when the guns were at the workplace and whether they were the deceased emplyees' guns or those of an external attacker. In fact, most killed workers were solitary workers who were robbed at gunpoint and shot dead in companies that did not ban CCW of firearms. Are we to suppose they all were robbed by unarmed thugs who took their guns and killed them with their own guns? As noted by others, "policies allowing guns" are really either no policies or policies not referring to guns. Having excluded police and military from their study, one would be hardpressed to find any company that specifically states, in their policies, that guns are allowed at work.
The article also cites statistics from 10 years ago as though they were today's homicide rates, even though rates have declines (post above) and staes with CCW have gone up.
The medical establishment is very willing to negligently fabricate misinterpretations of very limited data to "prove" guns in the workplace result in employees shot dead. To see this in the most respected British medical journal is disgusting.
The author of the BMJ article, Janice Hopkins Tanne, is supposedly an award-winning science writer. I wrote a scathing (but civilized) letter to BMJ - let's see if it gets posted.
MaverickNH
NES Member
If you are speaking of the worker homicide rates, those are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on their web site.
If you are speaking of the "three to seven times as likely to be murdered at work" statistic, that came from the Loomis article (American Journal of Public Health 2005;95:6-8). They used North Carolina data from the Medical Examiner's office to ID workplace shootings, and followed up with phone interviews of the companies. In 41% of the interviews, they had to interview reporting police as the company either refused the interview or the one-man company was dead. They then compared company gun policies of those 105 cases to twice as many random companies chosen to match industry type.
With 57% of the employee deaths ocurring during robberies, it's clear that they were dealing with the usual targets of city crime (cabbies, pizza delivery drivers, "Stop & Rob" convenience stores) rather than blue-collar shops and white-collar offices.
There are just not enough of those "man shoots boss and co-workers" events to do a study, so they had to go after the tragic but typical shootings that happen downtown on a Saturday night.
Let's start by defining a "right." A "right" is the legal power to do something or not do something without being sanctioned for doing it or not doing it. A "right" is effectively a limitation on the power of someone else to do something.
What you always have to ask is, "right against whom?"
For instance: I own a piece of land called Blackacre. I lease it to you. Next to Blackacre is another parcel, owned by someone else, called Whiteacre.
By virtue of the lease, you have the right to enter Blackacre. Your friend Fred does not (unless you sublease it to him). You do not have the right to enter Whiteacre. If you do enter Whiteacre, you may well have committed a trespass, but you have not violated Whiteacre's owner's 4th Amendment rights.
The "rights" in the first nine amendments to the United States Constitution are "rights" against the government, specifically, the federal government -- or, more precisely, they are limitations upon the power of the federal government to enact and enforce certain statutory provisions. So, for instance, the 1st Amendment means that you can stand up on the sidewalk and yell, "George Bush is an idiot," and the government cannot put you in jail for saying that. (Back in the day, when American colonists stood on the sidewalk and yelled "King George is an idiot," they were put in jail for saying that.) However, if Joe Schmoe, who likes George Bush, walks up and stuffs a sock in your mouth to shut you up, he has not violated your 1st Amendment rights. (He may, however, have committed an assault.)
The 4th Amendment prohibits the government from making an "unreasonable" search of your person or abode, where "unreasonable" means more or less without a search warrant issued by a judicial magistrate. If a police officer enters your house and, without a warrant, searches your dresser drawer for fraudulent lottery tickets, he has probably violated your 4th Amendment "rights." If Joe Schmoe (this fellow gets around) does the same thing looking for your cash, he has probably committed a robbery, but not a 4th Amendment violation.
Depending on how it is read, the 2d Amendment provides that the government may not unreasonably interfere with one's individual right to keep and bear arms. If the government enacts a statute saying no one may keep a pistol in their house, it has ex hypothesi committed a 2d Amendment violation. If our pal Joe breaks into your house and steals your pistol he has not. And if a more moderate Joe declares that you may not enter his property bearing a pistol, he has not committed a 2d Amendment violation.
Note that none of this has anything to do with the distinction, at issue in Parker v. District of Columbia, between "individual" rights and "collective" rights.
Not true-you choose that it is not an option. Understandably so-you make that career choice. But I have to ask-If something of a Columbine type situation went down could you live with yourself for not having broken the rules ?
No flaming-just a question.
Not trying to speak for Executive, but I have the same dilemma...(I work
for something the state would consider a "school") The problem is that some
of us like our jobs and we just have to cope with whatever restrictions our
employer or the state puts in front of us. In this particular case, it's worse t
han usual because MA state law is applicable.. so its not just a matter of
say, carrying against "policy."
The only real way I can carry on the job and get away with it is if I do
the self-employed thing full time... and having done that before I'm not quite
ready to go back to that yet. I will agree that the situation sucks, (as
I certainly don't agree with the way the law is set up) but we have to play
the hand that we're dealt sometimes.
-Mike
I work at University, so I'm under the same prohibition. I look at it a different way.
What are the chances of such an event occurring at my place of work? Quite low.
What's far, far more likely is that I would get made -- someone bumps into me, I drop it in the mens room, a university cop in the lobby notices the bulge in my clothes, etc. The result is not just that I'd lose probably the best job I've ever had (with a 401k AND a pension), but that I'd be arrested, get charged and convicted of a felony, spend time in jail, possibly lose my home. Someone of my slight stature would likely not do well in jail. Once I got out I'd have one heck of a time getting a similar well-paid job. And I'd never be able to legally own a firearm again.
Do I like that I can't carry? No. But you can't always get what you want.
kevin9
NES Member
At face value:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Actually it says the right may not be infringed upon, but unlike the 1st and 4th does not limit that infringement to the government. The 1st specifically says "Congress" and the 4th talks about search and seizure without warrants which is clearly a governmental function(v.s. personal theft).
Agreed
This is a bit of a red herring. While I agree that individuals can bar firearms from their property we are talking about companies here. As I recall corporations do not have Constitution rights in the way that individuals do. If they did then they could practice many forms of discrimination as part of their "private property". That is clearly not the case.
Furthermore, there is still the issue of the "Constitutional state" of the interior of ones private vehicle. Is it considered private property? Is it to be considered analogous to ones abode? Does one give up ownership of the interior of ones car if they drive on private property? Is it not reasonable that if a company consents to allowing one to bring their private vehicle onto their property that they are consenting to the private legal status of the interior thereof, assuming the contents are legal?
Kevin- the thing is though, WRT discrimination and all that... most of that
kind of law was established "out of band" and not so much within the
purview of constitutional law. EG- things like sexual harrassment,
property rights (eg, creation of IP while working for somoene) etc... I've
never heard of any of these claims being made legally on a constitutional
basis.
FWIW, I do agree with many of the other's assertions in this thread- I
believe that it is unfair for some company to be able to regulate wether or
not I can store a gun in my vehicle. That being said, I think the
initiative to "fix" this problem is more of an "employee rights" thing than it is
a question of the constitution. The constitution was designed primarily
to defend against the abuses of government, at least from what I
see of it.
However, playing devils advocate here for a minute... there is one wildcard in
the whole thing- if one believes that these rights are truely bestowed by the "creator"
- is it then suitable to think that the creator would only have limited the scope
of those rights to government? I will say from a practical sense the courts only see
the constitution as being effectual upon governments but if someone is a full blown believer
that the rights are bestowed by a creator of some sort, that "entity" probably would not
have limited it's scope to only being applicable to the government- and then they would treat
the founders applicability of those rights to the goverment as only being a formality... EG;
at the time the government was the target because it was "the great opressor" of sorts.
I realize a lot of this is going out on a limb, but I'm sure someone has likely come up with a
similar theory before.
-Mike
Last try:
1. The private employer cannot violate anyone's rights under the 2d Amendment. Like it or not, that is the law.
2. Corporations have exactly the same constitutional property rights as individuals.
3. Whatever one's property rights (or expectations of privacy) in the interior of an automobile, one is perfectly capable of consenting to any employer's right to search the automobile whilst it is on the employer's property, as a condition of continued employment.
I'm disappointed that nobody addressed my extension of this discussion! ![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Back when I worked for DEC (who had an iron-clad NO WEAPONS policy), I owned guns and I also was authorized to work at home sometimes 1 day a week and sometimes more or less.
I see a small parallel between what I posted (repeated below) and the issue of disallowing employees to leave guns in their cars while at work. What I bolded and made Red is the key . . . if they forbid firearms ANYWHERE you are conducting company business as part of their policy??
Anyone want to tackle this??
Back when I worked for DEC (who had an iron-clad NO WEAPONS policy), I owned guns and I also was authorized to work at home sometimes 1 day a week and sometimes more or less.
I see a small parallel between what I posted (repeated below) and the issue of disallowing employees to leave guns in their cars while at work. What I bolded and made Red is the key . . . if they forbid firearms ANYWHERE you are conducting company business as part of their policy??
Anyone want to tackle this??
Last edited:
I'm disappointed that nobody addressed my extension of this discussion!
Back when I worked for DEC (who had an iron-clad NO WEAPONS policy), I owned guns and I also was authorized to work at home sometimes 1 day a week and sometimes more or less.
I see a small parallel between what I posted (repeated below) and the issue of disallowing employees to leave guns in their cars while at work. What I bolded and made Red is the key . . . if they forbid firearms ANYWHERE you are conducting company business as part of their policy??
Anyone want to tackle this??
Len, it sounds like it would make for an interesting court battle...
Something along the lines of those companies that say they will not hire
smokers, etc. Those same companies (by the type of policy you
mention) have just written a rule stating that they basically don't
permit gun owners.... so I guess on the front of it all, they could
probably get away with axing someone that worked from home who
owns firearms.
-Mike
MaverickNH
NES Member
I once had to sign one of those 10-page leases for an apartment in a large complex that had a section saying I waived my right to trial by jury. When I asked a lawyer about that he said it would never hold up in court, as one can't waive such a right as part of a contract. It was free advice, so I can't assume it to be worth more than I paid for it. But if true, maybe the same notion applies to the 2ndA?
I continue to ask myself, if I carry at work when the policy is no weapons in the workplace or during the conduct of company business, am I committing an illegal, unethical and immoral act? I'm fine with the first (assuming I avoid getting caught), but it seems some are argueing that I'm definitely harming the property rights of the company. Again, if I'm harming another by commission of an unethical and immoral act, but can't figure out who I've harmed (a corporate entity), did I only do something illegal but not inherently "bad, wrong and unjust"?
pdm
NES Member
I'm disappointed that nobody addressed my extension of this discussion!
Back when I worked for DEC (who had an iron-clad NO WEAPONS policy), I owned guns and I also was authorized to work at home sometimes 1 day a week and sometimes more or less.
I see a small parallel between what I posted (repeated below) and the issue of disallowing employees to leave guns in their cars while at work. What I bolded and made Red is the key . . . if they forbid firearms ANYWHERE you are conducting company business as part of their policy??
Anyone want to tackle this??
DEC's successors have the same no weapons policy -- makes getting range time after work a pain in the ass. If they fire me for stuff that I have at home, well, I'm sure there's a lawyer or two here that would like to take that kind of case.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
I don't think their rights extend beyond their own real property, though.
MaverickNH
NES Member
"Connecticut is one of 29 states that prohibit employers from discriminating against those who use tobacco products outside of the workplace. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-40s."
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=750
I don't thinks such a case has hit SCOTUS yet, but it appears to be majority practice to prevent an employer from firing individuals for personal practices outside the workplace. I have no doubt that what some probably call "the right to smoke", supported by Big Tobacco, gets more support than 2ndA RKBA. The NRA claims only 4 million members while tobacco has 60 million addicts.
This may speak to LenS's point above as well. But it's a Catch 22 - say you carry during business conducted off your company workplace and a client company ejects you for violating their no-weapons policy (which you were not informed of, as you didn't get an employee manual as a consultant/vendor). Your company can fire you "for cause" or "at will", depending on how they want to play it, for breaking company policy or for inappropriate actions adversely effecting client relations. If your company doesn't have a no-weapons policy, but those in control don't like guns, they can just fire you for the latter reason.
I'm giving the question of a weapons ban on physical premises some thought, as it's not straight-forward, but I'm seeing prohibitions off-premises by employee agreement/policy as way too much intrusion on RKBA.
DEC's successors have the same no weapons policy -- makes getting range time after work a pain in the ass. If they fire me for stuff that I have at home, well, I'm sure there's a lawyer or two here that would like to take that kind of case.
Keep in mind, my scenario (played out in millions of homes/week) is that I was doing company business (putting in a full workday) from my "home office" on company time. If that home office has guns in it, and the company policy is "no guns", do they have a right to discipline (terminate) an employee?
If I spent my 45-50 hrs/week working strictly on the company site, (even in MA) I don't think any judge would say that they could dictate what I had at home. However, if I build a "home office", work there during normal working hours and am authorized to do so, what then are the "company's rights" to make policy about my home office? BTW: DEC paid for the installation and monthly fees for a 2nd phone line in my home office for ~10 years (we only had dial-up back in those days).
TY43215
NES Member
No one I have worked for in the last 30 years has restricted my carry with the exception of one employer that specified in writing I could only carry one handgun. I tried to argue the point but lost out.
My current boss allows me to carry wherever and whenever I want. He can be a wonderful man at times but very demanding at others. All in all I like him.![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
He even gave me today off.
Regards,\\
PS Currently self employed and will be until I die
My current boss allows me to carry wherever and whenever I want. He can be a wonderful man at times but very demanding at others. All in all I like him.
