Carrying At Work

[Sparks2112]

I'm curious as to how many of you carry at work while company policy forbids it? I'm not talking about breaking the law, so, if you work in a posted or gun free zone that's one thing. I'm talking about working somewhere it's perfectly legal to carry, but would get you fired if the bosses found out.

For instance. I've recently started working the night shift at a gas station. It is not posted no carry, but company policy forbids it (they also say cooperation with a robber will keep you safe :rolleyes:).

Suffice to say, I carry even though they would prefer I not, I'm not breaking any laws, but would be fired if discovered. Anyone else?

[DWARREN123]

I can mark both. I will not knowing break the laws and customs of others but first I will not be a victim.

[Recon7]

Depending on where you live, you may be trespassing. probably just a misdemeanor, but something to consider. This is an Issue I hope to be facing soon as my ccw should arrive in the mail (shall issue state) and I will be looking for a new job. I did not vote because I have to carry at my current job.

[Sparks2112]

Depending on where you live, you may be trespassing.

I think that would only be if they posted no guns period. If customers can have guns but employees can't I don't think they could force the trespassing thing. Especially considering they'd have to ask me to leave first.

[Recon7]

The law may consider a policy against carrying at work the request to leave, I really don't know Just trying to play devils advocate.

[Sparks2112]

The law may consider a policy against carrying at work the request to leave, I really don't know Just trying to play devils advocate.

Very possible. And don't worry, Devil's advocate is fine when people are polite. I started the thread to get people talking anyway. :)

[KLRANGL]

This might be going down a different path, but my occupation is student... What about carrying on campus? I know its a big no no rules wise, but is that just an expulsion offense or an arresting offense as well? This is a state school, not private...

When I did work over the summer at a fuel injector plant, I wouldnt have carried even if I could (was under 21 at the time hence no permit, and it was stated no weapons in the rules). The engineering experience was too important for the future... While I think we should be allowed to carry, I dont think we should change our lifestyle (to a significant degree that is) in order to carry, ie change jobs... No sense preserving a life you dont enjoy...

[Recon7]

I know exactly where you're coming from, I am a student at a smaller "private" college and I don't even know how to ask if they allow lawful concealed carry without looking like a trench coat nutjob.

[KLRANGL]

Yeah, I know what you mean... I was at a Town Hall Meeting at school today in response to a string of armed robberies and an attempted sexual assault on campus (one student shot in the leg). It was a Q&A session with the University Police Chief, and I asked him straight up if he would ever consider allowing students with conceal carry permits to carry on campus... He basically told me there was no way and never will be... He then preceded to tell us it was our responsibility to protect ourselves and the cops could only do so much... At least he understands that part... now if only they would let us do something about it...

Unfortunately, being at a private school you're sort of SOL regardless because private entities should be able to make their own laws...
Any rules regarding firearms should be on your school website. If not you can always contact the Dean of Students...

[Keltyke]

If I tell you (anyone) that you can't carry a weapon on my property or a place I have control over, you won't or you won't set foot across that property line, or if you do, you'll go to jail.

Some people need to learn to respect other's rights and property rights. I have 100% control over my property. I can even tell a LEO to get off, obtain a search warrant, or have probable cause.

Yes, you have a right to defend yourself. I DO firmly believe in that. The Government, right or wrong, has decided your right to carry a weapon may come under the control of others. You don't like it? Change the government.

If you carry to a "no guns" work zone, I hope you can live on unemployment, cause you must not want that job very badly.

[David Armstrong]

Different states, different rules. Some places a prohibition on carry by the business is a legal restriction and you can be arrested and/or lose your CHL. Might want to check that before anybody does anything silly.

[Recon7]

I'm not even sure you would qualify for unemployment, it you were "terminated for committing a crime on company premises"

If you get caught carrying at a resteraunt, you pay the tab with cash and walk don't run off of the property quickly. No private citizen should be able to detain you for a misdemeanor. Remember you aren't running from the cops, you are leaving as requested. But if you are at work that won't work for you. you could expect to lose your job and possibly your ccw permit.

Keltyke, you would have to make a reasonable request for the person to leave and they would only be arrested if they stayed until the cops arrive. I deal with trespass issues at work a lot and typically the only way to arrest somebody is they refuse to leave until the cops show or you properly document the first trespass and that they were warned not to come back and they come back anyway.

[Keltyke]

+1 David Armstrong.

You're absolutely right, recon7, I was simply trying to get the point across.

"Sorry, I didn't realize my weapon wasn't allowed in *****. I didn't see any signs. I'll leave immediately." Then do so - calmly and quietly.

Even if you've already ordered, you are only required to pay for the food you actually ate.

[TheNatureBoy]

I wouldn't dare. I've been working for local government for 24 years now. In another 6 years I can retire with a pretty good pension. Company policy absolutely forbids it and I don't have a problem with that.

[hogdogs]

Neither option is correct for me...
I do not daily carry... I do not currently have the ability to work... If I did have a job to go to and chose to carry a firearm I would be a responsible gun owner and carry it with me rather than leave it unattended in a vehicle on a parking lot.
If i was fired for carrying I would not mind... I have always lived by the creed... "I was lookin' for a job when I found this one..."
I would not work in a setting where attack was an imminent risk but refuse to leave a gun in a vehicle as they are not that secure.
Brent

[grymster2007]

Where I work it would be a felony.

Fired and in jail? Nahhh, I could take one or the other, but not both.

[David Armstrong]

If i was fired for carrying I would not mind... I have always lived by the creed... "I was lookin' for a job when I found this one..."
Why would you even take the job in the first place if you knew you were not going to follow the rules that the job said for you to follow?

[Recon7]

$$$$

That's a pretty silly question isn't it.

[Mannlicher]

I own the company, so I have no problems with CCW. Even so, I carry where I feel it is in my best interests, I am not so concerned with the legality of it.

[hogdogs]

I have even lied to bosses (grounds for dismissal) calling in sick when in truth I forgot to stop drinking and was still partying with friends...
Just like have driven 110 mph, and rolled a few stop signs even turned without a signal... I don't consider my self the teetotaler to honor every rule in society. I have had to pick up my sick daughter with my shotgun in the truck from public school... Should I have stopped at the post office across the street and have them hold it?
But I behave much better in recent years... Most everything I care not to mention has had the statute of limitation expire though. wildass is an understatement to describe my younger years...
Brent

[dabigguns357]

I'm going to say yes but if i'm inside at work then i leave it in the car.but once my butt hits my front seat the holster and come out and the shirt goes over it.

[OnTheFly]

I WISH I could carry. I travel for a living and find myself in some not so nice areas. Unfortunately, the TSA doesn't seem to share my concerns. :rolleyes:

Fly

[Amendtwo]

I carry at all times, except when a metal detector is in my path.

[Threefeathers]

The two answers are too closly related. A better answer would be Do you violate the law in order to remain armed?
Such as carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol when State statute makes this specifically illegal.

[fisherman66]

Depending on state statues, correct posting of no firearms signs may be required in order to be in violation of law. A picture of a gun with a slash across it may not qualify. Carrying may be a terminable offense, but not necessarily criminal.

[Sparks2112]

The two answers are too closly related. A better answer would be Do you violate the law in order to remain armed?
Such as carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol when State statute makes this specifically illegal.

I didn't figure it would be in the Forum's best interest for me to ask how many of it's members break the law on a daily basis. What with the promotion of responsible ownership and all. :cool:

Also let me clarify. My second job that I carry to is NOT a gun free zone. In fact I've seen many armed patrons just in the last week that I've worked there. They do however have a company policy that prohibits it's employees from being armed / defending themselves against attack (their wording). I'm of the opinion that it's an unlawful policy, mainly the not defending yourself against attack.

It's by no means my main source of income, so, if I was forced to quit, that'd be ok. I honestly don't think it'll ever be an issue.

If I can hide a Glock-21SF on my person and have my wife not notice after an entire day out, including random hugs, hip bumps, and all the other PDA's that married couples who still like each other tend to exhibit in public, I think I stand up to the casual observer test.

[Wang]

I carry everywhere it's legal. I can and do carry at work.

[w_houle]

I don't need to carry around work or keep one in the trunk because my next door neighbor is the area where the MPs train their dogs... and I think they would love to let their dogs chew on someone.

[fivepaknh]

Of coarse the legality of carrying against company policy varies from state to state, but in NH there are very few restrictions on where I can carry. In my case I’d be violating company policy, but not breaking the law.

I work 3rd shift and for several years worked alone in a cubicle. I used to carry back then. However, the situation has changed and I’m now in a network center working with other people. The risk of being discovers is too great, so the gun stays in the truck.

[cschwanz]

we are not supposed to carry guns on work property. good thing im in sales and out of the office for 7-8 hours a day

[luvsasmith]

In Ohio you can't carry at work if the company policy doesn't allow it. That is written into the CCW laws.

[threegun]

I wouldn't carry at work if I could loose more than my job. Thankfully we carry openly on the job.

[alloy]

my boss is a SOB, he makes me carry.

[wayneinFL]

"Why would you even take the job in the first place if you knew you were not going to follow the rules that the job said for you to follow?"

Because in my line of work, no employer is going to allow that. If you're attacked, you're expected to die to save the company from any sort of embarrassment. Yet, as a father of four, I feel the duty to provide for my children while staying alive to continue to be a father to them.

Not every employee follows company policy to the letter; most don't. Some employees lie about being sick, or take off work early without telling the boss. Others steal office supplies.

