Do you feel safe at work? - Page 10

Do you feel safe at work?

This is a discussion on Do you feel safe at work? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ArmyMan It's better to be heard-headed then dead, so make whatever policies for your business you like, I'll be ready for the ...

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 196
Like Tree57Likes

Thread: Do you feel safe at work?

  1. #136
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    It's better to be heard-headed then dead, so make whatever policies for your business you like, I'll be ready for the sword or shotgun-in-a-box wielding nut ball when they come through the door. If you still fire me for defending myself, you will have made me into an ideal candidate to join the coming class-action lawsuit to prevent you from making such policies in the future.

    But hey, if you like bumper-sticker sloganeering, I like it too: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
    In your example above you would be fired for violating the terms of your employment. The mere fact that you successfully defended yourself is not an affirmative defense to violating the stated and agreed to terms of your employment (a significant fact for you since apparently you saved your life from the "sword or shotgun-in-a-box wielding nut ball"). Furthermore, since South Dakota is an at will employment state, your employer does not have to articulate the cause for your termination and if he does so he would not be subject to any actionable claim you otherwise believe you would have. In fact, your employer would not need cause to terminate your employment. You may want to research employment law in your state.

    As for your bumper sticker slogan, it does not apply because there would be no trial. Your baseless (under the law) attempt to initiate legal action would be summarily judged (or outright dismissed) by a single judge and you might even subject yourself to a claim of malicious prosecution (a civil tort in South Dakota). If your lawsuit was summarily judged and you appealed you would become subject to recovery of attorney fees (even before any need to file a claim for malicious prosecution) as a matter of course since appeals in most jurisdictions (including South Dakota) subject the losing party to recovery of the costs to litigate the action before the appellate court (for South Dakota see SDCL 58-12-3).

    Class action suit? You clearly do not understand what it means to be part of a certified class but I will not bother to go into the intricacies of becoming a certified class in the legal arena.


  2. #137
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    The Air-Force has a demonstratable 'need' to maintain a gun-free zone, so no.
    But the military could easily provide gun lockers at the entrance of the base and thus maintain their "need" for a gun-free zone. That is the crux of your argument. That an employer should provide storage, at a minimum, so you could ride a bicycle to work while carrying.


    The scope of my argument has always regarded private employers and private business which are open to the public. A military installation is neither of these.[/QUOTE]

    Actually most military installations are open to the public. It depends on the installation, the event, and the reason for desiring access. Prior to 9/11, at which time the very same rules were in place, many installations (Air Force included) did not have entry control points. Thus, public access was permitted and assured.

  3. #138
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Thank you for the welcome and the beer. And, thank you for your service. It is I who would should be buying you a beer (but alas, General Order #1 saves my wallet).

    LOL not so fast my new friend. I am not in the military, I am a Private Contractor working with the 1st SFG. I am not saying GO#1 does not apply but......anyway beers on me.
    I'll enjoy that beer tonight!

  4. #139
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    In your example above you would be fired for violating the terms of your employment. The mere fact that you successfully defended yourself is not an affirmative defense to violating the stated and agreed to terms of your employment (a significant fact for you since apparently you saved your life from the "sword or shotgun-in-a-box wielding nut ball"). Furthermore, since South Dakota is an at will employment state, your employer does not have to articulate the cause for your termination and if he does so he would not be subject to any actionable claim you otherwise believe you would have. In fact, your employer would not need cause to terminate your employment. You may want to research employment law in your state.
    I agree completely. If discovered and fired, I would leave without a fuss. I know I'm braking the employer's policy and I accept the consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    As for your bumper sticker slogan, it does not apply because there would be no trial.
    There could be if a homeowner outs me and my employer loses a contract. He might come after me for the value. I would rather face that lawsuit then be unarmed.

