Defensive Carry banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My father is the CEO of a company which is not required by the law to ban CCW on the premises yet they clearly display on the front door a sign reading "It is illegal to possess a handgun on these premises."

No my father is not against CCW at all and yes he's tried to change it. And yes they get complaints all the time. So why is the sign still there?

Insurance. The business could not afford the excellent health insurance its employees get it they didn't post those signs. Their insurance company demands it.

And you know what? My parents need that insurance very badly.

But here's the kicker.

Section 30.06 in the great state of Texas specifies that a sign prohibiting CCW on a premises has to meet some very specific criteria. I have to agree all such signs should be identical.

The sign on this business's door meet the insurance company's regulations but not the state law.

The reasons for this are two fold. One, the people who work there are not against CCW. Two, a great deal of their customers are going to carry in there regardless of what sign they hang up.

In effect what they really have done is very sneaky. It allows for lawful CCW carry and yet they are keeping their insurance company happy.

The irony of this situation is that I carry in there all the time because I know what the state law says and I don't have to obey a sign that doesn't meet regulations.

However I can see how the ethics of this situation might appall some.

On the one hand, you have a company who is cowing to an anti rights organization while using a loophole in the law to have its way anyway. Some might argue that they should just get another insurance carrier and suffer either the rate hike or the depleted coverage in the interest of being ethical.

I submit however that I personally know several of the people who have this insurance, parents included, and I know they need it badly. It's literally a matter of life and death. Also, they are doing nothing illegal, and furthermore it is absurd that an insurance company should be allowed to dictate their CCW policy. I see nothing wrong with subverting a dangerous regulation that isn't even a law!

As a matter of fact I feel concern that my father has to work in a place where they have had no less than 2 violent incidents and yet a no guns in here sign still hangs on the door.

I look at it like this... that insurance company only wants that sign there because it'll make them feel better and they won't provide coverage unless they can feel better. Well you know what, it's there. Feel better all you want to but you haven't changed a thing you pompous arrogant bureaucrats.

I don't like the idea that they're still giving money to this organization that supports this anti 2A stance, but like I said, if they don't have this insurance coverage they'd be in some real deep trouble. What's better, making a small but possibly ultimately meaningless strike against gun control Nazis, or a lot of people I know becoming unhealthy because their insurance won't pay for their medical care any more?

The company only has 40 something employees. Dropping their insurance company would not in any significant way harm their insurance company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
I think you are right on and they are doing the right thing. I agree that I wish insurance companies did not have the power they do now, but in a litigious world in which personal responcability is shunned that is hole we have dug. True tort reform, and not the bullshi1 that congress talks about, is needed to fix this. Well that and the relinquishment of the victim mentality that is infecting America like the black plague.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,035 Posts
I agree, ignore the sign and carry anyway. And, since he is the CEO and the sign is illegal, he has the option of just telling his employees to "obey the law". Obviously if the the sign is not a lawful sign, they are free to carry at work as easily as you are, as a visitor. If something did happen that required the insurance company had to pay off, I doubt if they could duck their responsibility to payoff becuase some were carrying, but they would then probably cancel the insurance. Big deal. Insurance companies grow on vines. I hate 'em, but they are a necessary evil.

To me this is not illegal or unethical. Insurance companies are not exactly pillars of ethics....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,481 Posts
Euc - this is a probably common ''rock and hard place'' dilemma but one which it seems has been well circumvented in this case.

I would have no qualms whatever in the way this is being played out - tho it should not be necessary to resort to what is I guess subtle subterfuge.

Long and short tho seems to be - in a sense - everyone is happy. :smile: Your Dad should come here and sign up - be good to have him aboard.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,530 Posts
Euclidean,

Regarding the moral issue, personally, I think it's not an issue at all. The moral issue to me is how can an insurance company require something that denies a consitutionally protected right? So, I would have no moral issue with carrying on the property.

But, as for the legal issue. If it's concealed and you don't get caught, there is not problem. If you had to use the gun on the premises then you'd still be better off having it than adhering to some sign. If you simply got caught with it on the premises, you may be asked to leave, the police may be called, it may depend on who's involved, the situation, and obligations to the insurance company.

We have a similar problem in Tennessee in that we can't carry in a resturant that serves alcohol, even it we aren't going to drink. That also is not a moral issue to me; I'd carry anyway without a guilty conscious if it weren't for the fact that it's a felony! That increases the consequences beyond my level of comfort.

Some other considerations are if a gun-a-phobic person detected/saw your gun it could result in a disturbing the peace citation if nothing else. Frustrating, isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
It appears that everything has been satisfied. Your father's company has posted the property as required by the insurance company. The insurance company failed to specify that it be a sign compliant with Texas law to actually prohibit concealed carry. That is their failure, not anyone elses.

If CHP holders are concerned enough about their rights, but not concerned enough to recognize a non-compliant sign, to bad for them.


No dilemma at all.

Insurance companies are inserting themselves everywhere these days. Some even require a "lifestyle" survey before fixing your rates. If you don't eat right, exercise enough or engage in risky activities (racing, skydiving etc.) your premium will be very high indeed.

-Scott-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Tangle said:
Euclidean,

Regarding the moral issue, personally, I think it's not an issue at all. The moral issue to me is how can an insurance company require something that denies a consitutionally protected right? So, I would have no moral issue with carrying on the property...

