Keeping Guns Off Your Company Premises

[matt1956]

Sigh... sadly, given my work, i get stuff like this all the time. My Boss asked me to look into this. I told him given the state of MA and our company policies, it was an un-needed course. He agreed, but sadly, it bothers me that this is out there and getting as much support as it is.

Keeping Guns Off Your Company Premises
Effective Policies and Practices for Dealing With Concealed Weapons Laws


Sponsored by Security Law Newsletter and Premises Liability Report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
According to a 2008 ASIS study, workplace violence accounts for 20% of all violent crime, and 75% of the 500 annual workplace homicides in the U.S. are committed using firearms. Still, legislation in Florida, Georgia and Louisiana has expanded employees' rights to carry concealed weapons at work.

Nearly all states already allow people to carry permitted concealed weapons in vehicles or on their persons. At least five other states already prohibit employers from banning guns, and security leaders must be concerned with the possibility that workplace violence has become easier.

Can corporate security departments effectively enforce "no guns" policies within legal restrictions? What signage and educational campaigns have been effective — and are permissible — under current law? Can security search people and their cars with minimal negative employee reaction?

Listen as our panel of veteran corporate security leaders and security consultants offers experiences that will help you build the framework of an effective, safe and legal approach to dealing with the risk of firearms at the workplace.

Benefits

The panel will give you valuable insights into these and other critical issues and questions:

What is the current state of concealed weapons laws that affect guns in the workplace?

What legal rights can corporate security departments exercise to restrict guns in the workplace or ban them altogether?

What security initiatives have your peers tried that have proved effective — or ineffective — in controlling the presence of guns at work?

How can security contribute to positive customer and employee perceptions regarding firearms policy enforcement?

What do all security executives need to know to strike a balance between individual freedoms and a secure work environment?

Following the speaker presentations, you'll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A.
Faculty

John Roche, Attorney, Perkins Coie, Washington, D.C. He is a member of the firm's Privacy and Security Law Group and has worked with a number of corporate clients on firearms policies for their general buildings and parking areas.

Alan Greggo, Associate VP of Loss Prevention, Luxottica Retail, Mason, Ohio. He has more than 28 years of loss prevention experience. He leads loss prevention efforts for a group that includes the LensCrafters and Pearle Vision stores, among other chain. He also serves on ASIS' Retail Loss Prevention Council and chairs its Organized Retail Crime Committee.

John Harris, Principal Consultant, The Harris Group, Atlanta. His firm specializes in premises liability matters, and he has managed security risk assessments and surveys in 41 states. His 30-year career also includes stints as a Marine and as a general partner in real estate investments and development.

 

[doobie]

Post the (non-legally binding signs) and have a don't ask don't tell policy. If you have to save your life and they fire you for that, well you didn't want to work there anyway but at least you are alive.

Make sure you also note that any policy would restrict law-abiding people from bringing their guns, but not someone who was bent on shooting up the place.

 

[drgrant]

Might be fun to ask them some obvious questions though...

"Uhh, like mainly, how are any of these policies gonna stop a guy/lady intent on committing mass murder? Is Joe Pissoffemployee gonna be abiding by the handbook when he goes on his rampage? This stuff is great... just great... if your employees are Robocop and can be programmed to obey prime directives. "

-Mike

 

[Bob P]

Hmm

The 3rd guy's a hired gun on Premisis Liability litigation - focus on negligent security.

Judging from the website, I'm thinking someone came up with this idea as a cash-in to the recent unpleasantness.

 

[Bob P]

Might be fun to ask them some obvious questions though...

"Uhh, like mainly, how are any of these policies gonna stop a guy/lady intent on committing mass murder? Is Joe Pissoffemployee gonna be abiding by the handbook when he goes on his rampage? This stuff is great... just great... if your employees are Robocop and can be programmed to obey prime directives. "

-Mike

Dollars to donutes this is less about securing your workplace then it is about taking the steps necessary to successfully defend a negligent security civil suit in the event something happens (warning signs, policies etc).

