The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 29, 2011, 11:02 PM   #101
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,185
Quote:
Does you employeer give any reasons as to why this rule exists? What if someone drops you off at work , take a bus or taxi, does the bus have to stay in the lot?
The reason given was that crossing the big street from the only nearby parking lot that's strictly off company property was dangerous for the employees. Drop offs are ok.
Quote:
"Right to work" deals with required union membership.
Correct. When all the employees are required to be union members, there are usually rules imposed by the union affecting the "at will" nature of the employment. They're not strictly linked, but the one affects the other to some extent or another.
Quote:
Even if I say Joe has a gun in his car, they will likely not forcefully search Joe's car.
That has happened at least once in the recent past at my company. Without getting into the details, a non-employee who wanted revenge, manipulated an employee in such a manner that the non-employee was certain that the employee would have a firearm or firearms in the car at a certain time, and at that time notified security that the employee had firearms in his private vehicle on the company lot. The car was searched and the employee was terminated. Security and the company management was aware of the manipulation aspect and felt it made no difference.

The search was not "forceful", there is no way they would search "forcefully". They ask permission to search and if you say no you are terminated for that offense. If you allow the search, it is not "forceful" but you will be terminated if any prohibited items are found.
Quote:
No, they can decide based on a rumor to search any car they want, and only that car.
Correct. I've seen them do it.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 12:55 AM   #102
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Unless their is a state law protecting you, your employer does not need a warrant to search your car that is on his property.
he might be able to tell me bye-bye from his business for now on, but I would HOPE that this bozo would not think he can search my car because I am his employee. He cannot do this. period.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 01:03 AM   #103
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
immediate, previous post was response to different member

Quote:
The search was not "forceful", there is no way they would search "forcefully". They ask permission to search and if you say no you are terminated for that offense. If you allow the search, it is not "forceful" but you will be terminated if any prohibited items are found.
I do concede to this John.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 08:12 AM   #104
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,341
Quote:
he might be able to tell me bye-bye from his business for now on, but I would HOPE that this bozo would not think he can search my car because I am his employee. He cannot do this. period.
I think you are confused on the semantics of the situation.

The 'bozo' can and does rightfully believe that he can search your car (assuming this is a condition of employment to which you agree as an employee by acceptance of employment) so long as you are an employee and that there are no laws to the contrary. It is not until you stop being an employee, however, is when 'bozo' can no longer do this.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 09:23 AM   #105
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
When all the employees are required to be union members, there are usually rules imposed by the union affecting the "at will" nature of the employment. They're not strictly linked, but the one affects the other to some extent or another.
'At will' is the operative thing here, not 'right to work.'

'Right to work' laws make it illegal require union membership.

Unless you have an employment contract you are most likely an 'at will' employee and can be fired at any time the employer wants you gone.

They are VERY different and separate issues.
brickeyee is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 09:24 AM   #106
treg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2006
Posts: 1,020
So the employer or his rep search your car and find a gun. Are they not now in possesion of a stolen firearm? Right to search or not they don't have any right to the property inside, particularly a firearm.


Glad I work at a place where the firearm policy is if you get a new one you WILL bring it in for show and tell.
__________________
"Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway." - John Wayne

.44 Special: For those who get it, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.
treg is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 09:46 AM   #107
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,160
Alright...So I've been at my place for about a year now. They have the same "You cannot carry even in your car" policy. However...I am in Florida.

Where they have this LAW about "Take your gun to work" so that one can "practice their right to bears arms in their commute to and from work".

Don't ask me how, but some people at work know I carry and some even know it's in the car. (was...dating...a girl that knew for a while before working there) Out of my control.

Also, I have gotten into debates with the director of loss prevention about this topic. He swears up and down that he can have the police come in and check it...etc. -__- Now I'm one of their best workers and never had an issue with anyone. So for the most part they like me. I have to think thought..What if one day that all just goes away and BAM search. I'll most likely say no.


BUT....I am in Florida, where this is apparently permitted and they cannot do this. Also..people with any power do what the hell they want so I don't know if I should continue leaving my Glock 27 w/ the spare mag in the glove box locked away with my alarm and all. Or just say screw it and never carry in my glove box to work ever again?
__________________
Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium. Ímperet ílli Déus, súpplices deprecámur: tuque, prínceps milítiæ cæléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in múndo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde. Ámen
Constantine is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 09:52 AM   #108
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Glad I work at a place where the firearm policy is if you get a new one you WILL bring it in for show and tell.

Must be nice
__________________
Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium. Ímperet ílli Déus, súpplices deprecámur: tuque, prínceps milítiæ cæléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in múndo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde. Ámen
Constantine is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 06:42 PM   #109
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,185
Quote:
So the employer or his rep search your car and find a gun. Are they not now in possesion of a stolen firearm? Right to search or not they don't have any right to the property inside, particularly a firearm.
They can't confiscate the firearm unless you choose give it to them because they don't have any legal rights to do so.

