"Adverse possession of any deadly weapon" at workplace

This is a discussion on "Adverse possession of any deadly weapon" at workplace within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; My company's employee handbook contains the following section regarding possession of a deadly weapon: "The adverse possession or display of any deadly weapon by any ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

Thread: "Adverse possession of any deadly weapon" at workplace

  1. #1
    Member Array dhbry232's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Madison, Mississippi
    Posts
    172

    "Adverse possession of any deadly weapon" at workplace

    My company's employee handbook contains the following section regarding possession of a deadly weapon:

    "The adverse possession or display of any deadly weapon by any employee will not be tolerated on Company property."

    I have not (and probably will not) discuss this with Human Resources because I do not wish to elevate the "threat level". Also, what is written and what is unwritten policy can be two different things at this company.

    I was curious as to how some of you might interpret this policy and how you might handle it. In Mississippi, we can conceal carry with a permit except where expressly prohibited by a private business or by other state statutes.

    We have unarmed security but nothing to physically deter someone from entering the property.

    Your comments, please. And yes, I know most of you are not lawyers, so I won't act without serious contemplation on the matter as this is a very well-paid position with a very stable company. I have never felt my safety was threatened at work; however, we all know you hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I respect the opinions of many on this forum and would love to hear what you think!
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,207
    For me it's too broad. I look at everyday items as potential deadly weapons so I couldn't even work there.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  4. #3
    Member Array vashooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Warrenton, VA
    Posts
    204
    That's very shady wording of a company policy... "adverse posession"????
    They may have written it that way so that hunters could bring rifles to work during hunting season etc... but to prohibit someone from bringing a gun or knife on-site for "naughty" or "adverse" reasons.
    But I wouldn't assume anything. I would in fact explicitly ask the HR dept. what the official company policy is on legally carrying a self defense gun on property is. The policy is written vauge enough that you risk termination if caught without having express permission first.
    It kind of sucks that a company can try to force you into "unprotecting" yourself, but it is a PRIVATE owned company and they can run their business however they want without breaking the law and you are working there voluntarily so by accepting a paycheck you are agreeing to abide by their rules.
    PS- I may not like companies banning guns at work, but I don't think it's violating any of our rights - it's their property and they can regulate what they feel is safe and best for the company and employees.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array randytulsa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,548
    Well, I am a lawyer. And the term "adverse possession" just kind of jumped out and grabbed me.

    Maybe things have changed since I went to law school and took the bar, but I doubt it.

    "Adverse Possession" refers to something one particularly astute observer once termed "title by theft".

    "Adverse Possession" comes from property law (deeds and land titles & etc.) and it means that if you go squat on a particular piece of land, open and notoriously, for a certain period of years (it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction- if it even exists anymore at all- it was dying out), you obtained clear title to the piece of land. No kidding. It's yours if you take it "possess" it "adversely" to the owner.

    One exception: it doesn't work against a governmental entity- private property only.

    So what on earth does "adverse possession" have to do with guns in the workplace?

    I dunno.

    Got me.

    My best guess here is that the policy is intended to prohibit flashing or brandishing or threatening.

    But it's real hard to tell (unless I just misread the post- that can happen...I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet).

    Read legalistically, formally and (and improperly), use of the term "adverse possession" makes the policy mean that you can't try to obtain legal title to a co-worker's gun by just stealing it from him....

    Ugh.
    "...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."


    Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108

    Those policies are in place only to attempt to protect

    The company from liability lawyers. Both the company, and the security agency hired to provide security have insurance policies in place to provide standard "settlements" to victims of any workplace altercation. the insurance companies are the ones that drive these requirments as a condition of underwriting the policies. Personally, I don't pay much attention to them, because my life is always worth more than any job.

    Besides, I think when the Parker case is heard by SCOTUS in 2008, a lot of things are going to change. If they rule in our favor, which I believe is going to happen, there are going to be hundreds, if not thousands of gun laws struck down as unconstitutional. And there will also be court challenges galore, as citizens test the laws that do survive on the books. State legislators will have to completely rethink their approach to gun legislation as well.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,731
    Quote Originally Posted by dhbry232 View Post
    "The adverse possession or display of any deadly weapon by any employee will not be tolerated on Company property."
    With positive intent, my personal view is that possession is a positive thing, with "adverse" posession being possession with negative intent ... ie, overtly seeking to commit a crime. But, whatever the twist I could apply, clearly this company wishes to retain some measure of power and control over situations involving weapons. In the end, it's very simple. It's private property, so the company's rules apply. Thus, if you're found to be in possession in spite of any overt action on your part, at minimum you'll likely no longer be working there. So, decide.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    My reading is that you intend to do harm.

