Post By tomtsr
Post By suntzu
January 30th, 2013 07:35 PM
Workplace MWAG policy
I am interested in putting together suggetions for a workplace "MWAG" policy. The current company policy is "NO GUNS ON THE PROPERTY". I work for a company with about 300 employees in less than 10 different locations, most of which are at the corporate headquarters (where I am employed). These are manufacturing/warehouse facilities with offices. For the majority of employees, hiding behind a locked door would not be an option.
The following are some of my own thoughts:
1) Make exceptions for a few people at each facility (depending on facilty size)to CC at work. The personel would need to be discreet and known to only a select few.
2) Some kind of alarm or page unique to this kind of incident.
3)Training for the armed employees along with notifying local LE of the authorized individuals as well as the written policy.
4) Some manner by which evacuated employees may be accounted for without standing just a few yards from the exits as in a fire drill.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
January 30th, 2013 07:50 PM
IANAL, and no doubt laws can vary state to state, so, not knowing where you live, take these thoughts with a grain of salt, and of course take them or leave them:
In my research of the laws concerning where and when people can carry, it seems very common that once you "enlist" or "deputize" someone--even in a less-than-official capacity--for security, they are no longer allowed to be armed. Selecting a select few at each location to be armed, listing the individuals, and notifying the LE of their status and training them seems like an awfully official set of steps. Heck, you're even bringing it up in reference to official policy that needs to be written. This set of steps would effectively be creating a "voluntary security force" or adding security to certain individuals' job descriptions, and I just don't think it will pass legal muster. Even many real security guards working for security companies (in malls, etc.) are unarmed because of the special restrictions on being armed in this capacity.
Not to mention the fact that allowing only certain people to be armed and not others could open up a whole can of worms in terms of discrimination, liability, etc. I just don't think it will fly.
The other stuff like intercom codes and employee accounting, etc. are good starts, but when it comes to the firearms policy, I think it's gotta be an all-or-nothing situation. Your company would almost certainly be better off just doing away with the no guns policy altogether.
January 30th, 2013 07:57 PM
I would all that you suggested.
Originally Posted by jcm
Vietnam Veteran - 1966-1970 USASA
Carry Pistol. Glock 23, .40 Cal.
Carry Pistol. Glock 19, 9mm.
Give me a minute before I post again.
January 30th, 2013 07:59 PM
One more thought on this, from my personal perspective: I am currently self-employed, though I do work closely with many others in a facility where I rent space. In this situation, or if I were employed by one of these companies, I would/will gladly carry concealed and be willing to take a PERSONAL "sheepdog" responsibility. I think that comes with the territory. If you are carrying for self-defense, you are accepting the responsibility to defend yourself or others against grave threats, right? However, IF I WERE ASKED by my employer to start carrying a firearm for the purpose of being a part of the company's official security policy, I would absolutely NOT accept the offer/request. My gun is first and foremost for the protection of myself and my family. --and only then as a last resort. Should I find myself in a position where I would be remiss not to act to save someone else (a rape or mass shooting situation, for example), it will be at my discretion whether or not lethal force is appropriate. I will not put myself in a position where it is expected, mandated, or official policy. I didn't go into law enforcement as a career.
Again, these are just my thoughts. I know a lot of us have friends/bosses who jokingly tell us they're glad we're around in case anything bad goes down, but I wonder how many of us would be willing to be the official first line of defense? As for me, if something goes down in this office and I can get out, I'm gone.
January 30th, 2013 09:39 PM
Thank you, DesignDawg. The notion of an "armed guard" added to one's job description had not occurred to me. Very good points to ponder. I would love to see the no-guns policy removed. THAT by itself could go a long ways towards accomplishing a safer workplace.
January 31st, 2013 02:33 PM
If I understand correctly...
If I understand correctly you are saying that in some states a person described as "security" can NOT be armed? I have never heard that before. Do you have state law that explains that?
Originally Posted by DesignDawg
I did find this doing a google search for michigan security guards:
SO it appears that in michigan if your licensed you can carry a firearm but conversely it appears that you may need to be licensed to be armed security.
Public Act 330 was first enacted in 1968 over concerns about the regulation and training of security guards. Originally and over the last 30 years, the Michigan State Police have been the assigned agency for oversight of P.A. 330 administration under the law which covers Private Security Guards, Private Security Guard Agencies and Security Alarm systems. Amendatory Act 473 of 2002, effective October 1, 2002, separated the Private Security Guards, Agencies, Alarm Systems and Private Investigators from the State Police and placed them under the umbrella of the Department of Consumer and Industry Services, with the exception of Security Police Officers, which remained with MSP and assigned to the MCOLES Division.