He even gave me today off.Regards,\\
PS Currently self employed and will be until I die
pdm
NES Member
My guess is that the answer would be no. The company policy today, which is probably very similar to DEC's in the past, explicitly states that firearms are only disallowed on company property, even the parking lot. There's no mention of the employee's home. There is an exception, if security blesses it, you can have it. That's a joke, since the security guards here can't even manage harsh language effectively.
kevin9
NES Member
So say you. I disagree. Please cite proof.
This statement is patently and provable false. Check out this article and the references therein For example,
"In 1906, Hale v. Henkel established that corporations have some level of Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (although as discussed later, it also established that corporation’s do not have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination)"; Some but not all 4th Amendment rights and no 5th Amendment rights. Clearly corporations DO NOT have all the rights, constitutional and otherwise, accorded to individuals.
Of course one is "capable of consenting" to any REQUEST from an employer. That does not mean the employer has the RIGHT to require it as condition of employment. It still comes down to a conflict of an individual's unconstrained constitutional rights versus the constrained constitutional rights of corporations.
Why do you continue to assert without citation of proof or support that a company's limited property rights trump the constitutional and unlimited property rights of individuals?
Last edited:
MaverickNH
NES Member
Whirlpool vs Oklahoma
Below is the Plaintiff's brief regarding Oklahoma's law prohibiting employers from establishing policies against storing/transporting firearms in parking lots.
http://www.hrpolicy.org/amicus/Whirlpool_v_Oklahoma.pdf
More information:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=441792
http://www.wileyrein.com/docs/newsletter_issues/336.pdf
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2006/House/bills/analysis/pdf/h0129.JU.pdf
http://www.jpm-law.com/PDF/LINC_1080_121504.pdf
Below is the Plaintiff's brief regarding Oklahoma's law prohibiting employers from establishing policies against storing/transporting firearms in parking lots.
http://www.hrpolicy.org/amicus/Whirlpool_v_Oklahoma.pdf
More information:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=441792
http://www.wileyrein.com/docs/newsletter_issues/336.pdf
http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2006/House/bills/analysis/pdf/h0129.JU.pdf
http://www.jpm-law.com/PDF/LINC_1080_121504.pdf
Len:
1. Sorry not to have responded sooner.
2. When you worked at home, did you have clients, suppliers or other third parties to your home office to conduct your employer's business?
3. If no -- that is to say, it was just you all by yourself in the home that contained the office -- then I strongly suspect that DEC would have said, had the issue been raised, that such was not within the contemplation of the policy. On the other hand, if third parties visited the home office to conduct the employer's business, they answer might have been different.
4. All of which begs the underlying question: Can the employer impose a "no guns at the workplace" policy that specifies that "home offices" of those employees authorized to work out of home in part of "workplace?" Yes. Can employer terminate an employee for violating this policy? Yes. However, this second answer needs a qualification: absent a contract to the contrary (i.e., employment for a term), and absent a statutorily prohibited discriminatory animus, employment is at will, and can be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason.
1. You are not required to.
2. No idea.
3. He can't force you to do anything, but he can make your consent a condition of his offer of employment.
4. Don't know, but so far the only "power" we speak of is the power to condition an offer of employment that the employer is not obliged to extend in the first place.
1. No problem.
2. & 3. Only one time did I have another engineer that worked for me join me at home as we reviewed a product here. No other time was I ever visited by anyone at my home office wrt to DEC business.
Thanks. I never gave this aspect any thought until this thread arose.
MaverickNH
NES Member
The case brought to the US District Court of Northern Oklahoma (above post) challenging OK's law prohibitting any ban on guns stored in private vehicles in parking lots, bases on a 1st Amendment case. Excerpts:
In Lloyd Corp Ltd v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972), persons sought to distribute handbills in the interior mall area of a privately owned shopping center. The owners stopped them. SCOTUS framed the issue as whether "respondants, in the exercise of First Amendment rights, may distribute handbills on private property contrary to wishes and contrary to a policy enforced against all handbilling." The court reasoned that the invitation to the public is to come to the mall to do business with the tenents and, thus, there "is no open-ended invitation to ... use the [mall] for any and all purposes, however incompatible with the interests of both the stores and the shoppers whom they serve." The court cautioned "it must be remembered that the First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the rights of free speech and assembly by limitations on state action, not on action by the owner of private property used nondiscriminatorily for private use only."
Now consider the differences between this claim to exercise 1stA vs 2ndA rights:
1. Did the 1stA exercisers come to the mall to do business with the tenents? No - even if they bought something to be "customers", their 1stA exercise was not part of their act of being customers. Would a 2ndA exerciser come to the mall to do business with the tenents? Yes - they would come to the mall as customers, employees or vendors and not to simply be there with a gun.