I take measures to protect mine and my coworkers' lives despite the conflict with company policy. :eek:

[David Armstrong]

Because in my line of work, no employer is going to allow that. If you're attacked, you're expected to die to save the company from any sort of embarrassment. Yet, as a father of four, I feel the duty to provide for my children while staying alive to continue to be a father to them.
Sorry, but I've always found "I want to make more money" to be a poor excuse for dishonesty.
Not every employee follows company policy to the letter; most don't. Some employees lie about being sick, or take off work early without telling the boss. Others steal office supplies.
And do you think those actions are OK or dishonest?

Not meaning to be insulting to anybody in particular, but my philosophy has been and is that employment is a deal between company and employee. And the deal is that if you do what the company has told you (generic you, not personal) the company will give you a certain amount of money and benefits. If the shoe was on the other foot, if the company decided they didn't have to live up to their end of the bargain, you would think it wrong and dishonest. "Yes, I know we agreed to pay you $15 an hour for your work, and you've certainly lived up to your end of the arrangement, but we are only going to give you $9 an hour." Most would holler about how dishonest and wrong that was, and many would even sue.
My $.02: We talk a lot about gun folks being honest and law-abiding. We should expect both even when it is inconvenient. Using the old adage of "never go anywhere with a gun you would not be willing to go without a gun", if you feel that your workplace is so dangerous that you need to carry a gun even when it is expressly prohibited, you might want to look for another place to work.

[threegun]

Sorry, but I've always found "I want to make more money" to be a poor excuse for dishonesty.


We here in America have the constitutional right to self defense. Business owners who wish to deprive us of this right are then obligated to pay for our protection. If they refuse us both the right to carry and the protection we are entitled to, then it is not dishonest to break the unconstitutional rule. The only dishonesty is the belief that one has the right to violate the rights of another citizen.

BTW, I have yet to see a company in Corporate America that allows its employees to carry. To say that most could or should find employment which allows carry is a fantasy.

[HuntAndFish]

I picked "risk getting caught", even though that's not completely accurate.

I (implicitly) agreed to abide by the rules in the employee handbook when I accepted the job. I won't intentionally break those rules even though it would be legal to carry at work.

[Sparks2112]

In Ohio you can't carry at work if the company policy doesn't allow it. That is written into the CCW laws.

The business still has to post the applicable "no carry" signage. Otherwise the company policy isn't enforceable by law. This from several different police officers from several different departments.

So since I've posted this thread I've talked to most of the officers who come in to my job during the night shift. All of them A) Think that everybody who can carry should carry (made me happy with our local PD's) and B) Agree with my interpretation that while I could be legally fired from the job, there would be no criminal penalties because it's legal for everyone else to carry where I work (I.E. the business isn't posted). So, there you go.

[Bogie]

I would never carry at work. Just seems pointless, with the Winchester Trapper leaning in the corner and all...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting issue - first, I personally believe legislation should be passed that does not allow businesses to ban carry unless there is a technical reason for such (the MRI ban for instance).

However, it was stated If they refuse us both the right to carry and the protection we are entitled to, then it is not dishonest to break the unconstitutional rule.

This is a legal question. Does the employer have the right to control some kind of BOR 'right' on the job? Not at home or in your private life but while on the job. An employer certainly could stop you from prostelytizing your religion as you self a whopper to the schmuck on line at Burger King - is that a 1st Amend. issue?

The employer is prohibited from discriminating against you in hiring because of your religion but if you start to spout it to customers, I would think that could be stopped.

The Constitutional provision doesn't apply to behavior on the job. You can paint pictures of naked people. Can you wear a naked person t-shirt on the job - if wearing t-shirts are ok?

I think the term unconstitutional in this case is being applied loosely. However, I would support legislation (under the commerce clause) that would forbid such bans.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn and David,
You both pose interesting discussion.

Let me frame it this way, does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense? That is without offering you protection thru some security measures? If no then I see this differs a bit from stealing company supplies and/or proselytizing your religion both are "intrusive" and cause damage to the company or it's employees rather than "unobtrusively" carrying a weapon which harms no one. That may be a poor sentence but I think you know what I mean.

If I am murdered at work can my wife then sue the company for my death in that the company did not protect me? If not, then it might be argued that the company cannot keep me from carrying. If the company is responsible for my safety and takes reasonable means to protect me then that's one thing. But if they say we are not responsible for your safety but you cannot carry either then the ethics of that is tough. This sort of falls under a type of civil disobedience. I know you must suffer the consequences if caught but it might be ethical to "disobey" your boss on this one. Kind of like the Pizza Hut Deliveryman.

Wondered what you thought?

[P35]

at my job we have a don't ask, don't tell policy
no one ever said I couldn't carry, I for sure won't tell them that I do

[Glenn E. Meyer]

does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense?

I don't think they do but the issue is the constitutional protection and I don't think that applies here unless someone decides (SCOTUS) that gun carriers are a protected class.

As far as suing for not being allowed to carry - I don't think that has been done yet. Folks have sued for not being protected at work and for firms not taking actions against known threats. Like VT being sued for not taking stronger action against the erratic behavior of Cho or other folks who have threatened employees. But no one has pulled off a suit on not carrying.

There is a legal liability literature on this subject and most come down to the risk of being sued because an employee misusing a legally carried gun seems worse to the risk managers than the payoff of an employee or their family suing for because they couldn't carry. The payoff for an employees who kills an innocent while trying to stop a rampage or a legal carrying employee who becomes a rampager is predicted to cost more than the victim of the Cho type shooter.

Remember corporate entities only care about the survival of the corporate entity - they have absolutely no interest in YOUR survival if it impacts their bottom line.

I have sat through talks on this. You will never convince most major corporate or other large organizations to allow carry for employees in our current milieu. Some small organizations in gun culture areas might. Like that little school board in TX. Or you can get state legislatures in gun friendly states to override educational or business rules.

Remember that the 'socalled' conservative business community will raise Holy Hell to stop such. Happened in TX - tough old business right wing nut businessmen came out of the woodwork to block a law allowed guns in parking lots. 'Conservative' to them only meant low taxes, hire illegals and more money for my trophy wife.

They will blather about property rights but that's just duplicitous right wing horse**** to cover their worship at the alter of Mammon.

[wildturkey76209]

First if your holster is doing its job nobody should ever find out that you are carrying at work. Second, Dishonesty does not equal breaking "company policy". Third, "no carry" at work policies don't address one's commute now does it. Finally prohibiting otherwise lawful persons from legally carrying on one's property should get you sued if anything ever happened.

[Kreyzhorse]

It is against policy to carry at work and I obey those rules.

[David Armstrong]

does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense?
An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate teh law. If you voluntarily go to work for that employer, he is not depriving you of a right, you are voluntarily agreeing to waive that right in exchange for compensation.
If I am murdered at work can my wife then sue the company for my death in that the company did not protect me?
Sure. Whether she would have much chance of success would hinge mostly on if there was a recognized specific threat or danger the company knew of and had failed to take any action.
This sort of falls under a type of civil disobedience.
I don't buy that. Civil disobedience that nobody is aware of is really not civil disobedience, IMO.
Wondered what you thought?
I tend to agree with Glenn. I wish we had and would support legislation prohibiting a ban. But until such legislation is passed I point out that if you voluntarily enter into a relationship with an employer which is based on following rules as a condition of employment, then failing to follow those rules is dishonest. You would feel it dishonest if it were reversed, and your employer had agreed to do something (salary, retirement, etc.) and didn't follow through. Let's put it in simple terms. You have agree to follow the rules, but carried in violation of your agreement for 20 years, is it OK if your employer has been saying he was putting away money in your retirement pension for 20 years and wasn't?

[David Armstrong]

Second, Dishonesty does not equal breaking "company policy".
So if the company breaks policy regarding pay and benefits and does not pay you what they agreed to pay you after yo have already done the work, they are not being dishonest?

[MauiDoc]

....which is essentially never, in this state. At the range 1 or 2x a month is it. Would if I could, and am becoming more active in the political end of things to try and get the laws here straightened out a bit.

MauiDoc

[MauiDoc]

Hey, Sparks, my retired skinny ol' dad worked the overnight shift at an off-ramp gas station on I-80 between Sacramento and Reno, and he carried against policy. One night a guy busts in with a bandana over his face pointing a gun at my dad, and demanding money. Dad jumped behind the Coke machine, cross-drew his .45 from under his jacket (shoulder hoslter), pointed it at the guy and shouted, 'Get on outta here!' BG turned and ran.

Dad called cops, sherrif's deputy came out, recognized my dad's unusual last name, asked him if he knew me (we went to 4th thru 12th grades together), when he found out that was my dad, wrote his report to state the BG ran off when confronted. No mention of my dad's gun.

Found out later the guy held up another station a ways up the road, then pulled off in the desert and shot himself dead. Sad for him, but better him than my dad. Or you.

Weigh the benefits against the hazards, and make your own decision.

My 11.3 cents (inflation)

[Nnobby45]

I tend to agree with Glenn. I wish we had and would support legislation prohibiting a ban. But until such legislation is passed I point out that if you voluntarily enter into a relationship with an employer which is based on following rules as a condition of employment, then failing to follow those rules is dishonest.

I'm aware of number of people who violate the company's policy with re: to carrying on the job who are FAR MORE HONEST than the company which prohibits carry in the interest of their own MONETARY liability, while the "dishonest" employee referred to by David, carries in defense of his own life so that he/she might go home to his family at the end of the shift.

If you have much time invested in a company and stand to lose your job and pension, then you have a call to make.

If you work in a high risk, low wage job, you owe it to yourself to find another job, or carry the means to protect yourself.

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate teh law. If you voluntarily go to work for that employer, he is not depriving you of a right, you are voluntarily agreeing to waive that right in exchange for compensation.