 

[matt1956]

basically it comes down to liability i think as well.

several years ago we did some major "beefing up" of our access control and other stuff (leaving out deatails on purpose)

but the VPs didn't take it well when I finally explained to them that in the end, no matter what we do, we are "minimizing" risk of injury and death, but the bottom line was that no policy or security measure (that they were willing to take) would prevent loss of life if someone was hell bent on coming in and killing.

I got some mixed responses and puzzled looks... but they don't pay me to be warm and fuzzy, that is what HR is for. They wanted my opinion and got it, I figure that is what they pay me for.

 

[matt1956]

seeing the ammount of layoffs and other changes we have made, we have already been preping.

but yeah, with some of the other shit they have had me do, i know im in the dark and not getting the full story.

 

[terraformer]

Bob nailed it. It's a CYOA liability issue. Which makes me wonder... what do they know that you don't know? They must be expecting some disgruntled employee to come in and shoot the place up, no?

But it's a CYA issue that assumes that all sources of workplace violence stem from spur of the moment rampages. Which is 180 degrees counter to reality. If anything, a no-gun policy is a death sentence for those at work when the rampage begins. Not to mention how rare these rampages are to begin with.

 

[Bob P]

Bob nailed it. It's a CYOA liability issue. Which makes me wonder... what do they know that you don't know? They must be expecting some disgruntled employee to come in and shoot the place up, no?

Neg security has been a hot-button issue in the P&C Insurance world for about 10 years now. A couple of big-hit plaintiff's verdicts on an on-premisis rape and some assults in apartments and workplaces got the plaintiff bar looking at this as the 'next big thing' after the 'failure to warn' products cases started to get mined out.

My GUESS is this panel is trying to predict where it's going to move to next and cash in-I mean 'help their clients prepare'.

 

[Bob P]

But it's a CYA issue that assumes that all sources of workplace violence stem from spur of the moment rampages. Which is 180 degrees counter to reality. If anything, a no-gun policy is a death sentence for those at work when the rampage begins. Not to mention how rare these rampages are to begin with.

Doesn't matter. It's not about real-safety but about the employer being able to claim 'I did everything I could to keep nasty guns off premisis so anyone that brought them ON was entirely outside the scope of their employment - thus protecting me from liability.

Wouldn't it be totally AWESOME in one of these cases if the jury came back with the finding that the employer was negligent by removing their staff's ability to defend themselves in an active-shooter situation?

THAT would be a HUGE blow for the 2nd.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Hmm

The 3rd guy's a hired gun on Premisis Liability litigation - focus on negligent security.

Judging from the website, I'm thinking someone came up with this idea as a cash-in to the recent unpleasantness.

Bingo!!! We have a winner.

Again. just like the Serial Numbered Bullets baloney. It's commerce, creating a market by capitalizing on recent tragedy to improve it's product-specific prospects.

Every time I read a thread wherein one of us get's all pissed at the .Gov because they want to SN bullets, I want to beat them and their oversimplified outlook about the head with the a mallet...or, more productively, the name and contact info of the companies that are 100% of the reason these crackhead ideas even exists.

Politicians don't think them up.

They simply sit in their office and meet with f***nuts like these who say, "I have a great idea! You see, we'll number the bullets and then we'll be able to track them. Your constituents will buy it because it'll make them feel safe and we'll simply make the rest look like militant racist dirtbags. Oh, and, wouldn't you know it, we happen to have the solution ready."

People, these crackhead ideas generally come from industry. Which means you can find the contact info of the crackhead du juor and spend a few minutes letting him/her know exactly how you feel. These are not Secret Service protected variety of ass clowns. THEY ARE COMPLETELY VULNERABLE...to a tongue lashing of course


For instance, and this is just one of these ass clowns. Took about 37 seconds to find this info.

John Harris
The Harris Group
1170 Peachtree Street
Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30309
main: 404.888.0060
fax: 404.888.0056
[email protected]

What you might say to him is that you don't appreciate his efforts at stripping you of your 2A rights simply so his firm can turn a profit. Feel free to ad lib. Remember, he's just one turd in a cesspool.

 

[seanc]

I would suggest just putting up a sign to the effect of
"Illegal shootings and homicides are not allowed here, police take notice."
or
"People coming on the property with the intent of harming others will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (premises protected by Radio Shack Security).