2. Would any owner, tenent or customer of the mall be aware of, or participate in, the 1stA exercisers exercise of their 1stA activities? Yes -had they sat there with handbills in a sack, then no issue, but they had to hand them out and/or be heard/seen to be exercising their supposed 1stA right.Would anyone be aware of or participate in a 2ndA exercisers act of CCW? No - carrying a concealed gun is like printing the handbill on a t-shirt worn under another shirt while coming to the mall. In fact, had a large group of people printed the text of their handbill on t-shirts and walked around the mall together with the text visible while going through the motions of looking and buying, they would be doing what SCOTUS has said is protected 1stA freedom of expression. The big difference is that the handbillers had to be doing something visible, audible and tactile to be performing their supposed 1stA action, while a a person engaged in 2ndA CCW (or storage of a firearm in a car in a parking lot) requires no special participation or interaction with others to do so.
The key that invalidates the above arguements, is whether CCW, or guns in private cars in parking lots, DO have an interaction and/or require participation with others for expression of a 2ndA claim. And what is being said by the Plaintiff in Whirlpool vs OK? They, the Brady Campaign and anti-gun scholars are all saying that because having a gun in the workplace requires everyone to suffer a proven and well-accepted greater risk of fatal injury, and that much as laws regulate and minimize risks of injury by toxics, fires, falling, crushing, etc., laws must regulate and minimize the risk of injury (violence) by guns in the workplace. The best way to do that, they say, is to ban them: "One of the most reasonable and effective ways to decrease the likelihood of such violence is for employers to prohibit employees from bringing weapons onto the employer's property.... Even more importantly, it seems clear that OSHA would view a firearm at work as presenting a recognized hazard - a hazard which is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm."
So losing this case is about more than deciding property rights vs RKBA - it is about accepting that having guns creates a danger that must be regulated by prohibition them on the private property of others. If this is true, then why isn't it true about guns on public property? No arguement there - if one, then the other, eh?
How can the Oklahoma win the case without reference to a valid purpose for brining guns on private property? If not for self-defense, then not for hunting and target shooting, as if a gun is inherently dangerous, then why it is kept/carried is not a distinguishing point. The flaw is, of course, that guns are not the danger, it's the criminals bearing malicious intent that are the danger - but we know how that gets twisted.
There is no way to discard the bath water without discarding the baby. Property rights and 2ndA RKBA will not be uncoupled in the winning or losing of this case. The NRA knows this, and continues to push for RKBA in places we work and play.
I think, practically speaking, one has to make a tough choice here between veiws on private property, agreements and RKBA. Or - tell me how this case can be lost without critical damage to RKBA.
It is a parliamentary norm that the function of a constitution is to define and delimit the powers of a government. Defining and regulating civil relationships amongst citizens is done by acts of the legislature created by the constitution. As a result, absent either explicit wording or compelling contextual evidence requiring a different result, a constitutional provision will not be interpreted as governing the relationship amonst individuals. Neither is present in the 2d Amendment. To the contrary, the contextual evidence is compelling that each of the first nine amendments, including the 2d, was addressed to the power of government, in the normal parliamentary fashion.
I am not aware of any case specifically addressing a claim that private, non-state-action anti-gun actions are precluded by the 2d Amendment, though I've made no effort to research this particular issue. I strongly suspect that such a claim has never been advanced.
On the other hand, the cases in which a claim that priviate, non-state-action activity has violated someone's rights under another of the first nine amendments, and such claims are regularly rejected.
Anyone interested in a primer on this constitutional issue might wish to read Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). Alternatively, one might content oneself with this statement in the Opinion of the Court: "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Comm., 412 U.S. 94. Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution itself." 424 U.S. 507 (1976).
I am not aware of any case specifically addressing a claim that private, non-state-action anti-gun actions are precluded by the 2d Amendment, though I've made no effort to research this particular issue. I strongly suspect that such a claim has never been advanced.
On the other hand, the cases in which a claim that priviate, non-state-action activity has violated someone's rights under another of the first nine amendments, and such claims are regularly rejected.
Anyone interested in a primer on this constitutional issue might wish to read Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). Alternatively, one might content oneself with this statement in the Opinion of the Court: "It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Comm., 412 U.S. 94. Thus, while statutory or common law may in some situations extend protection or provide redress against a private corporation or person who seeks to abridge the free expression of others, no such protection or redress is provided by the Constitution itself." 424 U.S. 507 (1976).
Kevin,
Please refrain from the insults! It's not appropriate on NES.
Thank You!
Please refrain from the insults! It's not appropriate on NES.
Thank You!
