What to do when your workplace does not allow you to carry? - Page 6

What to do when your workplace does not allow you to carry?

This is a discussion on What to do when your workplace does not allow you to carry? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Well said, Travis. An inalienable right is just that... inalienable....

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 88 of 88

Thread: What to do when your workplace does not allow you to carry?

  1. #76
    Member Array ccm-tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    52
    Well said, Travis. An inalienable right is just that... inalienable.


  2. #77
    Senior Member Array GoodSamaritan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    790
    Bravo, Travis very well spoken indeed.

    Gideon, i agree with you to a point, but there is a moral limit to what you can impose upon others. If I invite you on my property, that does not mean that your civil rights are now suspended by me. For instance, if I posted signs that said everyone was welcome except for people of the ______ race. That would not be within my rights as a property owner. It would be racist, and IMHO no better than prohibiting those who would protect themselves from having the means thereto at their disposal.

  3. #78
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodSamaritan
    Bravo, Travis very well spoken indeed.

    Gideon, i agree with you to a point, but there is a moral limit to what you
    can impose upon others. If I invite you on my property, that does not mean
    that your civil rights are now suspended by me. For instance, if I posted
    signs that said everyone was welcome except for people of the ______
    race. That would not be within my rights as a property owner. It would be
    racist, and IMHO no better than prohibiting those who would protect
    themselves from having the means thereto at their disposal.
    Most business places have a general disclaimer which reinforces the owners
    right to eject anyone who is behaving like a jerk. I don't think anybody
    would seriously object to that.

    Of course, there is a difference between a public place and my own non-public
    property..... If I want to refuse entry to blacks, mexicans or one armed dwarves
    in my house... well IT'S MY HOUSE!

    I resent the prevalent attitude these days that if I object to my daughter
    dating a thug-like-being who has a pound of cheesy gold around his neck,
    drives a $40,000 car, and has no demonstrable legitimate income....
    then I MUST be a racist because he is black.

    Even if I AM a racist, I don't recall any Federal, or State statute, or any
    clause in the Constitution making that a crime.

    --Travis--

  4. #79
    Senior Member Array GoodSamaritan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    790
    Most business places have a general disclaimer which reinforces the owners
    right to eject anyone who is behaving like a jerk. I don't think anybody
    would seriously object to that.
    I do not object, but, how is carrying a gun legally comparable to loud, obnoxious, or threatening behavior?

    Of course, there is a difference between a public place and my own non-public
    property..... If I want to refuse entry to blacks, mexicans or one armed dwarves
    in my house... well IT'S MY HOUSE!
    Lets edit my previous statement a bit clarity.

    For instance, if I posted signs around my place of business, that said everyone was welcome except for people of the ______ race. That would not be within my rights as a property owner.
    I resent the prevalent attitude these days that if I object to my daughter
    dating a thug-like-being who has a pound of cheesy gold around his neck,
    drives a $40,000 car, and has no demonstrable legitimate income....
    then I MUST be a racist because he is black.
    A dope dealing thug, is a dope dealing thug, a jerk is a jerk, and a racist is a racist, I donít care what color they are. (The most racist person I ever met was Japanese.) There are good and bad people of all kinds and colors. We should all character assessments based on merit, not race.


    Even if I AM a racist, I don't recall any Federal, or State statute, or any
    clause in the Constitution making that a crime.
    No, but if you try to include it in your business practices, there ARE laws.


    My point has been this all along, regardless of how much an employer would like too. There are moral (and legal) limits to how much of your rights they can deny you in return for employment.
    For instance, an employer cannot deny you the right to pray on company property, during your lunch break, as long as you donít proselytize, or otherwise break the rules. They can set guidelines concerning what you wear to work, uniforms, business attire, etc. However any employer (other than some forms of ďadultĒ entertainment type of place) who demanded that all female (or male for that matter) employees no longer wear underwear in the workplace, or something of that nature, there would be legal action taken against them. Their ability to deny you your rights in the workplace, is and should be limited to reasonable levels. Preventing, people bringing the means to save their own (and others) lives in an emergency is tantamount to padlocking the fire doors.

  5. #80
    Member Array country85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolinia
    Posts
    146
    I have worked for in the state prison system for 15+ years. I somethimes work the graveyard shift which has me travel at night. It is very understandable that weapons are not allowed in the facility. However each Superintendant is the approving authority on allowing weapons to be secured in their P.O.V.
    Some will not issue any approvals. Ours will if you have received "threats from inmates to do harm once they are out. No problem here, far too many to count.
    However what amazes me is how few feel the need to carry to and from work. I was told I am one of 8 out of 140 custody staff. Do they not realize they are targets when they travel to and from work too all the ex inmates.

  6. #81
    Distinguished Member Array LenS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Commiechusetts
    Posts
    1,640
    Country, I have a question for you . . .

    Isn't it a bit risky to lock the firearm up in your POV in the parking lot at the prison? Wouldn't it make more sense for the prison admin to secure it INSIDE the prison as they do for LEOs that have to visit the place?

    Many years ago (before I became a LEO), I had reason to visit MA's max security prison (a place that gave me the willies as a kid when we drove by it) a number of times (our Jaycee chapter formed a chapter behind the walls and we had a few joint <no pun intended> BOD meetings and I later arranged a meeting for the Senate Chairman of Ways & Means, before he was indicted and perhaps became a resident ). I found the people in the waiting room trying to visit their friends/loved ones looked a lot scarier than the lifers I met on the inside (who mostly looked like anyone you'd meet in general society). Thus it wouldn't surprise me for some of the "visitors" to rob a few cars on occasions to feed their own habits!

    Does this track your facility?

  7. #82
    Member Array country85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolinia
    Posts
    146
    Personal weapons are not allowed in the armory. However the parking lot is outside the facility. Weapons also must be in an approved locked box in the vehicle.
    Do to the location of security towers and a roving patrol the parking lot is secure.

  8. #83
    Distinguished Member Array Gideon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,787
    I've thought about travis' input and others. I appreciate all of their comments abut I think some are still missing an important point that has a lot to do with how this country functions, or at least how it's supposed to. In my post, I never disputed anyone's right to "defend" themselves. In fact the Bill of Rights guarauntees us this basic right, i.e. the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (note happiness isn't guarauntied, only that you're allowed to purse it). Now this might set some off, so I ask that you think about what I'm about to say before you react to it. I think we all agree that we have the right to defend ourselves. This is an inalienable right. However, carrying a gun and where/when we carry a gun isn't the exact same right, nor is it inalienable. for this we have to look at the 2nd amendment which says we can keep and bare arms. Now we all probably agree with these two rights. But, there's always a but, when we talk about carrying, we're not talking specifically about the right of defense, rather we're talking about the "MEANS" to defend. Sounds like I'm splitting hairs but I don't think I am. the means of defense a person can use are subjective and we as a people have given the government the right to pass laws. Now we could argue about how they've gone too far and are doing a lousy job, but for now, lets stay on the subject. Would you say I have a right to walk anywhere I want with a fully auto uzi, some hand gernates and a shotgun? Even into a mall or nursery or day care? I'm exagerating to make a point. Am I defending myself? No, not if I'm not under attack. I'm simply carrying what I subjectively feel I need to so I'll have the MEANS, "IF" I'm attached and exercise my right to defend myself. Travis, do I have the right to come on your land, armed like that if you've told me you don't want me to? If you take your logic and apply it, then I could say I do because no matter what you say about your land, all of your rights and liberties are trumped by my right to defend myself, but that's faulty logic, because you're not attacking me so I'm not defending myself, I'm just choosing to maintain the means to defend myself on my person. So, If I own my land and tell you that you can come on my property armed like that, don't I have a right to control who's on my land and how they conduct themselves when they're on it? If you say no, then I'd say that's taking away my rights and I don't think that's right. If I restrict your access or conduct on my land, that doesn't limit your right to defend yourself one bit. What it does do is present you with a choice. You can accept my condiditions and disarm. If you do and you come on my land and are suddenly attaced, do you have the right to defend? YES, with whatever mean's are available. If you consider my requirements, you're equally free to reject them and can stay off my land so you can continue to carry the means that you feel (subjectively) you need to have on you to be able to defend yourself.

    Whew! No I don't want to offend anyone but it's easy to simply raise the flag and say we're going to carry no matter what a person or the law says and a lot of folks will "amen" us, BUT, I still think if you were treated that way you'd feel a lot differently about it.

    Now the problem comes when the government comes to your home and starts to take away arms as a means to defend your home/family. The second amendment guarauntees me that right so now you have a true infringement of my rights.

    So getting back to it, if my boss/company tells me in a straightforward manner that their rule (i.e., condition of employment) is that I not carry any weapon, then it's not a question of my right to defend myself, it's a question as to whether I want to except their terms or not. If I don't, I can get employment elsewhere. If I pretend to accept their conditions and enter on their land and basically lie about what I'm doing, then it's dishonest and nothing more than a lack of integrity. I can cry "self defense" all day long but its more than that.