That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right?

My violation of the rules amounted to having a weapon in my car on company property (no choice).
I didn't carry on the job, but was able to arm myself after work and carry on with my life, which I valued enough to protect in defiance of the companys' personal liability concerns.:cool:

LASTLY: Personally, I have no quarell with those, like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply. Or even those who only comply out of fear.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate the law.

OK, is my right to self defense a "higher" law than that of the employer's work policy. Particularly if the employer does not take steps (metal detectors, armed security guards etc) to protect me.

The reference to civil disobedience was really meant to highlight that idea. That is: I have a God-given (so no one can take it away from me) right to self defense, therefore the employer may not ethically take it away from me without providing substitutionary protection from harm? I am not arguing that the law and the employer might sanction you for carrying but maybe it isn't dishonest as you say to disregard those policies and carry anyway, realizing of course you will be fired if discovered.

Remember Jim Crow laws were at one time legal but immoral to many and many disobeyed, not all openly either. Is the employer giving an immoral order?

As to civil disobedience, I think only Thoreau said it has to be public dissent;) Tolstoy might give me more slack on that.:D

[David Armstrong]

That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right?
Did you continue to take the company money and retirement benefits, with the understanding that you were following the new rules?
....like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply.
Please, let's not make things up and try to present them as factual. that is another example of being dishonest. While possible, I can think of no company policy that is more important than my life right off the top of my head. However, I go back to a couple of points. If you fear for your life so much that you're afraid to come to work without a gun, I suggest you find new employment. And, no matter how you try make it smell nice, it boils down to "I think it is OK for me to be dishonest just for money, but I don't think it should work that way for the company." Sorry, my personal code does not allow me to lie or cheat just to make a buck. I've seen way too many folks use that justification under way too many circumstances. I'm not down on those whose moral fiber points a different direction, but I am down on those who attempt to use hypocrisy to justify dishonesty.

[David Armstrong]

OK, is my right to self defense a "higher" law than that of the employer's work policy.
From a practical standpoint, no, it is not. That is why the law allows them to do what they do. But also from a practical standpoint, the employer is not removing that right if you voluntarily agree to waive it in exchange for salary, benefits, etc.
That is: I have a God-given (so no one can take it away from me) right to self defense, therefore the employer may not ethically take it away from me without providing substitutionary protection from harm?
Again, the employer is not taking it away, the employer is offering an incentive---you agree to follow my rules and I will give you employment.
...but maybe it isn't dishonest as you say to disregard those policies and carry anyway, realizing of course you will be fired if discovered.
Of course it is dishonest, otherwise there wouldn't be all this talk about hiding the behavior from the employer. If one truly believes, they should have the fortitude to tell the employer they disagree with the policy and they will not follow it, thus giving the employer the ability to decide if they wish to continue the contractual work/salary relationship.
Remember Jim Crow laws were at one time legal but immoral to many and many disobeyed, not all openly either.
I think it somewhat questionable to compare an unalterable genetic issue with a voluntary choice issue.
Tolstoy might give me more slack on that.
Ummm, are you sure you'd rather have your actions associated with Tolstoy than with Thoreau?:p

[longcoldwinter]

My employer does not expressly forbid carring conceled weapons, I am sure thats just because its never been brought up. I would not be comfortable carrying unless I asked first and I sure they would not grant me "permission" to carry.

From a practical stand point, my job entails going into too many prohibited places on a daily basis for carrying to be practical. I figure with all the adminstrative handling associated with taking the gun on and off in the confines of my car I would be more likely to have a accidental discharge then I would needing my gun for self defense.

[Gamisou]

Anybody know what the Walgreens policy is?

I just got hired as a manager trainee, and haven't received any work policy forms yet.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

From a practical standpoint, no, it is not.

I think you mean from a legal standpoint. But, is it ethical and yes if the employer doesn't provide protection and tells you that you can't carry they are, from a practical standpoint, taking it away.

Of course it is dishonest, otherwise there wouldn't be all this talk about hiding the behavior from the employer.

Really? So a person in the employ of his government in the spy business, say infiltrating a terrorist cell, passes himself off as someone he is not is dishonest? Was Shindler dishonest when he told the Nazi's he needed x number of workers in order to save their lives when, from a practical standpoint he did not really need them? Was the underground railroad dishonest? They broke the law. Don't ever confuse legal and ethical they are very different. The clowns that wrote those sub-prime loans probably broke no laws in doing so, however, I think most would call them unethical.

I think it somewhat questionable to compare an unalterable genetic issue with a voluntary choice issue.

Race or Religion is not the issue. Is the rule immoral and if so are you dishonest for disobeying it? I think you frame the issue wrong. We aren't lying to make money we are lying to protect our own lives which we have a God-given right to do. I think you are applying a very stringent rule for ethics here that might not pass muster even in your own experience not related to this issue.

Ummm, are you sure you'd rather have your actions associated with Tolstoy than with Thoreau?

Hey! Whats wrong with Tolstoy? Just another suicidal Russian writer.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are drifting into various theories of morality.

Some theorists regard the highest level as following the ethical principles of your own conscience. So, if you think it is moral, you would disobey a law.

Some postulate that the highest level is to follow the laws even if you disagree with them.

Some argue that you should operate at self-interest levels.

However, if you disagree and disobey - is that the highest level if you don't simultaneously, try to change the policy? Without that, the morality argument devolves to the self-interest argument with high moral values just used as a rationalization.

Now, who is to say that self-interest isn't the most important motivation - that's another argument.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

We are drifting into various theories of morality.

Glenn, you are right. However, David used the word "dishonest" and passed some judgement and I wanted to challenge that as an absolute.

I do believe in the rule of law so please don't misunderstand but I do NOT believe it is the higher way to obey laws that violate your conscience. In fact, based on my military background obeying an unlawful order is the same as doing the crime and you cannot claim a defense that you only did as told.

I guess the bottomline is that each person must decide whether to quit, carry secretly or not carry based on what their conscience says. David may think to carry in a prohibited place is dishonest but I am not so sure.

[Nnobby45]

You have all the rebuttles for eveything, don't you David.

The thread was started by a man who works at a gas station, at close to minimum wage, I suspect, and can't defend his life because his employers' insurance company won't cover his employer, I suspect, unless all employees are unarmed and incapable of injuring an armed robber.


As I've already stated, my company changed it's policy on the advise of it's lawyers after I'd worked there 25 yrs. Prior to that, weapons weren't covered by company policy. I wasn't allowed to have a pocket knife, even though I drove a truck that contained hammers, screwdrivers, heavy metal rods, cable sheath knives, etc., etc.

Obviously, you consider me dishonest for not following the rules of a major utilities company that considers it's liability more important than the lives of it's employees. So be it. And, as stated, I never carried a fire arm on the job, but only so that I may be armed to and from work.

American anti-resistance of any kind businesses never had a better ally than yourself, who I suspect, is armed most of the time for your own protection--except where the company doesn't approve, of course.

[David Armstrong]

I think you mean from a legal standpoint.
No, I mean from a practical standpoint, as I believe the entire "higher law" philosophy is not only unworkable, but also impractical. But since you bring it up, yes, it is that way from a legal standpoint also.
But, is it ethical and yes if the employer doesn't provide protection and tells you that you can't carry they are, from a practical standpoint, taking it away.
Yes, it is ethical and no, they are not taking it away, both for the same reason. They are giving you the option to participate. Nobody is forcing you to take employment with them. If you wish to exercise the option that is your choice, but the option includes following the rules.
Really?
Yes, really. That you have to resort to items that are so far removed from what is being discussed pretty much indicates that you can't justify your position except under the most unusual of circumstances.
Don't ever confuse legal and ethical they are very different.
Don't think I've talked about legal and ethical in this context. I've talked about honesty. Honesty should also not be confused with legal and ethical, as they are different.
Race or Religion is not the issue.
Agreed. Voluntary behavior is the issue, so one should not even try to equate that with race or other factors. Don't know why you brought it up.
Is the rule immoral and if so are you dishonest for disobeying it?
I might agree the rule is immoral, but that has nothing to do with the issue and is a completely different issue to discuss. You still voluntarily agree to follow the rules. If you have agreed to follow the rules in exchange for something, then you accept the "something" knowing that you have willfully violated the rules, yes, that is dishonest. It is that way with everything else in the rules, I don't know why a gun rule is any different. If you agree to work 8 hours for $80, but then only work 5 hours but still take the $80 by hiding the fact you did not work the full 8 hours, that is dishonest.
We aren't lying to make money we are lying to protect our own lives which we have a God-given right to do.
If that is your concern then you should give back your paycheck, right? Or you can also chose to work someplace else, or not work at all. That way you wouldn't need to lie. But if you take the money based on the belief that you have met your end of the agreement and you have not done so, it is dishonest and it is for the purpose of getting money. The fact taht most of your co-workers are getting the same money while following the rules makes it even more problematic.
I think you are applying a very stringent rule for ethics here that might not pass muster even in your own experience not related to this issue.

Not sure what you mean by "even in your own experience not related to this issue." Sorry, but if you'll rephrase that I'll try to respond. But from an ethics standpoint, yes, it is a fairly stringent rule. Either your word is your bond and is to be trusted or it is not. Violating your word strictly for money is dishonest, even though it might be understandable. My $.02.

In fact, based on my military background obeying an unlawful order is the same as doing the crime and you cannot claim a defense that you only did as told.
IIRC, to claim that defense you have to openly decline the order and say why you will not follow it, correct?

[David Armstrong]

You have all the rebuttles for eveything, don't you David.

Oh gosh no. I doubt anybody has all the rebuttals for everything, and I know I certainly don't.
Obviously, you consider me dishonest ....
I have no idea what you are. I can only discuss whether behaviors presented meet certain standards of conduct as I understand them.
American anti-resistance of any kind businesses never had a better ally than yourself,
Not real sure what yo uare trying to say there with the first half of the sentence. But as for the second, as I'm fond of pointing out when people say such things, you have no way of knowing that and thus for you to suggest such a claim as fact is questionable at best, and dishonest at worst.
....is armed most of the time for your own protection--except where the company doesn't approve, of course.
I could care less about if the company approves or not. I am concerned if there is a legal issue or if I am violating a personal position of honor or honesty, but approval is immaterial to me.

[Ohio Rusty]

I never do that !! I work for a school system and weapons in the schools is absolutely verboten !! It's not worth losing my good job over. Not to many good jobs to be had these days ... that is why I don't risk it.
Ohio Rusty ><>

[orionengnr]

That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right? My violation of the rules amounted to having a weapon in my car on company property (no choice).
I didn't carry on the job, but was able to arm myself after work and carry on with my life, which I valued enough to protect in defiance of the companys' personal liability concerns.

LASTLY: Personally, I have no quarell with those, like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply. Or even those who only comply out of fear.


DingDingDingDing We have a winner... :)

[dabigguns357]

If it's legal and worth gettin fired over then yes by all means carry.If it's not legal or you are scared then don't carry.I carry to and from work every day,because there is no law against it nor does my company frown on it.

This is another issue where no one is right or wrong,just personal.So why when i read some posts in this thread i feel like i'm back in college..:rolleyes:

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I believe the entire "higher law" philosophy is not only unworkable, but also impractical.

How so? You believe there is no higher law than rules made by men?

Nobody is forcing you to take employment with them. If you wish to exercise the option that is your choice, but the option includes following the rules.

Sometimes people can't just change jobs. Jobs may be hard to come by and people have to work to live. It sounds a bit cavalier to say "Well just quit!" Maybe easy for you but not for many others.

As to following the rules, I say only if they are moral and just should they be followed. The employer is not a king and does not have carte blanche to force employees to do whatever they ask. You cannot be asked to "waive" your right to self defense without some measure of protection being afforded. Giving you a job and paying you does not entitle an employer to risk your life unjustly because his Insurance Agent or Lawyer advises him to. If the employer prohibits you from carrying then he implicitly assumes a greater responsibility for your safety because he has disarmed you and therefore must take measures to protect you. If he does not THAT is dishonest and you are not for carrying against their wishes.

That you have to resort to items that are so far removed from what is being discussed pretty much indicates that you can't justify your position except under the most unusual of circumstances.

No you are saying follow the rules no matter what and so these examples are legit. Maybe you won't answer them because you might not be able to justify your position anymore.

Honesty should also not be confused with legal and ethical, as they are different.

Ethics is about right and wrong and how a person should behave and is not different from honesty. Legality is different from ethics, but honesty is not.

Voluntary behavior is the issue, so one should not even try to equate that with race or other factors. Don't know why you brought it up.

Actually you brought up the race issue but my point with Jim Crow laws was that they were immoral but at the time legal.

Sorry, but if you'll rephrase that I'll try to respond.

I think when you answer the questions I posed in post #56 about not telling the truth or obeying the law in some circumstances you might find that your stringent honesty requirement is subject to some gray area. I think in the cases I mentioned you yourself might not tell the truth or follow the law because there is a greater good in not doing so. I think this carrying at work issue may be one of those same situations.

IIRC, to claim that defense you have to openly decline the order and say why you will not follow it, correct?

No, that is not correct. However, if you obey the illegal order you cannot use the defense of "I was only following orders".

More importantly, I disagree with your position that one must openly disobey immoral laws and that if you don't "fall on your sword" publicly then you are somehow dishonest. That is your opinion but I find no ethical basis for that. You can simply choose not to follow the unjust laws as I suggested in the examples on my earlier post and that includes carrying at work against unjust company policy.

[David Armstrong]

How so? You believe there is no higher law than rules made by men?

There may be, but as I said basing actions on them is impractical, as each of us may have a different higher law.
Sometimes people can't just change jobs.
But they can be honest, they can follow the rules they agreed to follow, etc.
As to following the rules, I say only if they are moral and just should they be followed.
So, who gets to decide that? What if your employer feels the "no carry" rules are moral? Or what if your employer feels it is moral to change your rate of pay whenver he wants without telling you? What if your fellow employees feel it is unjust to force them to work in the same building as aperson who is carrying a gun?
The employer is not a king and does not have carte blanche to force employees to do whatever they ask.
Actually he pretty much does unless there is some law that is controlling.
You cannot be asked to "waive" your right to self defense without some measure of protection being afforded.
But your employer will argue that there is some measure of protection being provided, and that prohibiting carry at work is part of that protection.
No you are saying follow the rules no matter what and so these examples are legit.
Please show us anywhere I have said you should follow the rules no matter what.
Legality is different from ethics, but honesty is not.
Of course it is. Ethics are principles or standards of human conduct, honesty revolves around principles of truthfullness.
Actually you brought up the race issue
No you did by trying to relate civil rights to this, but as it doesn't matter I'll take the credit if you want.
I think in the cases I mentioned you yourself might not tell the truth or follow the law because there is a greater good in not doing so.
OK, I follow you now. And I don't disagree, sometimes you might not be honest because it serves the greater good to be dishonest. I don't think that changes the fact that one is being dishonest, however.
No, that is not correct.
Must have change UCMJ from back in the 70s.
More importantly, I disagree with your position that one must openly disobey immoral laws ....
Sorry, but that is a postion I have not taken. My position is simple: If you voluntarily agree to behave in a certain manner for purposes of getting something of value, then hiding the fact that you are violating that agreement and taking the full value as agreed on is dishonest.
You can simply choose not to follow the unjust laws as I suggested in the examples on my earlier post and that includes carrying at work against unjust company policy.
Company policy is not law, and yes, you can choose not to follow the policy but if you have agreed to do so it is dishonest. That the policy is unjust is an opinion that many would disagree with and is fairly irrelevent, IMO.

As Glenn has pointed out, this keeps trying to drift towards the issue of morality, which is quite philosophical as well as individual. Honesty should not be based on what you think, but on what you do.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There may be, but as I said basing actions on them is impractical, as each of us may have a different higher law.

I think that is called a conscience. I have no problem with those who choose to follow theirs.

OK, I follow you now. And I don't disagree, sometimes you might not be honest because it serves the greater good to be dishonest. I don't think that changes the fact that one is being dishonest, however.

So being dishonest isn't always bad? I agree with that, especially when you are disobeying an unjust rule.

Must have change UCMJ from back in the 70s.

I was in then, it has never been different. You have inferred on two occasions in post #46 and again in post #60 that if you don't openly disobey the unjust law it is wrong and I disagree.

Please show us anywhere I have said you should follow the rules no matter what.

You haven't said otherwise until your last post and that seems to be the theme of your argument from the beginning. The rules are the rules and if you break them you are dishonest. You reject disobeying unjust laws unless the aggrieved party does it openly. I disagree as well.

Honesty should not be based on what you think, but on what you do.

It must be based on both.

However, Glenn is right this is drifting. My final bottom line and the final word from me is thus:

Every person has an inalienable right to self defense.

Any employer who denies employees the right to carry must provide equal protection to these employees or the rule is unjust.

If the employer does not provide the protection and prohibits carry then the employee is justified in disobeying the rule, secretly if need be but may be fired if caught. Purely a conscience call I feel.

[David Armstrong]

I think that is called a conscience. I have no problem with those who choose to follow theirs.
Nor do i. My problem is with those who use consciuence, higher law, or whatever as rationalization for dishonesty or other questionable actions.
So being dishonest isn't always bad?
Again, tha is a philosophical issue. Dishoest is always dishonest, but there are times when being honest can create more harm than the good it creates.
I was in then, it has never been different.
I was in at that time also, and I will disagree, as my memory (admittedly 30 years ago) seems to keep telling me otherwise. If someone can provide definite proof one way or the other I'm certainly open to it.
You haven't said otherwise until your last post and that seems to be the theme of your argument from the beginning.
HUH?? I've said nothing like that. I have been consistent in the position that if one agrees to voluntarily follow rules in exchange for a job or other reward then failing to follow those rules and still accepting the reward is dishonest. Don't think I have ever suggested anything much beyond that.
The rules are the rules and if you break them you are dishonest.
That is certainly a major part of what I have been saying.
You reject disobeying unjust laws unless the aggrieved party does it openly.
Again, that is not something I have said.
It must be based on both.
No, that is demonstrably false. I can think that I would really like to steal that watch, but if I don't do it I am acting honestly even though my thoughts were in favor of dishonesty.
Every person has an inalienable right to self defense.
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with following rules you have agreed to follow.
Any employer who denies employees the right to carry must provide equal protection to these employees or the rule is unjust.
Nonsense. If you volunteer to engage in an activity knowing the dangers, no protection is being denied. Of equal importance, what if a majority of employees feel that forcing them to work in an environment where others carry guns is unjust, and the company must provide them protection from you? Whose rights are being denied?
If the employer does not provide the protection and prohibits carry then the employee is justified in disobeying the rule, secretly if need be but may be fired if caught
So you recognize the employees actions are dishonest, as they must be hidden. And the dishonesty is multiplied if the employee then continues to accept his agreed upon reward, as the employee is not living up to his end of the agreement and he recognizes that what he is doing is in violation of the agreement he made.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, I guess we agree to disagree. I think your reasoning is faulty and believe I have made all the points I wish to make about it. I will let those who read this thread make up their own minds. Good debate though. Thanks!

PS No soldier is required to openly disobey an illegal order. He is only required not to follow it. He may not be able to openly challenge it due to commo failures and such but he must not obey it nevertheless. He cannot be punished for failing to obey an illegal order even if he is silent. You can look it up in UCMJ or the Standards of Conduct if you wish since you brought it up but that is the deal.

[Sparks2112]

Really interesting conversation guys, thanks for all the great responses. Now, my 2 cents.

I agree, I'm being horribly dishonest by carrying at work while agreeing to obey the rules of employment. That having been said, I'd say my duty to my family to come home at the end of the night outweighs all other duties to honesty, etc...

At the end of the day, that's really all that needs to be said. I HAVE to come home, so I WILL come home, whatever way that entails.

Also it has nothing to do with "If the job is that dangerous, quit." I carry to take my trash to the curb on the off chance that something odd will happen, and this is an amazing neighborhood. So why would it be any different anywhere else?

[David Armstrong]

My final bottom line and the final word from me is thus:
Now see, that is another example of dishonesty. Might be done for the best of reasons, but when you declare that is your final word, then come back and do a whole post after that, you have been dishonest with what you have said.
No soldier is required to openly disobey an illegal order. He is only required not to follow it.
I believe that is referred to as openly disobeying. Not doing something you are told to do is disobeying that command. The fact that you are not hiding it or being deceptive about it means it is done openly. Again, it's been 30 years since I was doing UCMJ classes, and things can change or my memory can be faulty, but barring some evidence I'll stick with it as I remember.
Good debate though. Thanks!
Same to you, and thnks from my side. It's nice when vigorous dispute stays above the personal insult level.

[threegun]

Violating company policy while at work is dishonest. Stealing, smoking, dress code, hygiene, behavior, etc are not protected by the constitution however. Carrying a gun is. No entity shall make rules or laws that violate the constitution. Getting folks to agree to having their constitutional rights violated in exchange for employment doesn't make the constitutional violation less a violation. Just as a company cannot ask me to break the law as part of the job........that rule to break the law would be wrong and thus not dishonest of me for violating it.

Also carrying doesn't effect job performance. Openly exercising free speech would likely hamper job performance or violate the rights of others who don't agree.

[peetzakilla]

Violating company policy while at work is dishonest. Stealing, smoking, dress code, hygiene, behavior, etc are not protected by the constitution however. Carrying a gun is. No entity shall make rules or laws that violate the constitution. Getting folks to agree to having their constitutional rights violated in exchange for employment doesn't make the constitutional violation less a violation.

There is some truth to that but I'm not sure it applies to guns or SD weapons in general. The difference, IMO, is implicit and explicit laws. The right to self defense, to carry at all times as desired, is IMPLIED in 2A. The explicit meaning has not been defined by the courts to include mutually agreed employment. Those other items, race, religion etc., HAVE been EXPLICITLY defined by the courts as protected from discrimination and you cannot, even voluntarily, relinquish those rights. Until a court (will have to be SCOTUS eventually) defines the right to SD as inviolable, you (and I) are obliged to follow the terms of employment to which we have agreed. If the terms are changed and we continue to go to work we are implicitly agreeing to the new terms, unless we have lodged a complaint and are allowed to work until the issue is resolved.

The morality of an employer making such a rule is actually a completely different discussion from the legality of such a rule.

[Musketeer]

Not long ago we got a "new" policy manual with loads of stupid stuff in it along with a Non-Disclosure statement. Specifically highlighted was that you could be dismissed at any time for any reason.

I can be fired for having the means to defend myself. I can be fired because the CEO makes a bad decision resulting in a loss of profitability and he needs to show a cost savings. I can be the best or worst employee at the company and be fired for any reason at any time.

I understand that and I accept that and make my decisions based on my value system. I know if I hear shots at the CEO end of the hall I have no intention of intervening, they have a policy to protect them after all.

FYI: The Constitution has nothing to do with a contract between private parties. You have no more right under the COTUS to call your boss a retarded pot bellied ape and remain employed than the landscaper mowing your lawn has the right to do the same to you and remain employed. Neither you nor your employer can have the offending party ARRESTED though for such actions. THAT is free speech and that is protected by the Constitution.

As Forest Gump says "and that's all I have to say about that."

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Specifically highlighted was that you could be dismissed at any time for any reason.

In an at-will employment state you can be fired for any reason or no reason.

FYI: The Constitution has nothing to do with a contract between private parties. You have no more right under the COTUS to call your boss a retarded pot bellied ape and remain employed than the landscaper mowing your lawn has the right to do the same to you and remain employed.

I agree but I don't know if the courts do. My ignorance. I don't think anyone here disputes if you violate a company policy and are caught you may be fired. The Pizza Hut delivery man comes to mind.

I understand that and I accept that and make my decisions based on my value system.

I agree there also. No duty to obey an unjust rule but may suffer the consequences of disobeying.

The morality of an employer making such a rule is actually a completely different discussion from the legality of such a rule.

True but it has a bearing on whether I might carry at work or not which seems to be what the OP posits.

As an aside, I recognize that many out in the world (on this forum I don't know) might not be in the economic shape to just quit their jobs because of this carry at work issue. I find it disgusting and wrong that the option could well be for them; don't carry at work and get killed or injured; or quit and starve. May be legal but it is not right.

[David Armstrong]

Quote:
Violating company policy while at work is dishonest. Stealing, smoking, dress code, hygiene, behavior, etc are not protected by the constitution however. Carrying a gun is. No entity shall make rules or laws that violate the constitution. Getting folks to agree to having their constitutional rights violated in exchange for employment doesn't make the constitutional violation less a violation.

There is some truth to that but I'm not sure it applies to guns or SD weapons in general. The difference, IMO, is implicit and explicit laws. The right to self defense, to carry at all times as desired, is IMPLIED in 2A.
More than just implicit and explicit laws, there is the basic constitutional concept that it is a restriction on GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. Carrying a gun at work is no more protected than is free speech, search and seizure, due process, and so on while at work.

FYI: The Constitution has nothing to do with a contract between private parties. You have no more right under the COTUS to call your boss a retarded pot bellied ape and remain employed than the landscaper mowing your lawn has the right to do the same to you and remain employed.
Exactly.

[longcoldwinter]

Let me sum up the view most employers take with reguard to employee safety.

1)You work to make me money, your safety does not matter unless one of the following applies.
a) a government agency with the power to acess fines makes me take steps to provide for your safety.
b) working conditions are so obviously hazardous I can't find anyone to work.
c) you have a union which forces me to take action to provide for your safety
d) I keep getting sued which costs me money.
e) it costs me too much money to replace you

2)If you die by third party action I dont care, if you die, I am only out the cost it took to train you. If you defend yourself, I could be sued which will cost me many times the money I have invested in you.

Employer-Employee relationships are all about money very little honor or moral fiber involved IMHO

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Exactly, the point about the Constitution is not understood by some in this debate. That's why specific legislation is needed to control conditions on the workplace scene.

I support such legislation for the workplace and for businesses open to the public except for demonstrated technical risks.

Now, folks will argue that it is their private property but if you hire others and do business with the public, that doesn't fly for me.

[Musketeer]

Exactly, the point about the Constitution is not understood by some in this debate. That's why specific legislation is needed to control conditions on the workplace scene.

:eek:

Well Glenn, I applaud your understanding the COTUS. I wish more did.

The idea though that the gov't should pass more laws controlling what I allow in my property is abhorrent though. Mind you that I think that laws banning racial, sexual and religious discrimination in the private workplace are also wrong. By no means do I support such practices, I just do not think the Gov't has any business tell a private citizen who they can or have to engage in a private contract with. Once that starts the line begins to form over who gets the special treatment.

Blacks, fine.
Jews, alright.
Gays, we'll go for this one.
Satanists, huh?
Transgender individuals demanding their own bathrooms at work, your kidding?
Balding pot bellied men looking to be Hooters "girls", see the problem?

The only way NOT to slide to the bottom of that slippery slope is to realize gov't shouldn't be standing on it to begin with.

Like I said, I respect your understanding of the COTUS, and I even see the very real reasons you feel gov't involvement in private matters might be justified. I just cannot accept the cost of letting "Dracula into your house" that happens when you start letting the gov't regulate who you can do business with.

[Musketeer]

Now, folks will argue that it is their private property but if you hire others and do business with the public, that doesn't fly for me.
The thing is I do not intend to do business with "the public." I choose to do business with the private citizens I so choose to deal with. I have yet to see a credit card or check which states "Public" for the name.

If you want to tie this to the expenditure of gov't funds you can, but when everything is private the gov't should be OUT.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

2)If you die by third party action I dont care, if you die, I am only out the cost it took to train you. If you defend yourself, I could be sued which will cost me many times the money I have invested in you.

Employer-Employee relationships are all about money very little honor or moral fiber involved IMHO

EXACTLY! They don't pay you to follow their rules. They pay you to make money for them. I don't think most of them care that you carry as long as they don't get sued!

Tying this argument to honor or honesty is disingenious at best, dumb at worst.

[Edward429451]

My position is simple: If you voluntarily agree to behave in a certain manner for purposes of getting something of value, then hiding the fact that you are violating that agreement and taking the full value as agreed on is dishonest

I think your analogy of dishonest for carryin vs an employer being dishonest about your pay or benefits is a logical fallacy. When an employee is hired it's to work and make money for the company, not to not carry a gun.

When an employee shows up covertly armed, what is he seeking to take? Nothing. If he can keep that pistol hidden lke a good pocketwatch or his wallet, and still perform his job and deliver productivity to the employer, then the employer has lost nothing.

If an employer cuts down your pay without your knowledge, that is clearly dishonest and it takes from the employee.

This is clearly a situational ethics question and there isn't a free lunch. If the employer seeks to make policy (aside from work & productivity) which would / could affect the employees personal life, then it's a bargain of sorts. "Will you not bring your gun to work?" "What benefit do I receive in exchange for this behavior?"

!! Well it's either we will protect you, or, nothing. If there's no value in the bargain and maybe a real danger also...People will vote their conscience for a perceived greater value of personal safety.

If you think this is a rationalization to be able to break the rules.....then you are on the other side of the spectrum obsessing over the letter of the rules, as if the only thing that matters is the letter of the contract. Kinda how most cops obsess over the letter of the law. There's law, and there's life. Simple sit ethic question. If he wont provide protection then do I still carry? He has his reasons, good ones. I have my reasons, also good ones. Yes I will and accept the consequences. That is not dishonest, I will still be productive and work so deserve full value for my work.

I love being self employed.

[.300H&H]

I worked at a company that as a matter of policy forbade all weapons<including nonlethal ones>...


Not necessarily a bad policy - BUT when leaving work at 2am after counting out a few $1000 dollars...and walking across the dark wide open parking lot where there has been a shooting and carjacking...well, one realizes the company would rather send flowers to my funeral and help with my eulogy than insure my safety.


Most workers in America hang up their constitutional rights on the wall when they enter their employer's domain. Real free speech and real freedom of expression, fly out the window. The 2nd Amend. flies out the window too.
We take our own chances. We pay our own dues. Life can be unfair.


My former employer also had the 'policy' of being able to search an employee's locker at anytime for any reason. Yeah it's unconstitutional, but arguing the constitution is also grounds for dismissal. I carried anyway and my former employer never knew it...but I certainly don't recommend such dastardly violations of company policies.:cool: I do, however, understand and appreciate such dastardly violations of company policies.


As far as laws and the idea of higher laws...are concerned, I do not usually like lawyers and the bureaucracy of the courts. I tend to view the Justice System as a kind of hallowed snake den of corruption and bad faith politics.
If a madman with a knife runs up to me and asks me where he can find someone to stab - I feel perfectly justified and honest when I tell him a bold faced lie. Yes, boss I will walk unarmed across that dark parking lot every night at 2am. and always not carry anything to protect myself. Yes, boss, I will die for $8 per hr. Yes, boss you are always right. :rolleyes:

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Good points Edward and .300,

You know the guy I feel for is Joe Citizen who HAS to work an extra job to feed his family. I know a lot of people like that.

He can't "just quit" and go somewhere else because there is no where else to go. So, he delivers pizzas and his "caring" company demands that he deliver in bad parts of town. Of course they also demand he not arm himself as the risk to THEIR insurance is too great and it might hurt their profit.

Everyone knows that frequently thugs call in pizza orders in order to rob the delivery man and sometimes they just shoot the guy because they don't want witnesses.

The company doesn't care and demands that all called in orders be filled. So, according to some, in order for the man to maintain his "honesty" and "honor" he must not carry a firearm at work into the bad parts of town and so he ends up dead in a robbery.

His family gets nothing, nothing happens to the pizza company, they just keep delivering pizzas. But at least Joe Citizen, rather than not feed his family and quit, gets killed but keeps his honor!

Absolutely disgusting. That's not honor that's stupidity.

[threegun]

He can't "just quit" and go somewhere else because there is no where else to go.

Exactly! It never ceases to amaze me how some fail to understand the other side. The everyday costs of keeping up a family preclude job hopping and in many cases up rooting and moving to greener pastures. Yet the dangers still remain dangerous and as fathers our duty is to keeping our family safe and supported. Both are hard to do when you are dead.

Carrying a gun at work is no more protected than is free speech, search and seizure, due process, and so on while at work.


Free speech in most cases hampers job performance, interferes with other employees, or causes work slowing distractions. It has no place at work. That is completely different than a right to self preservation. It is certainly fair to compare all rights while at work. The right to self defense however doesn't effect job performance at all.

On a side note. An employer cannot tell me what to do on my off time. From the time I leave the job until I reach my vehicle the employers rule (that I not carry) prevents me from exercising my right for that time while I am no longer on the clock or premises.

[threegun]

I'd bet that those who are calling folks dishonest are hypocrites. Everybody has their thing. Electing to break a bad rule to protect yourself is hardly going to keep you from walking through the pearly gates. Following the rule might send you there faster however.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would happily support a constitutional amendment that stated something like - the carry of concealed weapons shall not be banned by any governmental agency or private party business or institution unless an immediate and technical physical risk of some external process can be demonstrated.

By the latter - I mean things like a gun by the MRI. Not your opinion of guns.

Don't want to thread hijack by talking about civil rights. Off to a discussion of anthropology and war fighting. And we get free tacos!!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'd bet that those who are calling folks dishonest are hypocrites.

That would be a safe bet I think threegun. I have seen generally in my life experience that those who have the harshest and most sanctimonious ideas about "virtue" (Bill Bennett and several televangelists come to mind) are the very ones who break the code egregiously when it suits them. But of course since they are defining what virtue is they are entitled to do so:rolleyes:

Exactly! It never ceases to amaze me how some fail to understand the other side. The everyday costs of keeping up a family preclude job hopping and in many cases up rooting and moving to greener pastures.

I think that's called living in an Ivory Tower.

[hogdogs]

On a side note....
I went into a gun store to buy ammo and I got really scared... ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE ARMED pistols on the outside of their clothes! I was all a titter and shaking in my hunting boots:rolleyes::D
Brent

[David Armstrong]

Employer-Employee relationships are all about money very little honor or moral fiber involved IMHO
Somehow I fail to see that as a good thing or something that we should celebrate. plus, I tend to disagree with it as a blanket statement. Yes, there are may employers who are interested only in the money, just as there aree many employees whose only interest is money. But there are also emplyers and employees who respect each other, work toward common goals, and so on.

EXACTLY! They don't pay you to follow their rules.
OK, this is real simple. If you are not being paid to follow their rules, why do you think that you must hide your actions and be ddeceptiove about if you are following the rules or not. Sorry, but part of the salary is based on following those rules.

[David Armstrong]

I think your analogy of dishonest for carryin vs an employer being dishonest about your pay or benefits is a logical fallacy. When an employee is hired it's to work and make money for the company, not to not carry a gun.

Seems perfectly logical to me. When an employee is hired it is to do more than work and make money for the company. There is an agreement that he will follow the rules while at work. That is why you are given a rule book, and asked to sign off that you have received it/read it/understand it/ etc. If the rules don't matter and it is not dishonest to violate them, why hide the fact that you are breaking them?
If he wont provide protection then do I still carry? He has his reasons, good ones. I have my reasons, also good ones. Yes I will and accept the consequences.
Good. Then you should have no trouble carrying openly and/or letting him know that you are carrying a gun in violation of the rules, right?

[David Armstrong]

That would be a safe bet I think threegun.
Can't speak for all, but I can speak for me. See, I can carry just about anywhere. I'm covered under HR218, which basically relieves me of having to worry much about state handgun carry rules. But, my employer does have a new rule against carry. I went to him, explained my situation, asked if he would object to my carrying, and he said that he still didn't want me carrying. So I don't. I don't because I agreed to follow the rules when I got hired. And when the rules changed for me, even though I might not like or agree with them, I follow them. Wouldn't be honest otherwise.
But of course since they are defining what virtue is they are entitled to do so
You keep trying to change the terms under discussion. The issue is honesty, not virtue, unless I've misunderstood. Of course, the fact that some who suggest following that virtuous path fall off it themselves should in no way indicate the path is any less virtuous.

[Edward429451]

Seems perfectly logical to me. When an employee is hired it is to do more than work and make money for the company. There is an agreement that he will follow the rules while at work. That is why you are given a rule book, and asked to sign off that you have received it/read it/understand it/ etc. If the rules don't matter and it is not dishonest to violate them, why hide the fact that you are breaking them?

Seems logical to me too until you realize that it's only the letter of the contract that you're obsessing over. The moment any practical common sense enters into it, then it falls apart. To openly carry in violation of company wishes would or could take something from the employer in the form of encouragung other employees to take note and give the boss grief over well he does it why can't I? (case in point, I worked for a company that had a no gun policy and ~75 employees, I had to stop in a jiffy to get the truck oil changed and forgot my G21 I had left in the vehicle. Of course they called the office when their tech spotted it. My boss radioed me and told me that "it" was safe and not to worry. Next day I get called in to speak to boss and he proceeds to tell me that even though no guns were a policy, that is was ok for me because I had worked for him long enough for him to know that I am not a hothead, and I always do a very professional job for him so he was confident that he could allow me to carry without worry, but please do not tell anyone else because it would make life hard for him,)

Good. Then you should have no trouble carrying openly and/or letting him know that you are carrying a gun in violation of the rules, right?

NO! because in spite of the letter of the policy, it would cause the co grief with every tom dick n harry wanting to do the same. It would take from him the ability to make his own decisions with regard to specific employees. That would be an unethical thing to do even if on it's face it sounds like a good thing to do.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Somehow I fail to see that as a good thing or something that we should celebrate.

I agree, it is a sad state of affairs but it is reality, not in every single case but in most, especially large corporations and reality is what we must live with. Don't just put the burden of good faith on the employee, the employer has duties beyond just paying your salary. Banning carry does not protect the employee but the employer from lawsuits.

Good. Then you should have no trouble carrying openly and/or letting him know that you are carrying a gun in violation of the rules, right?

No, there is no duty to make a public statement about it. That is your opinion. No duty to obey unjust laws. Just because something is done secretly does not per se mean it is wrong or dishonest. See the Underground Railroad for a historical example.

OK, this is real simple. If you are not being paid to follow their rules, why do you think that you must hide your actions and be ddeceptiove about if you are following the rules or not.

It is real simple to you David and your posts make it appear that you are speaking from an Ivory Tower. Unfortunately, for many Joe Citizens the choice you offer them is quit the job and starve or be "honest" and get killed or injured. You have not offered them a fair choice so this agreement you keep talking about while perhaps legal, is not ethical, moral or right.

You keep trying to change the terms under discussion. The issue is honesty, not virtue, unless I've misunderstood.

Not at all. Honesty is a virtue, but these are just words. The bottomline is that the choice you offer many is wrong. Nice to argue in the abstract but reality is what the OP discusses. Anyway, I think we concluded earlier that there is no such thing as being honest 100% of the time. If you want criteria for when it is right not to be 100% honest I can give those to you.

Can't speak for all, but I can speak for me. See, I can carry just about anywhere. I'm covered under HR218, which basically relieves me of having to worry much about state handgun carry rules. But, my employer does have a new rule against carry. I went to him, explained my situation, asked if he would object to my carrying, and he said that he still didn't want me carrying. So I don't. I don't because I agreed to follow the rules when I got hired. And when the rules changed for me, even though I might not like or agree with them, I follow them. Wouldn't be honest otherwise.

I just knew that somewhere in this discussion the fact that you have special privileges that the ordinary person doesn't have would come up! :mad: I could tell it from your posts.

Isn't it nice to be able to do what most others can't and then tell them they are dishonest for doing what you have the privilege to do!:rolleyes:

And where is this you work where you can't carry? Some place where there is security like maybe campus police? I bet it's not in a liquor store in New Orleans or delivering pizza in Detroit. Of course you wouldn't work there because you are a white collar type I suspect.

And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you really ever felt threatened you would carry and then say it was OK because you are a former LEO.

Might want to climb out of that Ivory Tower and walk a few miles in the moccasins of the regular guy.

[David Armstrong]

Seems logical to me too until you realize that it's only the letter of the contract that you're obsessing over. The moment any practical common sense enters into it, then it falls apart.
I see it differently. What I'm concerned about (as opposed to obsessing over) is the concept of honesty, of a person's word. You know, that old "your word is your bond" concept. Are you suggesting any time you enter into a contract the contract is null and void if you think common sense is better?
NO! because in spite of the letter of the policy, it would cause the co grief with every tom dick n harry wanting to do the same.
If I follow this, you are suggesting that you should be treated differently than any other employee!? Or only you should be allowed to protect yourself while all these other poor folks are not? Hooray, a new ethical dilemma<VBG>!

[David Armstrong]

Banning carry does not protect the employee but the employer from lawsuits.
And is that not a good thing for some reason? Preventing lawsuits so the company does not fail and dozens of people lose their job is of no concern? How does it happen that your personal veiw is more important, valid, or correct than all the other employees and the employer?
No, there is no duty to make a public statement about it. That is your opinion.
You keep trying to claim I have said things I haven't. If the rules don't matter, and you are not being hired/paid in part on the following of those rules, then there should be no problem with letting everyhone know that you are not following the rules. I haven't said anything about duty or public statements. Go have a private discussion with the boss and tell him that you have decided you know better than him and you won't be following any rules that you don't agree with.
No duty to obey unjust laws.
Again, you are trying to change things. I don't know why I should expect any better from someone who is now through his 6th post since telling us that he was done that was his last word. But nobody has said anything about law. This is a very simple concept--you have voluntarily agreed to do something in exchange for employment, and now you are going back on your word. No matter how you try to color it up, that is what it is. Very simple, very direct.
Unfortunately, for many Joe Citizens the choice you offer them is quit the job and starve or be "honest" and get killed or injured.
That is patently false, as virtually all of Joe's fellow workers are not carrying and do not get killed at or on the job. But apparently you think it is OK if Joe lies to get money. To me, that is the basis of a con job.
You have not offered them a fair choice so this agreement you keep talking about while perhaps legal, is not ethical, moral or right.
Let's see if I have this correct...I'm supporting being honest, not lying, and following the rules you agreed to. You are supporting being dishonest, not following the rules agreed to, and taking money under false pretenses. Yet you think it is my position that suffering ethically and morally? I think I see the problem.
The bottomline is that the choice you offer many is wrong.
I'm not offereing any choices. I'm sugesting that if you are given a choice, and you accept an agreement, it is dishonest not to follow the agreement that you voluntarily chose and agreed to follow.
Isn't it nice to be able to do what most others can't and then tell them they are dishonest for doing what you have the privilege to do!
Umm, in case you missed it, I don't exercise that privilege, which is in keeping with my position. I have no say in what privileges I've earned (at least legal privileges). But I don't do what most other's can't do (in this situation)because I have agreed not to.
I bet it's not in a liquor store in New Orleans or delivering pizza in Detroit. Of course you wouldn't work there because you are a white collar type I suspect.
While I have earned an academic postion now, I've worked plenty of those jobs. I have deliverd pizza in bad parts of town, I've worked in a liquor store, and I worked in convenience stores. In each, I followed the rules.
And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you really ever felt threatened you would carry and then say it was OK because you are a former LEO.
You would be wrong. First, my mind simply does not work that way. Second, if I ever really felt threatened I wouldn't go to work. I've yet to find a job that was worth getting killed over. A gun is not some magic talisman that will make someplece safe just because you are carrying it.
Might want to climb out of that Ivory Tower and walk a few miles in the moccasins of the regular guy.
You might want to try to find out a few things before you go making silly statements.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And is that not a good thing for some reason? Preventing lawsuits so the company does not fail and dozens of people lose their job is of no concern? How does it happen that your personal veiw is more important, valid, or correct than all the other employees and the employer?

NO it is not a good thing if it means I lose my life because I obey an unjust rule. My life is more important than a potential lawsuit that the company may become involved in for which they are undoubtedly insured.

You keep trying to claim I have said things I haven't.

You say it over and over again. If you don't make an open proclamation that you intend to disregard the rules then you are dishonest. Read your posts again.

I don't know why I should expect any better from someone who is now through his 6th post since telling us that he was done that was his last word.

Hey, I changed my mind, that's my perogative. I guess your sanctimonious and logically flawed posts brought that out of me :D Anyway, I don't adhere to your standards which I think are out of touch, and don't need your permission to post here. I think the challenge may broaden your views some.;)

No matter how you try to color it up, that is what it is. Very simple, very direct.

And very wrong and out of touch with reality. Also, very self righteous. Just another academic "Let 'em eat cake" response.

Let's see if I have this correct...I'm supporting being honest, not lying, and following the rules you agreed to. You are supporting being dishonest, not following the rules agreed to, and taking money under false pretenses. Yet you think it is my position that suffering ethically and morally?

You support a immoral position that a person must either subject himself to an unfair and dangerous rule in the workplace, face death or injury or quit and let his family suffer. So, yes I think your position is wrong.

I have no say in what privileges I've earned (at least legal privileges).

Yeah, I know, you don't make the rules you just enjoy them. Nice for you. Maybe you should consider others not so privileged and their safety. You have "earned" no more right to self defense than any other person.

But I don't do what most other's can't do (in this situation)because I have agreed not to.

Yes and you work in a nice safe place with security don't you? I used to work in a place guarded by Marines, so I had no need to carry either. Additionally, everywhere else you can carry with impunity. Again, nice for you, but seems a bit hypocritical to judge others not as privileged.

I have delivered pizza in bad parts of town, I've worked in a liquor store, and I worked in convenience stores. In each, I followed the rules.

Well, I have only your word to take for that but frankly I doubt that you worked in dangerous places like I have descibed. Why? Your posts lead me to believe otherwise.

Anyway, even if you did that was your choice, I chose to spend a lot of time in the military in dangerous places but I CHOSE that. Joe Citizen doesn't always have a choice and that is where your position is so horribly wrong because you can't see that.

Second, if I ever really felt threatened I wouldn't go to work. I've yet to find a job that was worth getting killed over.

Again, how nice you have that choice (you must be wealthy or not have to work) but everybody doesn't have that choice. Not everyone can hide at home from danger, they have to work to live. Anyway, I thought you were an ex-LEO? Was that worth getting killed over?

You might want to try to find out a few things before you go making silly statements.

Just reading your posts David and they are telling the story.