If they find it they're not going to take it, they will probably suspend you (send you home immediately) and then call you at home to tell you not to come back to work. Or they might terminate you on the spot. In either situation you'd get to leave with your firearm and never come back.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 07:03 PM   #110
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
It seems that a lot of people here want to deny the property holder the right to manage his own property. Whether a business owns or is leasing the land/facility, they are legally in control of pretty much every aspect of that property.

At the very least, if the person in possession of a property instructs that "no armed person may come beyond this point" it makes you an illegal trespasser and subject to arrest and prosecution under most interpretation if you enter the property armed.

Those rights extend all the way to the front gates of the parking lot. You have a declaration of policy that you cannot come on company grounds carrying gun/liquor/drugs, etc, the property holder has every right to dismiss you from your job, escort you bodily off of the premises, and have you arrested for having come on the property armed after being instructed not to.

Legal environment may vary, and prosecutors will choose whether to enforce, but that's the way the situation stands. Your poorly defined second amendment rights do not trump property rights set down in thousands of years of common law and US, state and local codes. If not for a slight alteration of the wording, your declaration of independence would have said "life, liberty, and property" instead of "happiness." The idea at the time was far more focused on freedom of the individual rather than on individual responsibility to respect the rights of other individuals.
briandg is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 07:06 PM   #111
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
briandg, your post forgets that there are states that do not allow employers to declare parking lots off-limits.

In the other states, you are correct.
MLeake is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 08:25 PM   #112
WANT A LCR 22LR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Posts: 389
" . . . They have the same "You cannot carry even in your car" policy. However...I am in Florida.

Where they have this LAW about "Take your gun to work" so that one can "practice their right to bears arms in their commute to and from work". "

" . . . .Also, I have gotten into debates with the director of loss prevention about this topic. He swears up and down that he can have the police come in and check it...etc. -__- "

If the local cops know anything about the personal car / gun OK law, they won't show up.


" Don't ask me how, but some people at work know I carry and some even know it's in the car. (was...dating...a girl that knew for a while before working there) Out of my control. "

That kind of things gets out. Ever talk to anyone in the building about guns even in the slightest? If they figured out you have a gun, it can be assumed that you have one in the car.


" It seems that a lot of people here want to deny the property holder the right to manage his own property. Whether a business owns or is leasing the land/facility, they are legally in control of pretty much every aspect of that property. "

There is quite a range between car carry getting you put in jail and car carry that is against someone's self generated rules.

If a business forbids car carry but state law specifically allows it, the business rules don't apply and the business is breaking the law if they insist on no car carry.

If business A shares a parking lot with other businesses / general public, should business A be able to dictate what goes on in that common lot?

If state / fed laws specifically say the business has the right to limit car carry and a state / fed penalty applies if violated, the gun owner must comply, there just isn't a way around this.

In the absence of state / fed laws prohibiting a object, there is a difference between a business controlling what goes on in the building / on the grounds and controlling what a person has in their car. If the controlled object stays in someone's car, the business should be hands off.

Say a business is owned by a catholic person, do they have the right to prohibit condoms or birth control pills in someone's car?

Or does a anti religion business owner have the right to prohibit someone from having a bible in their car or St Christopher statue on the dash?

I see the whole issue being less about guns and more about how far a business can go to control what you have in your car, as long as that item never leaves said car while on company property.
WANT A LCR 22LR is offline  
Old October 30, 2011, 11:31 PM   #113
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
Quote:
Say a business is owned by a catholic person, do they have the right to prohibit condoms or birth control pills in someone's car?
yes.

As stated, if that company owns or leases the lot, they have control over the portion that they either own or lease, and yes, they can make policy as to what you put on property that is under their control, and bringing contraband into a parking lot is no different than a college refusing to let beer into the dorm. You are forbidden to possess that product while on the property and subject to legal or disciplinary action.

Both of our hospitals have no tobacco policies. You cannot be using any sort of tobacco within the outer boundaries of the grounds. employees have to walk about a block or so completely off of the campus to smoke. If a person violates the non smoking rule, of course, they will be reminded not to by the security guards. If they want to make a fuss, they will be escorted from the property, and may be arrested for trespass if they repeat the offense. that's the policy that the security office follows.

If this is legal for tobacco, it is legal for BC pills, or any other item that doesn't have specific legal protection. A dress code is the same thing. A policy set by an organization, enforced by either policy discipline, or expulsion from the property. The difference is, that some things are protected by higher statute, such as clearly protected forms of free speech.

I'm a property owner. It is my own. Not rented, and not mortgaged. There's not a whole lot of grounds that anyone could possibly have to walk into my yard, armed, and refuse to disarm themselves if I instruct them to. If they refuse a pat down, I am clearly within my rights to refuse them access to the property I own, and I am clearly within my rights to have anyone who steps on my property after having been instructed not to arrested. Same thing goes for spitting skoal, smoking pot, or even playing country music on a boom box. You cannot do it on my property without my express permission or you are in violation of my rights as a property owner, and committing tresspass.