We have a similar problem in Tennessee in that we can't carry in a resturant that serves alcohol, even it we aren't going to drink. That also is not a moral issue to me; I'd carry anyway without a guilty conscious if it weren't for the fact that it's a felony! That increases the consequences beyond my level of comfort.
Luckily, here in Texas it's not whether a restaurant sells alcohol but how much. If 50% or more of their income is derived from liquor sales (bars, for example) you can't carry in the place. If it's less than 50%, there's no problem. Also, the restaurant/bar has to post a sign saying alcohol makes up 50% or more of their income.

We have very specific requirements as to who can and can't restrict CC of firearms at a place of business and even when a business can, there are specific requirements that must be followed. You can't just say "NO GUNS ALLOWED" or "NO GUN ZONE". Certain wording must be used, the sign must be of a specifc size and design and it must be displayed in certain, designated places.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Before I read far enough to see that the sign doesn't meet the 30.06 regs (gotta love the 30.06 irony there:biggrin: ) I was going to suggest that you use a sign that did not meet the state requirements to create a loophole for yourselves. Since that's already the case, carry on (sorry :wink: ).

I don't personally see a moral dilema here. I am more concerned about my safety and that of the people with whom I work than I would be about the dumb regs. of the insurance company. Like someone else said, my problem would be with the insurance company's stupid policy. If they have to use that insurance carrier, so be it. Ya gotta do what you gotta do. Just hang the worthless sign and keep packin' your gun.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,530 Posts
Guys, don't take this wrong, I'm as pro-gun as it gets, in fact I don't think businesses should be allowed to restrict concealled carry.

But, I can see how insurance companies would have a problem insuring a business where the employees regularly and routinely carried guns. Some employees would probably have a little training and most would have none! You can almost imagine at lunch breaks the "I'll trade you this little honey for your .45." "Hey, let me have a look at that."

So I kinda understand the potential cost to the inusurance company, but I still don't like it. Although if "we", meaning you and I, were going to insure a business, I wonder if we would want to bear the financial burden of a shooting accident on the job?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
Tangle,

The insurance company is not basing their policy on the number of negligent discharges resulting in injury or death a year. I believe the number is on the order of a few thousand out of the estimated 80 of million gun owners. Most of those are either hunting related or when some unauthorized or uneducated person starts fooling around with a gun. Not the profile of a CCW holder. As a matter of fact, after the first 6 years of Florida's CCW law, not one innocent person had been killed or injured by a CCW holder.

The insurance company would be better off requiring that all showers and tubs have non-slick sufaces or the plate glass doors & windows have decals at eye level.

The insurance company is also ignoring the liability possibility of someone obeying the sign, getting involved in a hold up or whacko shooting, and suing them. No, I'll bet that someone at the insurance agency is not comfortable about guns.

I would say that ethically, you are not required to follow any illegal order, unjust law or rule that is harmful. Actually, I would say that it is the responsibility of an ethical person to not follow illegal orders, unjust laws or harmful rules.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,530 Posts
AutoFan said:
Tangle,
The insurance company is also ignoring the liability possibility of someone obeying the sign, getting involved in a hold up or whacko shooting, and suing them. No, I'll bet that someone at the insurance agency is not comfortable about guns..
I agree, but here's something I have considered for a long time. If I had a business that employed say 50 people, would I be willing to allow any and all of these people I don't know that well, freely carry a concealed handgun? As pro-gun as I am, I keep coming up with the same answer - I don't think I would. All it would take is one shooting accident to cost me my business, possibly my home and way of life. Problems could also result from co-workers who are personally intimidated by those who carry guns. I know they aren't suppose to know, but things have a way of becoming known. The conflict could result in arguments, trauma and loss of production.

AutoFan said:
I would say that ethically, you are not required to follow any illegal order, unjust law or rule that is harmful. Actually, I would say that it is the responsibility of an ethical person to not follow illegal orders, unjust laws or harmful rules.
I agree! Well said! But, I can't carry at work; if I could, I wouldn't hesitate to. With me it's not a question of ethics, it's a matter of penalty; if I got caught, I'd likely lose my job, be fined, possibly go to jail, not to mention possibly losing the right to own a gun or even be in the presence of a gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
Tangle said:
Guys, don't take this wrong, I'm as pro-gun as it gets, in fact I don't think businesses should be allowed to restrict concealled carry.

But, I can see how insurance companies would have a problem insuring a business where the employees regularly and routinely carried guns. Some employees would probably have a little training and most would have none! You can almost imagine at lunch breaks the "I'll trade you this little honey for your .45." "Hey, let me have a look at that."
If you commit suicide, your life insurance will not pay off. This situation would be no different. 1) We're talking CCW: the people carrying are supposed to have been liscensed by the state. 2) A ND would be no different than a suicide- the individual is held responsible for the cost incurred. I see where you're coming from, but it isn't logical- if a CCW holder is pulling his "piece" out at lunch, for "show-n-tell", he should be charged with public nuisance (what they usually call "flashing"), and have points against his liscense, or have it revoked, based on state law.

The CCW holder is supposed to be responsible (and will be held accountable) for abiding by the law. This is a corporation (the ins. carrier)trying to legislate. :wink:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,481 Posts
As a CEO - I would be at ease with carry - if - by acknowledged and proven good guys. If they have gone thru background check etc then I would feel that they, like me, are going to view their responsibility with great respect and be the folks who carry only as a last ditch resort, legally excercizing a right.

I doubt there are many of us who are not fully cognisant of just how much we'd lose thru inappropriate actions.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top