But, seriously, at what point do rational people realize that laws, company policies, signs and disclaimers do absolutely nothing to stop a person that intent on breaking laws?

I can appreciate the position you're in and the deflecting of liability and so forth. It just really seems largely irrational.

 

[M1911]

Ask your boss if a no-weapons policy would prevent a nutjob employee from bringing a gun into work to shoot coworkers.

When he says no, then ask him who would it keep from bringing a gun into work? Give him the answer: a law-abiding employee who just might shoot the nutjob, saving the boss's life.

These no-weapons policies just piss me off. The total lack of any logic or grounding in reality is just shocking.

 

[freedom2012]

It doesn't matter what you do, what your policy is, even if you have ammo sniffing dogs at the entrance. If the SHTF and something happens, the lawyers will sue everything that moves or has a bank account and see what sticks to the wall. EVERY insurer, EVERY principal, EVERY executive, even the owner of the building if you lease will become defendants. There will be settlements and jury awards and the numbers will be staggering.

 

[Brian48]

Ask your boss if a no-weapons policy would prevent a nutjob employee from bringing a gun into work to shoot coworkers.

When he says no, then ask him who would it keep from bringing a gun into work? Give him the answer: a law-abiding employee who just might shoot the nutjob, saving the boss's life.

These no-weapons policies just piss me off. The total lack of any logic or grounding in reality is just shocking.

They don't like to hear this. It makes too much sense. My work-place has a no carry policy as well. I call it the sitting duck rule.

 

[Viper22]

My place of employment also has a no carry policy. While not allowed to carry in the building, I am allowed to keep a firearm properly stored in my vehicle.

I did have a few sit down discussions about allowing lisenced individuals to carry in the buildings, but I didn't get anywhere.

Is there anything else I can do to get my bosses to switch their views and the company policy?

 

[offisland]

I work on an air force base, so I'm outta luck no matter what. Even the sp's have very restrictive firearms loaning process. The joke is whether they actually give them ammo...hehhehe. freightening.

 

[M1911]

They don't like to hear this. It makes too much sense. My work-place has a no carry policy as well. I call it the sitting duck rule.

I know they don't. f*** 'em. Don't let them off the hook. Make them squirm as they try to describe a rational basis for their policy. Be very calm, nice, and unemotional about it. But continue to point out the complete lack of logic in their policy. It won't change the policy. It will piss them off. But it will also demonstrate to them (and everyone within earshot) that their policy is completely illogical -- all they want to do is possibly save money and they don't give a damn about the safety of their employees.

 

[M1911]

Is there anything else I can do to get my bosses to switch their views and the company policy?

Probably not.

 

[Viper22]

 

[seanc]

Is there anything else I can do to get my bosses to switch their views and the company policy?

Unfortunately, not until it's way too late and something really bad has already happened..

 

[Raoul Duke]

I am allowed to keep a firearm properly stored in my vehicle.

Bahhh. Bahhh.

 

[The Goose]

My partner and I run a small business, less then 50 employees. We are both avid shooters and do our best to keep our workplace a fair place that respects and protects the rights of our employees. I will tell you that in MA that means walking a really fine line. I do not want to get into specifics so I will simply say that we endeavor to protect the RIGHTS of our employees. This means being as nonintrusive as possible while still covering our butts. And it is not easy.

The reason that employers buy into the bullshit scare tactics described above is because they are scared. I am scared. Every year I have to budget six figures just to deal with frivolous and fraudulent legal issues. If you think it is tough being a gun owner in MA try running a small business. I happen to care about the rights of my employees, including their 2nd amendment rights, but my partner and I are pretty much alone and wandering in the wilderness. I happen to believe that every law abiding citizen should be armed all of the time, period. However, if I was even just ambivalent about firearms there would be no incentive for me not to enact restrictive measures. In fact my legal council could give me a laundry list of why I should enact restrictive measures. So now imagine someone in the same position who is actually an anti.