    My company policy has a little "except as authorized" in their policy. It doesn't say who does the authorizing. In my case I am simply risking termination, there is no violation of law for violating company policy. If Mississippi law backs your employer I would be very clear on what that policy means.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array Daddy Warcrimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    736
    <disclaimer>I'm just playing Devil's advocate</disclaimer>
    Webster:
    Adverse
    1: acting against or in a contrary direction : HOSTILE <hindered by ~ winds> 2 a: opposed to one's interests <an ~ verdict><heard testimony ~ to their position>; esp :UNFAVORABLE <~ criticism> b: causing harm :HARMFUL <~ drug effects> 3 archaic : opposite in position
    Definition 1 doesn't seem to fit unless there is another policy specifically opposing possession.

    2 a, the section quoted fails to define who's interest. It would not be adverse to your interest. Unless otherwise stated, I would assume your company has no interest in the possession of weapons beyond those intended for use in crime.

    2 b seems the most applicable use. Possession or display that causes harm is prohibited. Make sure your gun isn't radioactive or emitting poisonous gas. If nobody knows about it, it can't cause any emotional or psychological "harm".

    </Devil's advocate>

    What does your state specifically say about businesses prohibiting? Is there required signage? Is Mississippi a ask to leave else trespass state or is it crime on entry?

    The intent of the rule seems obvious (though poorly written), they don't want guns there. You risk termination if you bring yours.

    If you bring it up, you will get a definite answer which will most likely be no. You will also have them looking at you more closely to see if you're doing it anyway.

    If you (if legal in your state) intend to carry regardless of policy, don't ask-don't tell.

    Unarmed security, there's an oxymoron.
    "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger"

    DaddyWarcrimes.com

  10. #9
    Member Array dhbry232's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Madison, Mississippi
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes View Post
    Unarmed security, there's an oxymoron.
    Tell me about it! I guess that's a subject for another thread...I do work unarmed security part-time. Observe and report, they say...
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  11. #10
    Member Array crankshop1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    328
    If caught you can always claim that you were in fact in reverse obtuse prerequisite fiduciary possession of a weapon which should forstall any further legislative or executive mea culpa.Or you could simply run away.Chuck. (I'm not an attorney).

  12. #11
    Senior Member
    Array gimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by crankshop1000 View Post
    If caught you can always claim that you were in fact in reverse obtuse prerequisite fiduciary possession of a weapon which should forstall any further legislative or executive mea culpa.
    Huh?!
    "Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual change; but this change is not [an improvement]. For everything that is given, something is taken."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    To you adverse possesion means you posses it with the intention of using it to commit a hostile action. You do not so therefore the rule does not apply to you.

    For the love of God do not go to Human Resources!!! That is the fastest way possible to get an outright ban established on everything, including leaving a deer rifle in the trunk of your car.

    If your state states it is illegal to carry when expressly told not to then you are fine. There is no clear definition of their terminology and plenty of room.

    Now carry, conceal well and tell nobody.

  14. #13
    Member Array dhbry232's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Madison, Mississippi
    Posts
    172
    Thanks to all who replied. Your thinking runs parallel to mine. I may get a small, easy to conceal firearm and just hide it really well. I certainly would never make mention of it to anyone else. And, I never want to ask HR anything! "Conceal Well and Don't Tell" is a good motto right up there with "Be Prepared!" If I should ever be in a situation at work that would require my needing the firearm to protect my life or someone else's, getting fired from the job would be a non-consideration at that point.
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  15. #14
    Member Array automan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    57
    "The adverse possession or display of any deadly weapon by any employee will not be tolerated on Company property."
    Don't leave a deadly weapon lying around or someone's going to claim it as theirs if they find it?

    Seriously, who wrote the employee manual? Maybe they should hire a bar certified lawyer to write the manual for them?

  16. #15
    Member Array dhbry232's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Madison, Mississippi
    Posts
    172
    Maybe it was fashioned after the way some of our state laws on carrying are written...
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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. Help me re-write our "Weapon Free Workplace" company policy!
    By Team140 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: April 20th, 2014, 08:29 PM
  2. (Open carry) "Help, Officer, he brandished his weapon at me!"..."No i didn't!!"
    By RR9501 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: October 9th, 2010, 01:48 PM
  3. UPS "adverse weather" delays - anyone else smell manure?
    By matiki in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: January 10th, 2009, 11:13 AM
  4. "In Your Possession vs "On Your Person"
    By sisco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 15th, 2007, 08:27 PM
  5. Castle Doctorine & Deadly Force or "Please Don't Shoot Me On Duty!"
    By Mark Garrity in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: August 9th, 2006, 07:53 AM

Search tags for this page

adverse possession clause definition
,
adverse possession serve public goals
,
business plan for using a deadly weapon in the workplace
,

cases of not reporting weapon possesion in the work place

,
concealed carry wording for a company handbook
,
deadly weapons company rules
,
does mo have the adverse possession clause
,

illegal possesion of deadly weapon in a workplace

,
mississippi conceal carry in the work place
,
possession of deadly weapon during work
,
unarmed security is an oxymoron
,
what is aderse in the workplace
Click on a term to search for related topics.