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!
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.
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....
I saw that term of art in the policy, and it jumped out at me, too.
Much like my former boss liked to read technology blogs and appropriate buzzwords, I suspect some HR type is just trying to weave in a term of art they don't really understand, because it sounds cool.
In the words of Inigo Montoya - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
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.
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.
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.
the wording in my employee handbook is similar. something to the effect of "... without proper authorization." it doesn't state what proper authorization consists of. i'm authorized by the state and the building isn't posted, so i guess i'm ok.
<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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the responses. There are several men here who I know would carry concealed, but they are afraid of the consequences of getting caught with a weapon at work. My take on our policy is that it all depends on who you are and what you were doing with it when you got made - with emphasis on who you are. Workplace politics not withstanding, I will have to decide which I fear more - needing my weapon and not having it, or having it and possibly jeopardizing my job. I think if I keep quiet about it and conceal it well, the latter won't be a problem. And if I ever do need it, I can live to find out about the status of the job later.
Obviously, English is not the first language of those who wrote these policies. You have your permit, so you are "authorized" by the proper authorities to carry a concealed firearm, and you are not planning murder or robbery, so the "authorized" possession of that firearm cannot by any definition be considered "adverse".
Sounds like you could compromise your concerns by keeping your firearm in your car...at least you could get to it, and you would be armed to and from work. You did say that your place of employment seemed fairly safe, and there were security personnel...
Sounds to me like they are giving folks with CC permits kind of a 'go ahead' while still making the sheep-ish employees think that they are in a designated victim zone, like they prefer.
I haven't read through everyones posts... but I would think that a legally held CCW permit would not fit into the intent of "Adverse Possession!"
Now you might be splitting hairs on the companies intent when writing the policy. They also did not spell out if it was a termination of employment offense either.
If you specifically go up and ask... they may give you a more specific answer that if I had to guess, would not be the one you are hoping to hear.
So... If you are a legal ccw permit holder and use a "great amount of care" in keeping your weapon concealed, I would think no one would have reason to think you were armed.
If you carry concealed and flagrantly violate a written "policy", while it may not be a criminal offense, you are gonna have to be upstanding enough to accept the consequences of possibly losing your job, if caught. But at least you won't be committing a criminal offense. That would cause you serious trouble and we on this forum in no way advocate breaking the laws of any state!
Now, if terminated from employment, given the vagueness of the policy and the wording that includes "adverse possession", you may have a case for getting your job back since you are a lawful, state issued ccw permit holder, should you choose to fight your termination.
However, we as lawful ccw holders are all about responsibility and taking responsibility for our actions. So if you feel the "spirit of the policy" when written was to mean, no weapons carried by employees, then you should be expected to be responsible enough to accept the consequences for what happens if you get caught.
Again, though, the policy is vague and you may be able to successfully challenge that in court.
JMHO, YMMV
Stay Safe and remember, concealed means "nobody sees or knows."
I would add that one shouldn't make it well known at work that one is a firearms enthusiast. Or keep firearms magazines where they can be seen. Unless you shoot with the owner on the weekend.....
If this were a law, you could determine what it means from the literal language. However, since it is only your employers company policy, it means whatever they want it to mean. I take it as something to prevent the employees from carrying weapons, while allowing management to carry if they feel it is necessary. For the everyday employee, as soon as the weapon is seen, it becomes harmful, simply by creating an "intimidating or threatening working environment" - same standard as the insanely vague and misused sexual harassment laws.
My guess is that, regardless of intent or permit, any noticed weapon will result in termination.
Randy is right about the "adverse possession" clause, (I should know, I just completed 1st year of Law School), it is covered in first year "Property" courses... I also interned with some Judges in Colorado this summer, and one of their most interesting cases was an adverse possession case (18 year limit) (the other party argued the Colorado fence statute applied (21 year limit)...
in this case it appears that some HR type has decided to appropriate the language of lawyers and change the meaning to whatever they want it to mean...
as long as it isn't illegal, I would carry - hide it well
I am not a lawyer, my advice should NOT be taken seriously, if you have a legal problem, seek the advice of a competent professional.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Odds are..you will never print and never be noticed by anyone at your job. Odds are that if people are work see your gun then it will probably be a welcome sight (SHTF).
IMHO the wording is as such that they left it open for interpretation, so interpret it how you would like. If something happens down the road you can show them the line in the handbook and tell them that thats how you read it. If they disagree you could get fired, yes, but depending on the circumstances around them "finding out" you could just be asked politely to not carry on company property anymore.
Also, if you got fired I think any 2-bit workers protection attorney could either get you your job back or a decent settlement.
The handbook seems to me that it allows CCW (with a permit).
Why don't you just ask your HR department? Sheesh.....wrangling around trying to reinterpret company policy doesn't seen like the right way to go about advancing carry laws.
Ask them to make their position more clear then deal with it by either complying or finding a new job.
Just keep it concealed and your mouth shut. That's easy. It's sad when people forfeit their God-given rights.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!