It is not just about the big dramatic items like a shooting. Certainly that is a worst case scenario. There are all the seemingly more minor concerns that can arise. In the state of MA an employer is responsible for anything their employee does. I am supposed to foresee absolute anything and everything that a human being that I employ might ever do. If an employee is driving a company vehicle, gets into an argument over a fender bender and decks some guy I have a serious problem. And don’t you dare tell me why that is not true. I will be sued and it will cost me whether I defend it or settle. The employee can quit and leave town. He may not even face charges and I get to pay for his momentary loss of judgment. Ask me how I know this! So here are a few concerns that most of you never thought of. Another employee finds out that one of his fellow employees is carrying and files a complaint stating that he now feels unsafe at work and that it has become a “hostile” workplace. “Hostile” workplace is the buzz word for drop your pants and bend over cause it’s coming your way. Or an employee “forgets” that he is carrying and walks through a metal detector at a legally restricted facility. Do you think that this is not my problem? Or better yet the employee gets to the legally restricted facility, realizes that he can’t carry, so he stuffs the loaded gun in the unlocked glove compartment of the company truck overnight where it gets stolen. When we carry as private individuals the issues that I just described are our own problem. You show bad judgment or screw up and you pay the price. However, if you do it while you are on my clock then it is also my problem. In fact it will likely be a far bigger problem for me then for you. The money that my partner and I spend defending ourselves is our money, our pay, the reason that we work harder and longer then anyone else in our business.

Now, before someone flames me I want to remind you that I am one of the good guys. I stay here and fight the fight. In the face of everything I have mentioned I continue to do what is right. So those of you who just throw out the “it’s all so simple line” should think again. It is not simple. Those of you who howl that it is your right to carry in the workplace I ask you how long will you stand up for that right when it means that you do not draw a salary that year and you put up your house to stay afloat. I have done that and I still stand my ground, but do not insult my intelligence by telling me that it is clear cut and simple. I hear folks say that they are upset that they are not allowed to carry at their workplace, but they won’t quit because they can’t afford to. In other words you won’t stand up for your rights because there is a financial penalty, but you think I should. Freedom is not free. Like it or not your right to carry in my workplace is at my discretion and right now there is no one supporting me, but me. The federal, state and local government does not support me. My insurance carrier does not support me. An army of greedy plaintiff’s attorneys are just drooling to come after me and my advisors and legal council think that I am nuts.

I do not apologize for this rant, I earned it. I stand firm for the right of every law abiding citizen to carry all the time, including in the workplace, but I think that folks should look at the employer’s side a bit. In the current climate if you cannot convince a business that there is some advantage to allowing individuals to carry then I fear that we will see more and more businesses restricting carry.

 

[Viper22]

Well written post Goose. I work at a small company, so maybe my bosses are in the same position you are.

 

[freedom2012]

My partner and I run a small business, less then 50 employees. We are both avid shooters and do our best to keep our workplace a fair place that respects and protects the rights of our employees. I will tell you that in MA that means walking a really fine line. I do not want to get into specifics so I will simply say that we endeavor to protect the RIGHTS of our employees. This means being as nonintrusive as possible while still covering our butts. And it is not easy.

The reason that employers buy into the bullshit scare tactics described above is because they are scared. I am scared. Every year I have to budget six figures just to deal with frivolous and fraudulent legal issues. If you think it is tough being a gun owner in MA try running a small business. I happen to care about the rights of my employees, including their 2nd amendment rights, but my partner and I are pretty much alone and wandering in the wilderness. I happen to believe that every law abiding citizen should be armed all of the time, period. However, if I was even just ambivalent about firearms there would be no incentive for me not to enact restrictive measures. In fact my legal council could give me a laundry list of why I should enact restrictive measures. So now imagine someone in the same position who is actually an anti.