    Now if I'm on the job and someone attacks me, I can pickup a wrench or a choir or do whatever I can do defend myself becasue thats my right. My employer merely choose to limite the mean's of defense that they'll permit on "THEIR" property and that's THEIR right. If you don't think so, just think about your rights in your home! Would you like others to respect your rights?

    Now before I sound like I'm defending companies with anti gun policies, let me say that I think companies would be wise to let us legally carry, but unfortunately, if something happend and you shoot someone, the family of that person is going to sue not only you, but guess who? Even if they win they'll spend a small fortune in court. Companies are in business to make money so they avoid the risk by setting policy. If people weren't so sue happy, half the dump corporate policies wouldn't be in place in the first place! Can't say I blame them do you? So they tell people, if you want to work here, here are our conditions. Seems fair doesn't it?

    Anyone, I hope I don't make anyone mad but honestly guys, if our own kids applied integrity the way some posts might imply, how would you feel? I think if we saw it up close, in our own home, and directed towards us we'd call it like it its, lack of integrity.

    I will say this, I appreciate the posts and it sure made me think about it alot. I really think we ought to have more gun rights in this country and I think we've already slid further down the path than we ever should have allowed and i don't know if we'll make it back to where we need to be, but in the mean time, I'm going to respect a man's/companies rights on thier land and I'd ask the same of any man coming on my land. If I can't, I won't go there or work there.

    God Bless
    Gideon

  9. #84
    Member Array Fjolnirsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oregon, the rainy part.
    Posts
    271
    . Would you say I have a right to walk anywhere I want with a fully auto uzi, some hand gernates and a shotgun? Even into a mall or nursery or day care?
    Some of you will think I'm crazy, but my answer to this is yes.

    A home is different from a business. For one, a lot more "crazies" wi8ll wander in off the street into a business, as opposed to a private home. This means a higher risk level. But let's disregard that for the moment.

    If I allow you into my home, but require you to disarm,I should be liable for your safety. Same with a business.
    How about this? As a condition of employment at my ________, I require that each employee drink a small amount of lead in their coffee each day. It won't harm anyone right away, and it's their choice to work for me. Would that be ok?
    Or how about if I only employ smokers?
    What if I simply require all employees to vote Replublican? If they don't like it, they don't have to work for me. I'm not keeping them from exercising their right to vote. It's merely a condition of employment.
    If a company wants to deny folks the right to carry, I think they should be allowed to. However, it should also be clear that they accept liability for injury as a result of their policy.
    I've worked for a number of companies where the weapons policy was not posted or available for some time after the start of employment. At one job, it was 3 months before I was given an employee handbook. It's how they reel you in. If you're living from hand to mouth, so to speak(very common in the SF area), it's not easy to change jobs 3 weeks in.
    Companies cannot have it both ways. Either they are liable for my safety, or I am allowed to arm myself.
    "Water can flow, or it can crash. Be like water, my friend."-Bruce Lee

    My Blog

    "Luck, often enough, will save a man if his courage does hold."

  10. #85
    Distinguished Member Array Gideon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,787
    to anser your point, you have to consider the "reasonable person rule". In law, any law, there's always this reasonable person test. If my employer asked me to drink lead as a condition of employment, I'd still have my right to refuse to accept the job. As for their choice, it wouldn't pass a reasonable person test and the courts would find thier choice unreasonable. Their rule to say no guns at work would easily pass this test because of where we're at at as a country today. 100 years ago the "reasonable" standard was different and open carry was as natural as brushing your teeth. So I think we're back to simply either complying with what the law of the land determines as reasonable or not. The sad point here is that where we're heading doesn't seem reasonable at all. I can see the day coming when they (this county) thinks it's reasonable to outlaw having any gun in your home. When/if that day comes, I'll have a problem because going along with such a law will then violate my principles and the 2nd amendment to the constitution. When that happens, i'll feel justified in breaking that law.

    God Bless,

    Gideon

  11. #86
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    FJ, good points which I would like to emphasize...

    A business is NOT the same thing as my home.

    At my HOME, I can, of course insist that visitors disarm, or behave in any way I see fit. I am not about to allow a stranger to come into my house, carrying a rifle or shotgun. But unless I am prepared to frisk him, and disrobe him to see that he is not carrying a concealed pistol, I see no reason to insult visitors with a demand which I am not prepared to personally enforce.