  5. #140
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    I feel pretty safe where I work. There's a low crime rate in the area and the building I work in is pretty isolated (someone "roaming" the streets won't just show up there without drawing attention to themselves). I would feel much safer if employees were allowed to carry, though. I'm not even allowed to have my firearm in my car on their property, so my choice is either to leave it at home or hope they never search my car (which they can do according to the employee handbook).
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  6. #141
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    I agree completely. If discovered and fired, I would leave without a fuss. I know I'm braking the employer's policy and I accept the consequences.
    You would be "breaking" the employer's policy, not "braking" the employer's policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    There could be if a homeowner outs me and my employer loses a contract. He might come after me for the value. I would rather face that lawsuit then be unarmed.
    That is a different type of lawsuit and was not the type to which I responded. For the record, you would more than likely lose the loss of income lawsuit. However, given your apparent dire straits (ascertained from previous posts by you in this thread) it is unlikely your current employer would bother.

  7. #142
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    But the military could easily provide gun lockers at the entrance of the base and thus maintain their "need" for a gun-free zone. That is the crux of your argument. That an employer should provide storage, at a minimum, so you could ride a bicycle to work while carrying.
    I'm not in the Air-Force for the base to then be my employer.

    The crux of my argument is that all citizens who can otherwise lawfully carry a firearm, should be permitted to do so everywhere open to the public, and at their place of employment, unless that location has a demonstratable need to maintain a gun-free zone.

    Military installations can easily produce a demonstratable need to maintain a gun-free zone.

    The lock-box was a passing concession on my part, an offering of compromise, that I would be willing to put my gun in that box were the employer to show respect. It's hardly the crux of my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    Actually most military installations are open to the public. It depends on the installation, the event, and the reason for desiring access. Prior to 9/11, at which time the very same rules were in place, many installations (Air Force included) did not have entry control points. Thus, public access was permitted and assured.
    Neither of the bases in my aria are open to the public. The armorys are because they contain recruiters (and are attached to public schools), but that's it. The armorys are gun-free zones since they have produced a demonstratable need to maintain a gun-free zone; we leave our guns in our cars.

  8. #143
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    You would be "breaking" the employer's policy, not "braking" the employer's policy.

    That is a different type of lawsuit and was not the type to which I responded. For the record, you would more than likely lose the loss of income lawsuit. However, given your apparent dire straits (ascertained from previous posts by you in this thread) it is unlikely your current employer would bother.
    Have I personally insulted you in any way, that I deserve the same in return?

  9. #144
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    I was correcting a continual grammar error - it was not meant to be insulting to you. I apologize that it came across to you as such.

    In the most sincere way one can be on the internet, your arguments changed as a matter of convenience. You might want to go back and re-read your arguments.

  10. #145
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,003
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    You folks keep arguing against choice. When you do that, you invalidate all choices on the field. This includes any choice the employer made, such as having the no-gun policy, even the choice to be in business in the first place.

    Since all property rights exist as an extension of the individual, trying to use property rights to cancel out an individual right undermines your own property rights. It is self defeating.

    While you tire of banging your heads against the wall, we won't stop until the wall crumbles.
    We are not arguing against choice, you are. We are simply pointing out that your situation is a result of choices you have freely made. You are refusing to accept the consequences of those choices. The employer has the choice to allow or prohibit weapons. You want to deny that choice. You have the choice to work for them or seek other employment. No one is attempting to deny you that choice.

    And I am still eagerly awaiting your response to my post #93.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #146
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,921
    Don't know about some folks on this forum complaining about not having enough time for PT. If someone can post for an hour I do believe they can get an hour of cardio in. I just did 7 miles running in the time it takes certain people to post in that same time frame......just saying that time management can be your friend.

  12. #147
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    I've gone back through a few of your posts and here is some of what I found:

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Now, in my state, if I saw my boss post 'no firearms' signs, I would smirk and start looking for another place to work, all the while carrying anyway. My life is more important then his bottom line.
    At first you indicate you would look to work for another employer if your 2A rights were infringed upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Aside from the fact that gun control doesn't work every time it's tried, in the summer I ride a peddle bike to work as part of my Army PT conditioning (bad knees, I'm sure some on this forum can relate). I can't store a gun on a peddle bike, so by banning me from carrying at work my employer is banning me from lawfully exorsizing my 2A right while off the clock and off their property.
    Why would you need to store a gun on a pedal bike if you would not work for an employer who infringes upon your 2A rights? Or is it that you would only search for new work if the employer actually posts a sign but otherwise not if the employer just bars your carrying while on the clock? We'll get to your next argument in a moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    And so therefore an employer can't logically prohibit firearms at work since that policy would reach beyond the employer's private property rights.

    The compromise, however, is for an employer who wishes to ban firearms at work to provide gun lockers.
    The employer's policy does not extend past his private property rights. Your choice to ride to work is what makes it more difficult for you to carry. Don't worry, we will get to your next argument in a moment...

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    My choice in mode of transportation is contributory, I don't deny that. My choice in mode of transportation is not arbitrary, however, whereas the employers choice to have a gun-free workplace is arbitrary.

    That's the difference between each party's choice. One is necessary, the other is baseless preference.
    ar·bi·trar·y   [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural ar·bi·trar·ies. adjective
    1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
    2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
    3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
    4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
    5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

    Clearly, by definition, both your mode of transportation and the employer's decision to not provide gun lockers are not arbitrary. For example, your choice is motivated by fitness needs while the employers may be motivated by personal belief, financial considerations, etc. The point is that neither are arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    If an employer requires a uniform, the employer should have to provide the uniform. Likewise if the employer wants to have a gun-free workplace, the employer should provide gun lockers.
    Since you're using "should" here, one cannot argue that you are wrong. However, both employment and tax law recognizes that employees may be required to provide uniforms at the employee's expense. In the military, for example, when I was an enlisted Soldier my uniforms were provided to me and I was provided a yearly clothing allowance. As an officer I was provided a token $300 one-time clothing allowance to purchase more than $1,200 (at the time) worth of uniforms. I have since been provided no additional clothing allowance nor have I been provided a maintenance allowance related to my uniform requirements. When the Army switched from Class A greens to Army Service Uniform I bit the bullet and bought a new uniform (yes, I could have tried to "modify" the Dress Blue Uniform but doing so would not have presented the professional appearance which is incumbent upon me to maintain). At least I can claim a tax deduction for purchasing uniforms I am required to wear as a condition of my employment.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    The employer's policy reaches beyond their private property and scope of employment. Therefore the employer must either remove the policy or provide gun lockers, just as employers are being forced to look the other way while guns are lawfully stored in a car.
    Employers are not necessarily required to provide parking spaces for their employees. Whether they are required to or not is dependent upon a multitude of factors including size of building(s), number of employees, public access, etc. For example, many businesses in larger metropolitan areas do not offer parking for any of their employees. This is often a function of both cost and availability.

    The bottom line, ArmyMan, is that your arguments are often incongruent and fallacious. I know that you will not agree with my conclusion (and I presume that of many other posters as well) and I'm okay with that.

  13. #148
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    Why would you need to store a gun on a pedal bike if you would not work for an employer who infringes upon your 2A rights?
    If I'm going to respect my employer's policy, then I need to store my gun while looking for that other job.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    Or is it that you would only search for new work if the employer actually posts a sign but otherwise still bars your carrying while on the clock?
    The presence of signs don't play into it since signs have no legal force in my state. One couldn't get into any more legal trouble for carrying an otherwise lawful gun then one could for bringing outside drinks into a theater.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    The employer's policy does not extend past his private property rights.
    Yes it does, for example:
    Perry Signs Hegar-Sponsored Bill Allowing Guns In Vehicles At The Workplace | InstantnewsFortBend.com

    For his part, Hegar said passage of the bill would help Texas residents “regain their Constitutional right to protect themselves as they travel to and from work.”

    When an employer bars firearms on company property, even those hidden in locked vehicles, they rob their employees of their Second Amendment Rights and, even more importantly, of their right to safety,” Hegar said.

    Hegar noted that literally millions of Texans spend hours each week in their cars and trucks as they commute to and from work. In some cases, those commutes take motorists through or into dangerous neighborhoods. In those cases, employees have been forced to choose between obeying their employer’s policy prohibiting storage of firearms on company property or risking their personal safety.

    Hegar called the bill “common-sense legislation that balances the rights of both employer and employee.”
    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    Clearly, by definition, both your mode of transportation and the employer's decision to not provide gun lockers are not arbitrary.
    I said the gun-free policy was arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    Since you're using "should" here, one cannot argue that you are wrong. However, both employment and tax law recognizes that employees may be required to provide uniforms at the employee's expense. In the military, for example, when I was an enlisted Soldier my uniforms were provided to me and I was provided a yearly clothing allowance. As an officer I was provided a token $300 one-time clothing allowance to purchase more than $1,200 (at the time) worth of uniforms. I have since been provided no additional clothing allowance nor have I been provided a maintenance allowance related to my uniform requirements. When the Army switched from Class A greens to Army Service Uniform I bit the bullet and bought a new uniform (yes, I could have tried to "modify" the Dress Blue Uniform but doing so would not have presented the professional appearance which is incumbent upon me to maintain). At least I can claim a tax deduction for purchasing uniforms I am required to wear as a condition of my employment.
    Today the Army gives us an ADO order form with a cash value, and we mark the items we want to order. The items we order typically show up within a few weeks. We don't pay for any part of our uniform. Exceptions exist: If we want a combat patch that we're authorized but weren't issued, or if we want our own boots from the authorized list, we pay for that ourselves.

    Likewise, since a gun is not required for carpentry, I will pay for the gun myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMallNinja View Post
    Employers are not necessarily required to provide parking spaces for their employees.
    Not directly. I said employers had to pay for parking the city required and built, though local taxes. This funding plan was set by the city zoning and planning committees.

  14. #149
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Don't know about some folks on this forum complaining about not having enough time for PT. If someone can post for an hour I do believe they can get an hour of cardio in. I just did 7 miles running in the time it takes certain people to post in that same time frame......just saying that time management can be your friend.
    I've addressed you before and said "Hello from FOB Sharana, Afghanistan".

    I love how you ignore the fact that I'm in Afghanistan at the moment and do PT every morning

    I mean, do I have to tell you that being in a combat zone means I don't have my children with me? No private employer right now, either. There will be soon as this wedding is coming to an end, but not today.

    But hey, that's alright, let's say I'm at home: My computer's on all day, I stop in and check a few forums every once in a while in the morning before I head out, in the evenings, days off, and even during lunch at work. I have a droid with tapatalk, so I could be anywhere at the time my post is made. What makes you think I'm available to go PT at those times? I did mention I have children in tow, right? Right.

    Attention to detail.

  15. #150
    Ex Member Array NotMallNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    If I'm going to respect my employer's policy, then I need to store my gun while looking for that other job.
    Fallacious and circular argument. Which came first, the employer or the employee?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    The presence of signs don't play into it since signs have no legal force in my state. One couldn't get into any more legal trouble for carrying an otherwise lawful gun then one could for bringing outside drinks into a theater.
    If signs did not matter why bring them up in the first place? Regardless of whether or not they carry legal force your comments were based upon the company's expressed policy. You said you would find new work. Clearly you have not. Your words were not followed by action.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    I said the gun-free policy was arbitrary.
    Fair enough. Go back and read the definition of arbitrary. Your employer's gun-free policy is not arbitrary just because you believe it to be so. Words have meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Today the Army gives us an ADO order form with a cash value, and we mark the items we want to order. The items we order typically show up within a few weeks. We don't pay for any part of our uniform. Exceptions exist: If we want a combat patch that we're authorized but weren't issued, or if we want our own boots from the authorized list, we pay for that ourselves.
    The point does not change whether the Army gives you an ADO order form or gives you an initial issue and then a yearly allowance to maintain your uniforms and purchase replacement items. Don't split hairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Not directly. I said employers had to pay for parking the city required and built, though local taxes. This funding plan was set by the city zoning and planning committees.
    Actually you said that in a later post but by the example I provided it does not apply unless you're only discussing concepts and laws as you believe they should be within your little hamlet.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

being safe help me feel good at work

,

can i sue my job for not feeling safe while at work

,

do people feel safe at work

,

do you feel safe at work

,

how safe do you feel at work

,

how safe do you feel at work?

,

i don't feel safe at work

,

i dont feel safe at work

,
i feel safe at work because
,

not feeling safe at work

,

someone threatened to shoot up my place of work

,

texas companies with no weapons policies

Click on a term to search for related topics.