It is not just about the big dramatic items like a shooting. Certainly that is a worst case scenario. There are all the seemingly more minor concerns that can arise. In the state of MA an employer is responsible for anything their employee does. I am supposed to foresee absolute anything and everything that a human being that I employ might ever do. If an employee is driving a company vehicle, gets into an argument over a fender bender and decks some guy I have a serious problem. And don’t you dare tell me why that is not true. I will be sued and it will cost me whether I defend it or settle. The employee can quit and leave town. He may not even face charges and I get to pay for his momentary loss of judgment. Ask me how I know this! So here are a few concerns that most of you never thought of. Another employee finds out that one of his fellow employees is carrying and files a complaint stating that he now feels unsafe at work and that it has become a “hostile” workplace. “Hostile” workplace is the buzz word for drop your pants and bend over cause it’s coming your way. Or an employee “forgets” that he is carrying and walks through a metal detector at a legally restricted facility. Do you think that this is not my problem? Or better yet the employee gets to the legally restricted facility, realizes that he can’t carry, so he stuffs the loaded gun in the unlocked glove compartment of the company truck overnight where it gets stolen. When we carry as private individuals the issues that I just described are our own problem. You show bad judgment or screw up and you pay the price. However, if you do it while you are on my clock then it is also my problem. In fact it will likely be a far bigger problem for me then for you. The money that my partner and I spend defending ourselves is our money, our pay, the reason that we work harder and longer then anyone else in our business.

Now, before someone flames me I want to remind you that I am one of the good guys. I stay here and fight the fight. In the face of everything I have mentioned I continue to do what is right. So those of you who just throw out the “it’s all so simple line” should think again. It is not simple. Those of you who howl that it is your right to carry in the workplace I ask you how long will you stand up for that right when it means that you do not draw a salary that year and you put up your house to stay afloat. I have done that and I still stand my ground, but do not insult my intelligence by telling me that it is clear cut and simple. I hear folks say that they are upset that they are not allowed to carry at their workplace, but they won’t quit because they can’t afford to. In other words you won’t stand up for your rights because there is a financial penalty, but you think I should. Freedom is not free. Like it or not your right to carry in my workplace is at my discretion and right now there is no one supporting me, but me. The federal, state and local government does not support me. My insurance carrier does not support me. An army of greedy plaintiff’s attorneys are just drooling to come after me and my advisors and legal council think that I am nuts.

I do not apologize for this rant, I earned it. I stand firm for the right of every law abiding citizen to carry all the time, including in the workplace, but I think that folks should look at the employer’s side a bit. In the current climate if you cannot convince a business that there is some advantage to allowing individuals to carry then I fear that we will see more and more businesses restricting carry.

Very well stated and all very true. I am in the same boat as you. One thing is for sure in Mass, no matter how well we think we are protected legally, they will still come after business owners. The vultures will always say we haven't done "enough".

 

[terraformer]

My partner and I run a small business, less then 50 employees. ..[snip].. In the current climate if you cannot convince a business that there is some advantage to allowing individuals to carry then I fear that we will see more and more businesses restricting carry.

I think the biggest problem is that employers are required to take responsibility and liability not just for the "work" of the employee and other employment related tasks but also what they do in all aspects of their "on the job" time which can include time away from work in the case of salaried employees. As a small business owner myself, what I see is that they allowed the courts to become the arbiter of standards after putting into place these overly broad dragnets they call laws on the books. I frankly can't believe those that can, don't move their businesses out of states like MA, CA and NY. I can and probably will at some point move it north or west. I applaud you for sticking it out on principle.

 

[The Goose]

Very well stated and all very true. I am in the same boat as you. One thing is for sure in Mass, no matter how well we think we are protected legally, they will still come after business owners. The vultures will always say we haven't done "enough".

I used to say that the minute I get out of bed I incur liability, now I figure it can happen as easily when I am still asleep. LOL!

 

[M1911]

I frankly can't believe those that can, don't move their businesses out of states like MA, CA and NY.

Are the tort laws really that different in other states?

 

[terraformer]

Are the tort laws really that different in other states?

The laws here offer zero protection for businesses. In other states they are more targeted and they make the bar higher for one to prove their case.

 

[The Goose]

Are the tort laws really that different in other states?

Yes. As an example in most states if someone alleges sexual harrassment over a period of time the employer is only responsible at the point that they were notified. If the employer takes immediate action they can minimize their exposue. In MA if the alleged harrassment began in January and the employer is not notified until May and then takes immediate action it just does not matter. The employer should have known what was going on. Ask me how I know.