Private Security Police Officers, also referred to as "Arrest Authority" Security Guards, have misdemeanor arrest authority while on active duty, on their employer's premises and in full uniform. One person, usually a security manager, is responsible for licensure and all of the employees that have the arrest authority must meet minimum requirements related to age, security or law enforcement experience and suitable background including absence of any felony conviction and specific misdemeanor convictions.
Licensed Private Security Police Officers are empowered to hire employees that have misdemeanor arrest authority. The law requires these employees to be trained as required by the Department. Currently, Security Police Officers are required to be trained in the following areas:
Legal - criminal law and procedure; civil law and diversity
Special Curriculum - including either firearms familiarization or firearms proficiency if carrying firearms
and defensive tactics
Critical Incident Curriculum - CPR/first aid; non-violent intervention, and emergency preparedness
Annual, Mandatory Maintenance Curriculum - first aid; emergency preparedness; legal update; defensive tactics and firearms range qualifications or strategic video training for those who carry firearms
Currently, there are 13 licensed private security police agencies in Michigan:
January 31st, 2013 02:58 PM
No, I'm not saying that, exactly. Of course there are armed security guards. What I'm saying is more like this: If you're licensed to carry a firearm, you can carry one. "Watching over the sheep" is your prerogative at that point. However, if you are put in an official position of security, the CWP no longer suffices to allow you to be armed, and you can not carry on the job, without a class G license. I may still be a little convoluted here, and of course I have law that explains it. Unfortunately, I'm at work and that book is at home, but I know it all comes from State Statutes 493, 790, and 775, as explained briefly at Florida Armed Security Guard Licensing Requirements.
Originally Posted by TedBeau
Now, obviously, as I said, each state has different laws, but I think it's more the rule than the exception that being employed as armed security requires more credentials than a CWP. An example that seems to come up is a church: As a member of the church with a CWP, you can carry in church (pastor's permission notwithstanding if your state has such laws). You can even do so with the personal intention of protecting the congregation should something bad happen. However, if your pastor, knowing you are a CWP holder, asks you if you will be a security guard on the sly, you are not legally allowed to act in that official capacity without the class G license.
Again, IANAL. I've just read a lot of what they write, and this is my understanding. It makes sense to me that more training and qualifying would be required before someone is to be trusted to carry lethal force professionally. At that point, it becomes less about self defense--the purpose of a CWP--and more about security, which is another ball of wax.
January 31st, 2013 03:12 PM
An armed security force, even though volunteers, may be held to a higher training and certification level by the state. I know in FL that requires a separate licinse above the standard CWFL that private citizens obtain. Check with local authorities for exact info for your state.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
"For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
January 31st, 2013 03:49 PM
Sounds more like you are wanting to create a firearms on premises policy rather than MWAG. MWAG is typically construed as negative.
Originally Posted by jcm
I understand the position of the other posts and agree for the most part.
My issue comes from the position of exceptions for a few. If your company made exceptions, who decides? To whom does the 2nd amendment apply. Everyone that is legal to carry should be able to exercise their constitutional right. If your company makes exceptions to the policy and denies some their rights and some others are allowed, I would imagine there would be a sudden increase in the flow of paperwork coming from an attorney. If they were selected as "Security" and that was their approved methodology, I am reasonably sure that the selection process would come under scrutiny.
I can see a company allowing CCW, and I can understand them not. Not that I agree. But picking and excluding without justification for exclusion is a real can of worms.
One other thing, company policy is completely different from law. By breaking the law you could end up in jail, but by braking company policy the most they could do is fire you. That being said, there may be many that hold fast to the acronym C.A.N.T. Carry Always Never Tell. You may never know who all is carrying where you work. Just saying
Train like your life depends on it, because it does.
NRA Life Member
January 31st, 2013 04:24 PM
I don't see you keeping this CC force a secret for too long. Folks will talk and figure out that some are allowed to carry and others are not. That is not good for morale.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
February 1st, 2013 03:56 PM
from a business liability standpoint I believe it's best to not address the issue at all.
As soon as some staff are designated 'armed' by the company if something bad happens (accidental shooting etc.) the company takes on liability. where if the company doesn't allow open carry and does not limit CC, each employee with a CC license would be acting as an individual.
company wouldn't have to prove training, carry specific insurance covering armed personal etc.
sometimes the best rules are no rules.
So how is one to get policy changes effected? Perhaps selling management on the concept that stripping an employee of their right to self defense opens them up to liability.
Search tags for this page
sample florida employer, weapon-free workplace policy
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors