Any legal consequences of prohibiting firearms in the workplace?

[joshearl]

I work for a large company that prohibits me from carrying my CCW revolver. My work routine is about to change to the point where I won't even be able to carry it on my commute anymore. (Currently I leave it in the car. I will soon have to take the bus, which means more exposure and nowhere to stash my revolver. Not thrilled about this...)

It got me wondering--has anyone ever sued an employer after being attacked, either in the workplace or during their commute? Did they win?

I support an employer's right to prohibit firearms (freedom from regulations), but it also strikes me that that decision shouldn't come without consequences. By prohibiting firearms, businesses are ridding themselves of liability by transferring risk to their employees. They're basically saying, "Yeah, you could get hurt or killed, but at least we won't be liable either way."

If there was a counterbalancing liability--i.e. I could sue a company if they prohibited me from carrying my defensive weapon, then I get shot on their grounds--it might make for fewer reflexive "no weapons allowed" policies.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Josh

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If there was such a case, it would be well known by now. It is typical for someone to say - Sue 'em - but it hasn't happened yet.

Even in cases of rampages like VT, the law suits have usually centered on not dealing with the bad actor rather than not being able to defend yourself.

If you believe the employer has a right to ban guns, how can you sue said employer if you couldn't defend yourself. That sounds contradictory.

I, personally, don't believe the employer should have that right unless there is a highly technical reason for such. The private property argument (which we have had a 1000 times) is specious to me.

Remember that the private property rights argument is raised by employers not because of some philosophical issue but just because of liability issues soley. Employers can nothing about rights, period.

[joshearl]

Glenn,

Good points. I understand where you're coming from about rights, but private companies aren't usually bound by constitutional rights. I see it as sort of a freedom of assembly issue--you ought to be free to have any kind of club you want, even if I don't like the rules. Government is different, because I can't opt out without leaving the country entirely.

One parallel that comes to mind is workplace injuries. It's legal for companies to require a worker to carry around big boxes all the time, but that doesn't necessarily get them off the hook if the worker gets injured. There should be liability on both sides of the decision; otherwise it's completely rational to simply ban guns.

Josh

[divemedic]

Sigh- do we REALLY need to open the "property rights" discussion again?

One parallel that comes to mind is workplace injuries. It's legal for companies to require a worker to carry around big boxes all the time, but that doesn't necessarily get them off the hook if the worker gets injured.

Not even close. A workplace cannot make you carry boxes around all day, unless they take reasonable steps to prevent injuries. See OSHA requirements. Perhaps employers that deny employees the right to carry should be required to provide armed security. After all, simply putting up a sign that reads "Massacres are prohibited on Company property" is not a reasonable step to prevent violence.

A closer parallel would be an employer that prohibits employees from owning or having a Bible, or prevents a female employee from wearing or possessing a bra while on company property. Perhaps a company rule stating that overtime doesn't start until you have worked 80 hours.

To answer the OP:

If a company were sued (an many have been) they simply claim "third party interference" and assert that they have no control over the criminal acts of a third party, pointing out that they gave all employees a "violence in the workplace" class and sensitivity training as a reasonable way to prevent violence, all the while ignoring the fact that a "defenseless victim zone" emboldened the criminal, and also ignoring that the majority of workplace violence is not perpetrated by disgruntled employees, but by outsiders in robberies and other violent crimes.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

For the record I agree with Glenn but I digress.

I think the key to winning such lawsuit is whether the company could reasonably foresee the violence and could have taken reasonable steps to prevent it.

Courts have ruled apparently most of the time that crime is not reasonably foreseeable.

Some folk have won lawsuits against companies for workplace violence but that was with employees who had previously demonstrated such tendencies. Don't think I know of any that were successful because of prohibiting CCW.

Here is one source: http://www.workplaceviolence911.com/docs/20041012.htm

[divemedic]

Actually, there is a well known attorney in the central Florida area who claims that he can get you some cash if you are the victim of crime on a business' property if the owner did not take precautions like lighting the property or installing cameras, but I am not sure the gun thing will fly.

[Double Naught Spy]

Regardless of the feelings of Glen and many others, the fact remains that companies do have rights at least as is spelled out by the legal code on what they can and cannot do (without debating what is or is not a "right").

With that said, this isn't a property right issue either, at least not as described in the OP. It is a condition of employment issue. You may have the right to religion, free speech, assembly, etc., but not necessarily on somebody else's dime. You have the right to call your boss an idiot and he has the legal right to fire you for insubordination. Your free speech was not snubbed, just your job. Same for carrying.

They're basically saying, "Yeah, you could get hurt or killed, but at least we won't be liable either way."
From a business standpoint, that would be very smart, if true.

If there was a counterbalancing liability--i.e. I could sue a company if they prohibited me from carrying my defensive weapon, then I get shot on their grounds--it might make for fewer reflexive "no weapons allowed" policies.

You can sue them without getting shot. Don't expect to keep your job, but you can sue them for the claim that they are not allowing you to fully protect yourself. Either way, it won't fly too far. The company has to make reasonable accommodations for your safety in such matters, nothing more. At least to date, I know of no laws or court rulings that stipulate that a company must allow employees to be armed as a means to meet the criterion of reasonable accommodation.

You want to sue? It is your dime and your time. Go for it. If you win, gun owners everywhere will consider you a hero. During the course of the event, some might even pitch in and help with some legal fees. They won't, however, fund you after you lose your job.

Now for the classic statement that if you don't like the employment conditions at work, change jobs to some place with conditions you better like. Then comes the typical response about how it isn't that easy to change jobs and all. If you sue, then you have a very good chance of finding out all about changing jobs.

[45Gunner]

Not that I would advocate this, but, is it possible to carry your weapon concealed and not tell anyone you have it? Do you go thru a metal detector? If you feel that strongly about carrying, how about pocket carry with something like a NAA .32 semi-auto. It would seem to me that if you are giving up the car for the commute and switching to public transportation, you are putting yourself more at risk visa vie more exposure to the whackos that haunt the public transit systems. (And no, I am not inferring that everyone that rides the public transit systems are whackos).

[Don H]

FWIW, not all states allow CCW on public transit. Failure to comply could result in loss of permit and criminal penalties.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It is a condition of employment issue.

And it is a moral issue. An employer who prohibits you from carrying in a job with known criminal dangers (ie a Stop and Rob) to simply protect their bottomline and takes little or no precautiions to protect you is immoral and IMO you may morally disregard their work rule. The right to life trumps the emplyment rights of an employer in such an example. However, I will shut up now because we have argued this before and I will just get the thread locked but I had to respond.;)

[Al Norris]

I think if you stop looking at this whole thing as a "rights" issue (as in business [property] rights v. individual rights), and begin looking at it as a contract issue, you might see the differences.

Since this is a contract issue, barring State or local law or regulations to the contrary, the contract between the employer and the employee is valid. Therefore, there are no legal consequences if you carry or if your contract prohibits such conduct. It is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, as long as the employment contract itself is legal.

When a State, such as Florida, passes a law to allow carry in your parked vehicle, regardless of the fact that the vehicle may be parked on "private" property, what the State is doing is to regulate a business practice. Something that States have the power and authority to do. These laws have been challenged and have withstood the challenges. So far.

Should the State try to regulate individual carry on then job itself, the State runs afoul of several precedents, and such a regulation may be (and would be) challenged. It (the law) would probably lose in this case.

[Double Naught Spy]

And it is a moral issue. An employer who prohibits you from carrying in a job with known criminal dangers (ie a Stop and Rob) to simply protect their bottomline and takes little or no precautiions to protect you is immoral and IMO you may morally disregard their work rule. The right to life trumps the emplyment rights of an employer in such an example. However, I will shut up now because we have argued this before and I will just get the thread locked but I had to respond.

I don't know of a single job without criminal dangers. Most companies, including your example of Stop and Robs do take the necessary reasonable precautions (as per law) and many go to some excess beyond the law. We may not think they are enough, but they are doing what they have to do.

Yes, you may morally disregard their rules and they may legally fire you. I don't know how many fired pizza delivery man threads we have on this, but it is many. Dominos and other pizza companies have had no problems keeping their rules in place, regardless of the complaining of gun owners and the company has done quite well and expanded despite calls for boycotts.

The right to life and the right to carry a gun are not one in the same. When more gun folks understand the distinction, they may then be able to better formulate convincing arguments for the necessity of gun right. The right to carry a gun CAN aid in the right to life via helping preserve life, but so too can countless other items and activities that certainly are not the same thing as a right to carry a gun. When gun folks confuse the right to life with the 2nd Amendment, it just doesn't come across like they understand the topics about which they are discussing.

In a previous job, I have gone through the process of breaking the rules because I did think it was in my best self interest, but not because I thought my rights were somehow superior to that of my employer or that I thought my morals were better. I simply weighed the risk of the potential of being able to maybe defend my life at work with a firearm versus losing my job if it was ever discovered. I would have been in no position to complain if I had been discovered and fired because I knew the rules of work and the conditions for employment.

[divemedic]

the fact remains that companies do have rights at least as is spelled out by the legal code on what they can and cannot do

That is correct, except that anything that is allowed or prohibited by law is not a right, because I can change the law. Florida recently did so with respect to this imagined property right in employers' parking lots.

This has more to do with the right to effective self defense than it does the 2A. This is the same old tired "I am an employer, so I can do what I want to the proles" argument. As for me, I will continue to lobby my legislators to change the law. The "guns in parking lots" laws have already been changed in my state. Good luck to Pizza Hut in their next firing of a delivery driver.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My position is clear. The right of self-defense and carry, in my view of morality, supercedes the right of the employer to worry about his or her liability. Thus, this right should be enshrined with the same force as others in the BOR. Might we have a constitutional amendment for such - sure. The only exception being highly technical. Thus, the other arguments about current laws would be moot.

This is a different statement than the 2nd Amend. which speaks to goverment control.

But that won't happen.

[Double Naught Spy]

Right Glenn, and I would like to see your view come to pass. However, what we want and what is, as you noted, not likely to come to pass.

That is correct, except that anything that is allowed or prohibited by law is not a right, because I can change the law. Florida recently did so with respect to this imagined property right in employers' parking lots.

Then by that definition, we have no rights because all rights are subject to change and to modification by the law. Just because the Bill of Rights has not itself been amended does not mean that it can't be amended as other amendments have been changed. Funny how that works.

That is why I didn't want to go this route in arguing what is and what is not a "right." That which we are proclaiming as a right is subject to modification by law and is defined, ironically, by legislation.

[mapsjanhere]

While you can make a liability argument, I always thought it was strictly self preservation by management and supervisors. Do you want to argue with or fire an armed employee?
You have the right to leave your CCW gun in your car; if you chose not to avail yourself of the ability because you're taking the bus, that's not your companies fault. You could ask in the next contract negotiation for lockers to be placed near the entrance for people to leave their guns in, if enough people ask you might get it. But constitutional freedom works both way, you have the right to carry on public property, the private property owner has the right to tell you no.
You would probably pretty upset too if you hire someone to paint your house, notice him packing around your kids, and he tells you nothing you can do about it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

the contract between the employer and the employee is valid.

Al, a question and sorry I forgot the legal doctrine of this, but can't contracts be null and void where one party has an unfair advantage over the other? I might be off here but my dim memory recalls such a doctrine.

Where's Ken when you need him?:p

[Glenn E. Meyer]

mapsjanhere:So are you pretty upset when you go to the mall and see the same painter. He is probably packing there. Do you flee in terror from the licensed citizen?

I would be happy to exclude the private home from my provisions for employers, if you are scared of the licensed citizen.

Interesting view point - here on a gun forum, we have had several threads of folks being scared of licensed citizens in their home. However, they walk among us - in the mall, in church (depending), in restaurants, on the street.

Hidden and armed - perhaps seething with unknown psychopathologies or bizarre political beliefs, they glide down our streets and in cars.

Why - I'm convinced - no one should carry guns!!! I'm with you, Diane and Chuck!

[mapsjanhere]

Has nothing to do if I'm scared, it's my choice to tell him no in MY house, my factory, my mall. The second amendment doesn't trump the fifth about taking property for public use.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

And that's why I want the law to be changed such that places of public business don't have that 'so-called right'. I also see how you are being deprived of your property if you have to open your business to carry. The common argument is that we have decided that the 5th doesn't allow racists to engage in segregated businesses. But that only is in regard to protected classes. My view is that the person who carries should be such a protected class and not be discriminated against by some venial business person.

Again, your home is your own - I would exempt that but I have little sympathy for the argument that it is my playpen, mine, mine, mine - and thus I can discriminate on race, religion, national origin, gender orientation, and carry. Since there is no rationale for such discrimination (except in highly technical applications) and such discrimination is detrimental to society, such self-indulgence is not useful. It is not the same as taking your property.

But we've been down the moral debate on property rights before.

[NJgunowner]

My recommendation is if you feel you need a gun to be safe on the way to work, keep it.

Either way, if they did fire you because you did something silly and someone saw the gun... It's easier to replace your job than it is to replace your life!
;)

[MedicineBow]

First, most employers in most (if not all) states are covered by worker's compensation laws. These provide the sole vehicle for compensation against your employer (not a third party, though) for workplace injuries. That's true whether you're attacked, a fellow worker is careless and hurts you, or the roof caves in. So, in a sense, sure...you can recover from your employer if you're hurt by a bad guy.

Second, as has been thoroughly noted here and elsewhere, you don't have constitutional rights against private citizens, including your employer. Your employer doesn't have to allow you, for instance, your First Amendment rights. You don't get to walk around the workplace shouting anti-Republican slogans if your employer prohibits that, while you can do that out on a city sidewalk.

Now, one supposes the government could change this constitutional regime by requiring private parties to respect everyone's constitutional rights. You can imagine (barely) a law that requires you (and your employer) to protect everyone's First Amendment rights. You can therefore imagine protesters setting up shop on your lawn...or at least anyone whom you invite on your property setting up shop to rant and rave, with you powerless to do anything about it. And unhappy system, in my estimation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Shouting slogans during work is clearly detrimental to the work place and doing your job. So that argument is specious.

Second, malls have been viewed as public places in some cases, such that folks have been able to set up advocacy booths for various causes - as long as they are not disruptive.

Postulating a disruptive behavior is a straw man argument.

[MedicineBow]

Shouting slogans during work is clearly detrimental to the work place and doing your job. So that argument is specious.

It's not an argument. It's the American system. And the law says that private folks get to decide what they put up with. Private folks are not bound to respect your First Amendment rights, nor your Second Amendment rights, nor the 4th, 5th, etc....point is, the constitution maximizes the freedom of individuals in dealing with each other, and minimizes the freedom of the government in dealing with and individual. All arguments about scope of regulation and freedoms exist in that framework.

If you wish to change the entire American system of government to say that private people have to abide by the Bill of Rights in all their dealings with others, well, be prepared.

[Dr. Strangelove]

mapsjanhere:So are you pretty upset when you go to the mall and see the same painter. He is probably packing there. Do you flee in terror from the licensed citizen?

I would be happy to exclude the private home from my provisions for employers, if you are scared of the licensed citizen.

Interesting view point - here on a gun forum, we have had several threads of folks being scared of licensed citizens in their home. However, they walk among us - in the mall, in church (depending), in restaurants, on the street.

Hidden and armed - perhaps seething with unknown psychopathologies or bizarre political beliefs, they glide down our streets and in cars.

Why - I'm convinced - no one should carry guns!!! I'm with you, Diane and Chuck!

Mapsjanhere had a good point, company property is owned by the corporation and is subject to whatever restrictions they decide to put upon the property within the limits of the law. Corporate/business property does fall under some additional restrictions based on protected classes that your home does not. You as a private homeowner can choose not to employ lawn maintenance based on race but cannot as a business owner. Concealed weapons carriers do not constitute a protected class, so, like it or not, companies can choose to allow or not allow firearms on their property. You have the right to seek other employment.

Interesting view point - here on a gun forum, we have had several threads of folks being scared of licensed citizens in their home. However, they walk among us - in the mall, in church (depending), in restaurants, on the street.

Let's get away from calling folks "scared" who choose to exercise their own rights on their own property. Your rights end where mine start, and that's my property line in the case of my home. Carry where you want elsewhere, but if you are in my home, I make the rules.

[roy reali]

My position is clear. The right of self-defense and carry, in my view of morality, supercedes the right of the employer to worry about his or her liability. Thus, this right should be enshrined with the same force as others in the BOR. Might we have a constitutional amendment for such - sure. The only exception being highly technical. Thus, the other arguments about current laws would be moot.



What if having guns around violates the morality or religious beliefs of the business owner? What would be more important, his first amendment rights or someone else's second amendment rights?

[Double Naught Spy]

Al, a question and sorry I forgot the legal doctrine of this, but can't contracts be null and void where one party has an unfair advantage over the other? I might be off here but my dim memory recalls such a doctrine.

Contracts may be null and void when one party has an advantage that is akin to forcing the other party sign the contract under less than voluntary conditions. Typical employment is fully voluntary and so would not apply here.

Otherwise, unfair advantage refers to those who don't have the intellectual capacity to be able to comprehend contracts or those who have been duped through dishonesty, or where one party takes advantage of the other because of an inequitable knowledge that the ignorant party has no ability to have in that situation.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What if having guns around violates the morality or religious beliefs of the business owner?

What if being female, African American, or Hispanic violates a business onwer's morality or religiious beliefs? See that argument only works in the purely private (as in your home) context. Once you open a business to the public those "rights" are changed. Gun owners are not a "protected class" but I think Glenn (and I) would argue that they should be or that if the business owner denies them the right to carry then the business owner should assume full responsibility for the employee's security.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Typical employment is fully voluntary and so would not apply here.

My thought is that a lot of employment relating to this issue is atypical.

Yes, theoretically we are all free to look for work elsewhere. However, we know that reality is not that cut and dried. Jobs are not always so easy to get and not everyone has the resources to go into business for themselves.

Also, when it becomes "industry standard" for companies of any appreciable size to deny CCW to employees while knowing they are free from lawsuit success if employees are then injured by workplace violence then the "voluntary" part of employment isn't there IMO. Morally, one should not have to choose between safety and feeding your family.

So, most companies deny CCW due to venial concerns about bottomline. Most available work is with said companies in a given community. Is that fully voluntary? I think not.

[mapsjanhere]

The right to carry a gun is a right the state gives you for property it controls. It's not a right the state can give you over property it doesn't own. Like your driver's license doesn't permit you to drive on private property without consent.
If I look at the number of places excluded in my state, including all state parks, I'd say we have a bigger fight to get the state at least to allow us to carry everywhere it controls before we try to get private property owners to surrender their rights.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The state has lots of rules and regulations for property you own.

Please sit on your front lawn naked when the school bus arrives. Please refuse to have working toilets in your restaurant.

Another specious argument that your property is immune from state mandates that contribute to the common good.

TG - handled the specious argument on religion. Go back and google the arguments that occurred during the debate on miscegenation laws and/or segregation. You can find 'preachers' claiming religious reasons for discrimination.

[NJgunowner]

Have a restaurant tell the health inspector he is trespassing :D

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The right to carry a gun is a right the state gives you

Not a small point but the right to carry a gun is not "given" to me by the state but rather predates the Constitution and the 2A. The state regulates the right if it passes court muster but CCW is not a priviledge (at least not in TN:D). The state is barred from infringing on that right (a court decides what infringment means) but doesn't give me any right.

[Double Naught Spy]

So, most companies deny CCW due to venial concerns about bottomline. Most available work is with said companies in a given community. Is that fully voluntary? I think not.

Since this discussion is about legal aspects, do you have a citation for legislation or significant court case that defines employment as not being voluntary?

[roy reali]

The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people--including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners--even the government.


Our country was founded by men that regarded private property rights above all else. That is the unique experiment that was called The United States of America.

[divemedic]

Since this discussion is about legal aspects, do you have a citation for legislation or significant court case that defines employment as not being voluntary?

Don't have to. The state regulates the employment contract on a regular basis. Minimum wage, overtime, child labor, OSH, the right to know act, FLSA, EEO, and others.

As to the earlier argument that forcing a property owner violates the 5th Amendment as a taking, I will repeat:

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.

In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as "regulatory taking". see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).

In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of regulatory takings. These occur: (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

People carrying on your property do not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but do result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto an employers property is unwelcome if they have corporate policies preventing weapons on property. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419(1982)

In Loretto, the Court distinguished temporary physical "invasions" from permanent physical "occupations." The court ruled that an invasion is temporary, while an occupation is permanent.

A physical occupation, as defined by the Court, is a permanent and exclusive occupation by the government that destroys the owner's right to possession, use, and disposal of the property. see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

People carrying weapons do not force any permanent "physical structure" on an owner's property. Instead, they force an unwanted physical invasion by third parties engaging in an unwanted activity. The invasion itself is not "permanent" because the individuals engaging in the unwanted activity (carrying guns) do not remain on the property at all times, as would an actual physical structure. Nor does CCW cause a "permanent" invasion with regard to a particular parcel of property, such as the public bike paths at issue in public easement cases. In those cases, even if no person ever chose to ride his bike across a public path, there is nevertheless governmental intrusion because that particular parcel of land is stripped of its right to exclude.

If no individuals choose to engage in the activity of CCW, landowners will not suffer unwanted invasions. It is therefore hard to classify the invasion caused by CCW as permanent for purposes of a takings analysis, thus a person who carries a weapon on your property under the law has not violated any of the three prongs necessary to constitute a taking of property under the 5th Amendment.

Our country was founded by men that regarded private property rights above all else. That is the unique experiment that was called The United States of America.

and where in the founding documents is this written?

[Double Naught Spy]

Don't have to. The state regulates the employment contract on a regular basis. Minimum wage, overtime, child labor, OSH, the right to know act, FLSA, EEO, and others.

Do any classify employment as non-voluntary? None that I can find. Nor can I find any legislation or labor decisions denoting employment is not voluntary because companies are located within a given community.

The only employment I can find as being non voluntary pertains to prison labor and even then whether or not it is actually non voluntary is a bit moot given prisoners aren't supposed to carry guns at work.

[divemedic]

So if employment is voluntary, as a business owner, I can set up a rule that states all female employees must have sex with me? A rule prohibiting female employees from possessing any item of clothing that covers the breasts? A rule requiring that all employees work one day a week without pay? How about one which requires all employees submit to a daily beating?

Sorry, the "employment is voluntary, so I can do what I want" argument won't fly.

[roy reali]

I agree, the government already regulates and controls private property activities. Some of you want even more intrusion. If some of this administration's plans go through, you'll be heaven then. The government already regulates medical care in this country, why not more then?

I am a border-line liberatarian, I really believe that government involvement in private property matters should be next to zero. If I own a house, a business, or whatever, I pay the taxes, I enjoy the rewards and face the risks, no political unit should tell me who I can have enter my place or not. Yes, its being done now. It doesn't make it right, and forcing more regulations on me won't make it better.

By the way, read the Federalist Papers if you want to know what our forefathers thought about private property.

One more point. I don't see anyone here upset about gun bans in Federal Buildings. Why not? Those, at least, are public institutions.

[Bella]

Some of you here mention that there would be no financial risk to a business owner by allowing employees to carry guns. I hate to inform you, but you are wrong. I used to work in the insurance industry. There is something called workers' compensation. Here is a link to prove my point.

http://www.workerscompensation.com/compnewsnetwork/index.php?news=4558

If a workplace gun results in a workplace injury, guess who will be dinged with added insurance premiums. Some workers' comp carriers already raise rates when guns are involved.

[mapsjanhere]

It's always interesting when people look for the narrowest interpretation of one right to allow the broadest of another. If you go by SCOTUS, you have no right to conceal carry to begin with, you barely have a right to own a gun for home defense, and that only since Heller.
But here's another case: Does you local pastor have the right to ask you not to wear a gun to church? After all, he has a sign "come on in" at the front, he's invited you, public space and all.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

do you have a citation for legislation or significant court case that defines employment as not being voluntary?

Not sure you are asking the right question. There is the theoretical and the real. Theoretically, I can quit and move from job to job as I see fit. The reality is not that. Contracts, economic conditions and various other factors may determine how "free" I am to move about employment wise. I think a good place for you to look might be the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. I think that shows that workers have some say in the deal and the employer is not always right.

Some of you here mention that there would be no financial risk to a business owner by allowing employees to carry guns. I hate to inform you, but you are wrong. I used to work in the insurance industry.

I too used to work in that industry and sold Worker's Comp policies. Your link does not really shed any light on the argument. The article is aimed at those who carry to work, hurt themselves and try to claim Worker's Comp. The cases cited revolve mostly around law enforcement and the one case where a man shot himself the claim was denied. All injuries so claimed and approved on the job raise Worker's comp rates and firearm injuries would not do that any more than any other types of injuries. Where the risk is to the employer is General Liability even though a policy against CCW would probably not help the employer against third party lawsuits.

If you go by SCOTUS, you have no right to conceal carry to begin with, you barely have a right to own a gun for home defense, and that only since Heller.

Not sure what you mean by "barely". You have the right or you do not. As I have stated before the courts don't "give" you rights rather they interpret laws as to whether they are an infringment on a right. Big difference.

Does you local pastor have the right to ask you not to wear a gun to church?

He may certainly ask. ;)

[Al Norris]

If you go by SCOTUS, you have no right to conceal carry to begin with,
Um, no. Actually, prior cases have dealt with State regulation of concealed carry, and not carry (bearing) in a general sense. Add to this, that such cases were all before Heller and (the current) incorporation (case).

The current legal landscape. as regards gun rights, is in flux.
you barely have a right to own a gun for home defense, and that only since Heller.
Barely? Hardly.

Heller's central holding was unequivocal. People have the unadorned right to keep firearms, within their homes for all lawful purposes, including self-defense. Included in that class of arms, firearms, was the subclass of handguns that a government could not ban, as handguns are demonstrably the weapon of choice for self-defense.

With McDonald being granted cert, the question is now broadened to include all people, not just those who live in Federal enclaves.

The question is not if the 2A will be incorporated, but by what manner the incorporation takes place (there is another thread that this aspect can be discussed, here (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=373086)).
Some of you here mention that there would be no financial risk to a business owner by allowing employees to carry guns.
Any such liability is actually a two part question. What liability if the employee is allowed only to store her arm(s) within her vehicle? as opposed to carry within the workplace itself. Add in that the State has mitigated employer liability in the former case, and the employer is still allowed to restrict personal carry within the actual job.

An employee may still leave the workplace, get a gun and return to cause havoc. That scenario has not been eliminated. It can not be foreseen and the employer's liability is the same, guns in the parking lot or not.

The fact that insurance companies might raise rates do not necessarily make a valid claim by the employer. Especially since insurance companies are want to raise rates at any pretext (seemingly real or not).

[lizziedog1]

Those of you that feel that private business owners should be mandated to allow guns are not that different then the Boxer's, the Feinstein's, the Brady's, or any of their kind. Different political ideas, same shove it down your throat mentality.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Those of you that feel that private business owners should be mandated to allow guns are not that different then the Boxer's, the Feinstein's, the Brady's, or any of their kind. Different political ideas, same shove it down your throat mentality.

How is my right and desire to protect myself shoving anything down anybody's throat?

Would you concede that business owners who forbid law-abiding citizens CCW be financially liable for crime that then injures said employees who didn't carry?

If not then I submit you are not offering a just position.

[divemedic]

Those of you that feel that private business owners should be mandated to allow guns are not that different then the Boxer's, the Feinstein's, the Brady's, or any of their kind.

I am not advocating that a business owner be mandated to allow carry. I am stating that:

1 If a property owner open a business on that property, thereby opening that property to the public, then the owner has certain obligations to the public. If the owner wishes to deny me my ability to effectively defend myself, then the owner is now responsible for providing that protection. If I am attacked while defenseless, and the property owner has not provided security, then I should be able to sue for damages.

2 No one is forcing a property owner to open a business on your property, therefore no one is forcing you to allow a firearm on your property.

3 Comparing this to healthcare is a strawman argument. Comparing a law that would prevent you from dictating what is in my pants is far different from mandating that you pay for another's healthcare.

[lizziedog1]

I open a small business on my property. I am also a pacifist, I do not want any weapons on my property. No government entity should dictate different to me. Yes, if someone is injured through any actions or inactions of mine, then we go to civil court. Then we leave up to a jury.

[roy reali]

Not too far here there is a BLM office. There is a large sign at the front door that no weapons may be brought into that building. It is a Federal building.

I am a tax payer and taxes go to upkeep, utilities, and paychecks involved with this entity. In other words, I, along with all of you, own it. It is a public facility. Where is the outcry on their gun ban? Why the outrage towards a private owner of property?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Yes, if someone is injured through any actions or inactions of mine, then we go to civil court.

Fair enough. As to pacifists, IMO there are very few of those who truly are but that is another thread:)

Where is the outcry on their gun ban?

Lots of it around here. I only accept courthouses because they have metal detectors and armed bailiffs. Locally, I have always opposed any and every CCW restrictions in parks and all public spaces.

[roy reali]

Lots of it around here. I only accept courthouses because they have metal detectors and armed bailiffs. Locally, I have always opposed any and every CCW restrictions in parks and all public spaces.


I agree, in public areas, there should be no carry restrictions towards those that have legal right to do so. In fact, if a person can legally own a firearm, I believe that no permit, license, or any requirement should be mandated by any government entity for that person to walk around armed.

[fiddletown]

We seem to be all over the block here -- discussing whether it's good policy for an employer to prohibit weapons and whether there's any good reason for him to do so. But let's remember that the OP's original question was...If there was a counterbalancing liability--i.e. I could sue a company if they prohibited me from carrying my defensive weapon, then I get shot on their grounds--it might make for fewer reflexive "no weapons allowed" policies....I propose the following answer to that question:

I am not aware of anyone successfully challenging in court an employer's "no weapons" policy. While employer practices that discriminate, or create a hostile work environment, based on gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation have been successfully challenged by employees, such challenges have been supported by specific statutory and common law prohibitions on such conduct when based on gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation. These are explicitly protected classes.

I'm aware of no statute or court decision making people who own guns or have a concealed weapons permit a protected class. Any legal challenge to an employer's "no weapons" policy would, it appears, be breaking new ground.

That in and of itself doesn't foreclose trying. New ground has been broken in the past. But it does mean that the success of such a venture is highly speculative and also high dependent on the law in the particular jurisdiction in which the challenge is brought.

[roy reali]

gender, age, religion, national origin, race, disability and sexual orientation. These are explicitly protected classes.


Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

[fiddletown]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip. So, what's your point? My point is that in the real world these are bases upon which to hold an employer liable for discriminatory practices, but there is no parallel basis upon which to challenge an employer's "no weapons" policy. Or didn't you understand my post?

[divemedic]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

But one is, according to the Constitutional theory that this country was founded upon, born with a right to defend their own life. (Also, a persuasive argument can be made that sexual orientation is a learned behavior)

I open a small business on my property. I am also a pacifist, I do not want any weapons on my property. No government entity should dictate different to me. Yes, if someone is injured through any actions or inactions of mine, then we go to civil court. Then we leave up to a jury.

Fair enough, but that is not how it works. Businesses fall back on the defense that they have no control over criminals, even though the no weapons policy is what enabled the criminal in the first place.

As a business owner, say you want to chain your emergency exits shut because your employees are sneaking out to take unauthorized breaks, and you don't want some government agency dictating to you. If someone is hurt, then you go to court and let a jury decide. Should you be allowed to do so?

[Double Naught Spy]

Apples and oranges. These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

Religion isn't genetic and growing up in a gun culture can be inherited like religion, though it isn't a religion.

With that said, fiddletown makes a good point. A new basis would need to be established for such a suit to work.

At this point, with all of the workplace shootings where people were not defended with firearms (though who owned them and CC permits) and with all those who have been fired for having guns in the workplace against company rules (often because they managed to defend themselves against bad guys), I would be inclined to believe this would be a legal windfall for the NRA and/or whatever legal team wanted to challenge the issue given how clear cut some folks here think the law is on this matter, be it based in discrimination or on Constitutional law. There don't seem to be a lot of lawyers chomping at the bit for these cases and I don't see where the NRA is challenging any at this time (but maybe it isn't on their site?). If the NRA is involved in some of these challenges, maybe someone can post the links to the cases. If they have filed suit, the reasons for the suit will be public knowledge and likely the NRA will have made a press release to coincide with the suit.

So if the matter isn't so clear cut and suits are being filed across the country in support of forcing employers to allow employees to carry guns at work, why isn't this happening? It isn't as if the suit would need to be against a major corporation like Domino's that would have a large legal team and a lot of backing. Initial suits against smaller private companies would the way to go, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

So far, all that has been strongly tried is getting companies to let employees leave their guns in their vehicles on the grounds of their employers.
http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm?recID=72776
http://www.insidecounsel.com/Issues/2006/March%202006/Pages/NRA-and-Companies-Duel-Over-Gun-Legislation.aspx

[roy reali]

It isn't as if the suit would need to be against a major corporation like Domino's that would have a large legal team and a lot of backing. Initial suits against smaller private companies would the way to go, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.


Big corporations and small private companies are different to me. Regulate one of them all you want, leave the other one alone as much as possible.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I agree, in public areas, there should be no carry restrictions towards those that have legal right to do so. In fact, if a person can legally own a firearm, I believe that no permit, license, or any requirement should be mandated by any government entity for that person to walk around armed.

Agreed! However, the OP includes the idea that if a private company prohibits law-abiding CCW then they should be financially liable for crime that injures employees and customers who might otherwise have defended themselves against attack for which the business owner did not provide protection from.

These are conditions one is born with or are inherited. No one is born with a gun attached to their hip.

As Double Naught Spy said religion is not genetic. However, I AM born with the God-given right of self defense and that may require the use of a gun.

With that said, fiddletown makes a good point. A new basis would need to be established for such a suit to work.

A couple of thoughts.

Legal precedents take time to develope. CCW really hasn't been around that long in the states (FL was first of any size in 1987) so it will take a while for the right cases to develope.

Second, the NRA HAS bashed Pizza Hut and other workplaces (urging boycotts and such) for firing drivers who defended themselves from attack. Also, the NRA has supported laws that restrict employers from prohibiting employees from storing guns in their cars and has passed those laws in several states.

So, I see this coming to a head legally as more and more people CCW. As you know you have to get the "right" set of facts in a case to set the precedent and that may come soon or take a while. Like Heller. One step at a time.

As the general public gets used to the idea more and more that folk should be able to defend themselves and workplace violence continues I could see the courts or legislatures going over to this idea that the right to self defense trumps employer "rights" and allow liability on those who refuse to let employees defend themselves. We'll see.

[divemedic]

I just find it extremely hypocritical to hear someone tell me that they don't want the government interfering in the running of their business, even though they are using government interference to protect their assets by having that business incorporated.

It seems to me that they are only interested in preventing government interference when the government is protecting the other guy.

[fiddletown]

...using government interference to protect their assets by having that business incorporated....How is incorporation "using government interference"? The corporation as a form of business organization goes back several hundred years and has been recognized in both Common Law and Civil (Roman) Law. Each form of business organization has long recognized legal consequences.

The government does incorporate your business. You incorporate your business and then make certain public record filings so that others who do business with you know how you are organized and who you are, and so that the government can tax you appropriately.

[divemedic]

because a corporation is a fictional entity that is created by law (government) to shield the owner from personal liability for any bad decisions. This allows the owner to reap the financial rewards while taking very little risk beyond the limited amount of money invested in the corporation.

When I am an employee of your corporation, I am not entering an employment agreement with you, I am entering an employment agreement with a fictional entity created by the government for your financial benefit.

[fiddletown]

A corporation may be a fictional entity, but it has a solid, historical foundation. The corporate form goes back some 700 years and is a widely recognized and understood form of business organization.

At one time, corporations were formed by royal charter. Today, they are formed privately, without governmental action, except for the recording by a state agency of the documents forming the corporation. A modern corporation can be described as follows:A corporation is a legal entity separate from the persons who own it or the persons who manage or operate it. In British tradition it is the term designating a body corporate, where it can be either a corporation sole (an office held by an individual natural person, which is a legal entity separate from that person) or a corporation aggregate (involving more persons). In American and, increasingly, international usage, the term denotes a body corporate formed to conduct business, ....

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders that invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve. People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, for their goods and services, .... for economic growth and social development.

The defining feature of a corporation is its legal independence from the people who create it. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment ....

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[1] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[2] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[3] Five common characteristics of the modern corporation, ... are:

* delegated management, in other words, control of the company placed in the hands of a board of directors
* limited liability of the shareholders (so that when the company is insolvent, they only owe the money that they subscribed for in shares)
* investor ownership, which Hansmann and Kraakman take to mean, ownership by shareholders.[4]
* separate legal personality of the corporation (the right to sue and be sued in its own name)
* transferrable shares (usually on a listed exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange or Euronext in Paris)...(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation emphasis added)

[jimpeel]

Actually, there have been several threads related to private companies banning employee carry or possession of firearms.

The AOL suit in Utah comes readily to mind and was discussed in several threads in L&P. A lawsuit was brought to bear which was discussed as well.

AOL won.

AOL Fires employees in Utah (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29973)

AOL Lawsuit update (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51765)

Businesses Watch AOL Employees' Gun Lawsuit (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76805)

Judge rules in favor of AOL in case of employee gun ban (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100644)

Judge rules in favor of AOL in case of employee gun ban (There were two threads w/ same title) (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101763)

There were other cases and discussions as well.

Employer Weapons Policy (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78116)

Is this legal? Parking lot question (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182143)

Florida Attorney General taking Complaints of rights violations (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301740)

[MedicineBow]

This has wandered far afield.

To summarize:

First, right now, if you are an employee, injured at work, then you receive compensation through the worker's compensation system. It doesn't matter if you get harmed by a bad guy or the roof caves in. So, yes, you have those rights...and it has nothing to do with whether you get to carry a firearm as an employee.

Second, if you are a visitor at a business, and (in summary) if the business doesn't take reasonable steps to protect you from reasonably foreseeable criminal activity, then you have recourse against that business. So, yes, you have those rights.

Now, if you want to pass regulations to force private parties to allow you to carry guns on the premises....well, write your representatives.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Second, if you are a visitor at a business, and (in summary) if the business doesn't take reasonable steps to protect you from reasonably foreseeable criminal activity

Haven't many courts ruled that violent crime is not reasonably foreseeable? What reasonable steps must a business owner take? My guess is not much. I know 7-11 says they did by installing cameras. LOL so they get a good picture of who kills you I suppose.

[divemedic]

I know that Morgan and Morgan (a large Florida attorney firm) have sued businesses for not lighting parking lot at night as a reasonable step to prevent crime. I have never heard of a business being successfully sued for a no firearms policy.

[DG45]

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my layman's opinion (which is probably worth what you're paying for it), but I think an avenue that might be pursued is to try to legally hold employers or a school (like Virginia Tech for example) to the same standard of screening for guns as an airport or a courthouse ; ie. they don't have to ban guns from their premises but if they do, they should be forced to accept the liability for that; i.e., they should be forced to do more than just put up a sign saying guns are banned on the campus or premises (which only has the effect of disarming the law-abiding and making them sheep for the slaughter). Instead these businesses or schools should be legally forced to either allow the law-abiding to have guns on campus for their own protection, or if not, then they could ban all guns in their business or campus, but if they did, then they should be forced to provide a REAL screen for firearms just like an airport or courthouse performs to guarantee that NO ONE gets onto that business or school property with a gun, not even a crazy or a criminal. (And if some crazy or criminal did get onto that business or school property with a gun and harm someone, then that school or business enterprise who failed in their duty to protect the employes or students they had disarmed should be liable for the most severe legal penalties.) The place to start the ball rolling on this would seem to be the state legislatures or on ballot propositions or even just by candidates for office making this a campaign issue. Any comments?

[Double Naught Spy]

Funny how we complain here about how we dislike more regulation when we think it has a negative impact against us, but we are more than happy to promote more regulation when we think it is for our benefit.

[Uncle Billy]

It seems to me that if it's legal for an employer to ban CC for his employees, and he doesn't, and one of them shoots someone (justified or not), then whomever got shot has grounds for an action brought against the employer for not trying to prevent him from being shot. Principles are one thing, legal exposure is another, which trumps principle most of the time.

I think the general public (i.e. the majority of people, more than half of whom aren't avid gun enthusiasts) aren't all that enthusiastic about a bunch of amateurs, with no training and questionable skills, who have a penchant for guns as their motivation, being allowed to go among us with deadly firepower they have enthusiasm for using. That idea frightens me too. Oh, they believe CC ought to be legal (mostly so they could do it if they chose to), but they concurrently have a legit fear of what that enables. That gets a corporate voice when lawyers get involved.

It's the two-pronged sword of our rights. The Founders were clear what our rights were to be, but they didn't think it necessary to speak of the attendant responsibilities, the motivation for living up to those responsibilities supposedly coming from an individual citizen's character, ethics and understanding. We have the rights, more or less, but how much to we live up to the attending responsibilities? Not so much, which is why CC as a Second Amendment right isn't without its perceived dangers.