    A business, by its nature has unknown strangers coming and going all the time.
    If someone does not belong, the latitude a property owner can take to
    evict such a person is entirely different at a business as opposed to a residence.

    In my home I do not have to be "nice", and if I shoot a trespasser overlooking my daughters bed, I have an entirely different situation to explain than a mall security guy who shoots a shoplifter with some DVDs.

    An employer who demands that I disarm is not QUITE like one demanding that I drink lead with my coffee... but more like requiring me to play a slot machine in which 1/10,000 spins leaves me open to a crazy coming in and hacking me with a machete, or shooting me, very possibly killing me.
    The odds are low, the consequences are high, and the property owner
    bears no responsibilty for protecting me.

    Gideon may assert that this is an assumed risk. Gideon says that by demanding that I disarm he is not saying I have no RIGHT to defend myself with a tire iron, or some "blunt instrument" but I am just baffled at your semantic contortions to separate a right from the MEANS to exercise that right.

    Gideon, you threw some hyperbole into the convo with a full auto Uzi, and hand grenades. Given the particular context of a class III weapon and destructive devices, I would regard someone visibly carrying such into your day care center to be an imminent threat. But given the rules that YOU have accepted for your day care center, neither the manager of the day-care center nor any of the employees is armed with ANYTHING, and by the time you discover that the man
    who has violated your "no guns" policy is a threat, he has killed your entire staff, and all the children in your charge. Complain about your "property rights" and your 'terms of employment" all you like. People died and YOU not only failed to protect them, but you prevented the self sefense of those who might have been able to act.

    You talk about "integrity".

    I suppose this kind of integrity is the kind that compells you to tell the truth
    when the psycho ex-boyfriend, butcher knife stuck in his belt, comes looking for the next door neighbor, who is hiding in your basement.

    Do you lie or do you tell the truth? If you protect an innocent life, why do you owe TRUTH to someone who endangers it?

    I would lie to protect life, and not have any apology about my INTEGRITY, or HONESTY.

    --Travis--

  12. #87
    Distinguished Member Array Gideon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,787
    I would to!, lie to save a life that is. The Egyptian midwives lied to Pharoh about the Isrealite women and their babies to save the male babies....

    I appreciate your zeal and passion Travis! You make some good points and you're right, I did introduce some hyperbole!

    God bless America we're men can discuss, even debate! I hate that expression "I guess we'll agree to disagree" but in this case I think there are some things we'd definitely agree on and perhaps a few we wouldn't.

    I don't mean to question your integrity, or anyone elses, in any of my comments and I sincerely hope none of my comments were taken that way. But I sure struggle with staying on the right side of my own as I try to make may way through this strange world while trying to please the Lord. I guess when it gets right down to it, when each of us carrys that gun, we have to be the one to make the decisions as we're certainly the ones who'll live with the consequences, or die as a result of them. Perhaps I just took us a little too far in trying to consider the "other guys" perspective.

    Perhaps I won't have to worry about not carrying at work because someone like you will be right beside me

    God Bless
    Gideon

  13. #88
    Member Array Hotelcharlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    49
    I think I would get the required permit without delay. That will eliminate the possibility of arrest for carrying a weapon. As far as your employer, you will have to balance the risk of being attacked while unarmed against the risk of being fired if discovered with a weapon while at work. Prior to getting my CCW, I carried during times of high risk even though I had no permit, figuring it was better to be judged by 11 than carried by 6.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Bad: Workplace shooting, PA
    By msgt/ret in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 9th, 2010, 11:14 PM
  2. Help make a case for workplace carry
    By pt111pro in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 19th, 2010, 02:33 PM
  3. Workplace carry
    By JaCKaL84 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: July 19th, 2010, 02:38 PM
  4. Concealed Carry in the Workplace
    By Headshrinker in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 24th, 2009, 11:12 PM

Search tags for this page

can an employer deny you the right to conceal carry

,
can an employer not allow you to conceal carry oregon
,
can workplace deny right to concealed carry
,
conceal carry in the work place las vegas
,

concealed carry in the workplace

,
concealed threat detector private workplace
,
do i allow my gun to be exposed
,
empty your pockets workplace
,
is it legal for workplace to deny right to carry
,
jobs that allow you to carry
,
kentucky conceal carry work place not posted
,
off body fitearm carry workplace
Click on a term to search for related topics.