[David Armstrong]

NO it is not a good thing if it means I lose my life because I obey an unjust rule.
And so the concerns of the other employees are irrelevant if they conflict with your concerns? I find that troubling. Of course, the entire concept of whether it is an "unjust rule" is strictly an opinion, so I wonder why you feel your opinion should be more important than all the other employees opinions.
You say it over and over again. If you don't make an open proclamation that you intend to disregard the rules then you are dishonest. Read your posts again.
Maybe you should read them again, as I say nothing of the sort. Your obligation, IMO, is to the person you have voluntarily entered into the agreement with. I could care less about the public. You have no contractual relationship with them.
Hey, I changed my mind.
Hey, that is where we differ. I don't find "I changed my mind" as a particualry good excuse. I find most rationalizations to be rather sad, in fact, as they rarely reflect well on a person's character. But hey, if your daughter or son has told you they would be home at 10:30, and come straggling in about 3 hours later, it'll be OK if they just changed their mind.
Anyway, I don't adhere to your standards ...
Obviously.
don't need your permission to post here.
Don't think I ever said you did, so sort of silly for you to try to make an issue of it.
I think the challenge may broaden your views some.
Oh, I've dealt with your view for a long time. I was a cop, remember. I've heard it over and over: That law isn't fair. It's OK as long as nobody finds out. Nobody should get to tell me how to live my life. It shouldn't matter because I'm acting on a higher law. Yep, heard it all before.
And very wrong and out of touch with reality. Also, very self righteous. Just another academic "Let 'em eat cake" response.
Oh please. It is quite in touch with reality, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of employees who do figure out how to go to work without a gun every day and manage to do just fine. As for self-righteous, I'd suggest it is far more self-righteous to claim that it is OK lie and cheat and be dishonest and deceptive because you think your opinion should count more than others. I'm not sure how a "live up to your word when you voluntarily give it" translates into an academic let them eat cake response, given as it was taught to me by my Father who was just a high-school educated farmer. Of course, he was a high school educated farmer who could walk into just about any store in our community and pick up something with a casual "I'll get you the money Friday" and nobody would worry about it and who made $100,000 deals based on nothing more that his word and sometimes a handshake.
You support a immoral position that a person must either subject himself to an unfair and dangerous rule in the workplace, face death or injury or quit and let his family suffer.
Nonsense. There is nothing unfair or unjust about the rule other than the fact that you think it is so. In fact, far more employees would argue against your position than for it, in my experience. I think the immoral position is that it is OK to lie to get money, to accept and/or keep a postion under false pretenses.
Yes and you work in a nice safe place with security don't you?
I don't know. Why don't you ask the folks at Virginia Tech how nice and safe their place was.
Maybe you should consider others not so privileged and their safety.

Perhaps you should do the same. Given the propensity for questionable decision making shown here, and the fact that you support dishonest behavior any time you feel it is OK, I might suggest having you run around armed in the work place is a greater danger to safety.
Well, I have only your word to take for that but frankly I doubt that you worked in dangerous places like I have descibed.
Given that I have consistently advocated honesty and telling the truth and you have advocated the opposite, I think my word might be a bit more solid than your doubts.
Joe Citizen doesn't always have a choice and that is where your position is so horribly wrong because you can't see that.
Joe always has a choice. Where your position is so horribly wrong is that you see that choice as a suggestion rather than an agreement. Joe can choose to work there or not. Joe can choose to follow the rules or not. Joe can choose to be honest or not. Most make the choice and then try to live up to their end of the agreement.
Again, how nice you have that choice (you must be wealthy or not have to work) but everybody doesn't have that choice.
Everybody has that choice. Come on now, be realistic. If you really thought your life would be in actual danger if you went to work tomorrow, would you go?? We all deala with potential danger regualrly without a care. You're probably in more danger driving to wrk than you are while at work. As for me, I don't know what you would consider wealthy or not having to work (Glenn is probably laughing his head off right now!) but I'd suggest honest should not be based on wealth or number of hours worked. As for the issue, I've made decisions on whether or not to take jobs before. The concept of taking it with the advance understanding that I would be dishonest never crossed my mind.
Anyway, I thought you were an ex-LEO? Was that worth getting killed over?
Gosh no. Taking a chance on getting killed was part of the job, but no more so than lots of other jobs, and I was fairly good about keeping myself going. Never really worried to much about it. Just like I never worried much about it as a clerk, or delivering pizza, much like most folks today who are clerking at convenience stores, delivering pizzas, etc.
Just reading your posts David and they are telling the story.
I see. You'd rather make things up that fuel your own opinion than make any effort to discover the facts. No problem. Ranks right there with some of these other ethical challenges that seem like such high hurdles for you.

[threegun]

As you can see David is very technical and to the letter. He is correct in what he has stated. By accepting employment we agree to abide by the rules. My trump card is my right to self defense. IMO it removes the dishonesty charge because the rule in question is a violation of my right to self preservation. That trumps everything else for me.

But apparently you think it is OK if Joe lies to get money.

Joe is not lying to get money...he is working for it. He just decided that following a rule might jeopardize his life and decided to stop following it. It would surely be dishonest if the rule wasn't effecting Joe's ability to protect himself.

I still maintain that everyone has broken a rule at work. Still some find it necessary to call others dishonest when they themselves have broken rules. Makes them feel better I guess.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

As you can see David is very technical and to the letter.

That's called rigid, unfair, unjust and out of touch. Often found in academic circles.

He just decided that following a rule might jeopardize his life and decided to stop following it.

That's called being in touch with reality and fair.

Still some find it necessary to call others dishonest when they themselves have broken rules. Makes them feel better I guess.

That's called sanctimonious hypocrisy.

[longtooth50]

The question was "Do you legally carry at work even if it's against company policy?"

I carry at work & it is not against co policy.

[zookeeperk9]

Some times no means no I don't want to know you carry a gun, My employer has a no weapons policy also. They have a lot of policy's that were made to be broken, the policy's are just there to cover there back sides. I work for an electrical contractor and if I fallowed all the policy's to the tee I would not be able to preform my duties, seriously could not get the jobs done and they know that. I work out of a service truck, I get sent to all kinds of places at all times of the day and night. I have had a manager with me on two different occasions ask me "you have your gun with you don't ya ?" when we were in a ruff part of town. The first time I answered "I don't own a gun" and I didn't. The second time I answered "that would be against company policy" and pointed to my hip. So the policy is no weapons but in private they say they wouldn't do my job with out a weapon. Concealed means concealed. I carry my J frame with me every day. The policy is not directed at me and the other service drivers that are discrete but they can't put that in writing. ;)

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And so the concerns of the other employees are irrelevant if they conflict with your concerns?

Yes, if their concerns will get me killed or injured.

I find most rationalizations to be rather sad, in fact, as they rarely reflect well on a person's character.

I find those who resort to calling people dishonest because they don't like what they post to be rather sad as well. Better get used to it David, not everybody who disagrees with you is dishonest or wrong. You may be wrong.

But hey, if your daughter or son has told you they would be home at 10:30, and come straggling in about 3 hours later, it'll be OK if they just changed their mind.

Well see, my children are under my authority and I am not under yours thank God. I don't have to follow your rules, again thank God.

I was a cop, remember. I've heard it over and over: That law isn't fair. It's OK as long as nobody finds out. Nobody should get to tell me how to live my life. Yep, heard it all before.

That's probably what the real issue is you are having with those on here who disagree with you. As a cop you were able to force your ideas of right and wrong on people and intimidate them into compliance. Frankly, I am glad you are no longer a cop and it's kind of frightening that you once were. Fortunately, you aren't anymore and have no authority here. I think I see the authoritarian pattern though.

translates into an academic let them eat cake response,

The "just quit" answer you keep giving and here's more let them eat cake:

Joe always has a choice....Joe can choose to work there or not. Joe can choose to follow the rules or not. Joe can choose to be honest or not.

Everybody has that choice. Come on now, be realistic. If you really thought your life would be in actual danger if you went to work tomorrow, would you go??

Tell that crap to the guy who works at the local "shop and rob" or the inner city liquor store. He has no choice.

don't know. Why don't you ask the folks at Virginia Tech how nice and safe their place was.

Most dishonest to compare college campus environment to the places I've described which are far more dangerous. Shame on you!

In fact, far more employees would argue against your position than for it, in my experience.

That sort of sounds like stuff the Brady's say. I don't care if a million people think I should obey a rule and die, that doesn't mean I will obey it and die.

Given the propensity for questionable decision making shown here, and the fact that you support dishonest behavior any time you feel it is OK, I might suggest having you run around armed in the work place is a greater danger to safety.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Stick to the topic David, I have never supported dishonest behavior anytime someone feels like it. Now who's being dishonest?

Given that I have consistently advocated honesty and telling the truth and you have advocated the opposite,

What I have read you advocating is your own arrogance, self-righteousness and ego. You can't or won't see that there may be several sides to an issue and like many of the other posts I have read from you, there is only one way; yours. You have no idea that a rule may be unjust and wrong only that is a rule and must be followed whether ethical or not. No questions, no thought to the impact that obeying the rule will have. Do it or quit. That is the same mindset that I guess some Germans had when they herded up undesirables.

You know better and have a smug pat answer for everything. Like "just quit".

It's a shame because some of what I have read from you is pretty inciteful and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, when one is often wrong but never in doubt and those that disagree with them are considered stupid or dishonest then the ground is fertile for abuse and delusion. Too bad.

You'd rather make things up that fuel your own opinion than make any effort to discover the facts. No problem. Ranks right there with some of these other ethical challenges that seem like such high hurdles for you.

You've shown no facts either, just sat on your academic holier than thou high horse and made judgements about situations and people you have no idea of. I hope your students can see around that.

One other thing, your constant negative references to my character of which you know little, while a personal attack is no big deal. Condemnation from someone I have little respect for means nothing to me.

PS take a look at the poll up top. Lots of dishonest people on here. LOL

[longcoldwinter]

Dave you seem awful quick to pass judgement, calling people "dishonest" or "lacking moral fiber". You seem to have forgotten your opinion is just that a opinion no more right or wrong then anyone elses.

Some people have to make tough choices, risk getting fired for not following another humans edicts or dont carry and hope they never need there firearm.

As far as the idea that a worker does not need to carry because other workers dont carry:barf: Thats the same line of logic the anti's like to use, not exactly good company.

[pax]

This one's been repetitive for awhile, and some folks are beginning to lose their cool, so -- closed.

Thanks to those who resisted temptation!

pax