You guys all have these rights, as well, and so do businesses.

I'm not wasting time arguing little points of semantics, such as employment or concealed carry law, or even racial discrimination laws. Crossing a property line while not complying with the demands placed upon your permit to enter violates the trespass laws, unless you have specifically been protected by higher laws.
briandg is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 12:04 AM   #114
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,185
Quote:
Both of our hospitals have no tobacco policies. You cannot be using any sort of tobacco within the outer boundaries of the grounds. employees have to walk about a block or so completely off of the campus to smoke.
I know of a company in this area that has a tobacco policy that prevents employees from having tobacco products on their person or even in their private vehicles in the parking lot. In other words, they don't just make smoking or tobacco use against the policy, it's also against policy to even have it on the property--to include having it inside your vehicle.
Quote:
I see the whole issue being less about guns and more about how far a business can go to control what you have in your car...
Sure, it's all about control. They can do it because there's nothing stopping them from doing it.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 06:10 PM   #115
kgpcr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 944
I fired a guy for carrying in the store i ran. He always carried several guns as well as kinves. He was itching to get in a scrape. He was a real Rambo wanna be. I had warned him NOT to carry at work. Well a customer reported him to me and i fired him on the spot. I was more afraid of him poping a kid over a 10.00 DVD theft than any criminal. If you dont like their rules dont work there. Its just that simple. I would however NEVER seach an employees car even if it was legal. I dont care what they have in their car
__________________
Colt King Cobra .357 Colt Anaconda .44mag
Springfield Armory .45 Double stack Loaded
XD40 service XD45 Taurus 617 .357mag
Smith M&P 40
kgpcr is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 09:08 PM   #116
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
Your situation is exactly why so many companies have a blanket ban. If you allowed carry, you couldn't allow kooks to carry. If you allowed permit carry, you still run the risk of a kook, and you have problems refusing a kook with a permit. And once a company gives a blanket permit to carry, a kook goes from being a low risk nut who might anger a customer to a genuinely high risk liability that will drive away customers, and possibly destroy the business when the guy makes a bad decision with the company's blessing.
briandg is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 09:56 PM   #117
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,185
Quote:
Your situation is exactly why so many companies have a blanket ban.
...
And once a company gives a blanket permit to carry...
This is a false dichotomy. There are clearly other choices between "blanket permit to carry" and "blanket ban". However, it is certainly true that "blanket" policies are the simplest to state and easiest to enforce, which is why companies often choose that approach.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 10:24 PM   #118
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
Any attempt to regulate who carries a lethal weapon in a workplace is flawed. This is an unavoidable fact. over hundreds of years of policing, we have tried to assess the character of people we place in positions of authority in law enforcement, and whether you will admit to it or not, there are, even as we speak, totally vile people walking american soil as police officers.

Eventually a weapon will be used by a person who was cleared by a business to carry on the work site. In almost any case that happens, that shooting will be investigated thoroughly by police, and most likely by survivors, and the business is going to be raked over the coals, no matter what happens.

If it turns out that this business allowed certain employees to carry, and a permit carrying employee was involved in a questionable incident, the policy and process of giving permission to carry will be taken apart and analyzed down to individual letters of the papers, and cherry picked for any weaknesses.

If there is even the faintest whiff of opportunity, a lawyer will jump on that case on a contingency basis. He'll search out survivors, offer to foot the bill on the suit, and be given carte blanche to operate in their name.

He will rake the shooter through the mud to prove that he should never have been carrying in the first place.

he will dig through the company's history, to prove that they were irresponsible in a pattern, just like they were irresponsible giving otis a carry permit.

And then, he will tear that business apart until they either settle or lose.

The only smart thing for a business to do is to either institute a blanket ban, or hire "security guards" and have them bonded and insured, trained, and psychologically assessed.

Anything other than blanket bans and absolutely strict enforcement of them leaves a business open for crucifixion because the policy was ineffective.

There's no arguing this point. You can't. The ultimate arbiter of who is right and who is wrong is the courts, and you all know very well that the court is quite often going to decide for the plaintiff.

What business, knowing that every second that the door is open may bring about an incident that could trigger a multimillion dollar court loss, has any choice in the matter? Certainly not sears or k mart, or god forbid, dominos. A thug who is left in a coma because he brandished a plastic gun and was shot is going to be handed the keys to the treasury by a jury.
briandg is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 10:57 PM   #119
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,185
Quote:
...smart thing for a business to do is to ... hire "security guards" and have them bonded and insured, trained, and psychologically assessed.
Ok, so here's another option we both agree is smart. Let bonded, insured, trained, psychologically assessed employees carry. That would, admittedly, set the bar high, and severely limit the number of employees who could carry, but it's still not a blanket ban.

So that's a third option instead of just the two that your earlier post implied were the only choices. I imagine we could come up with more if we tried.

Second, while you are correct that a company has to be concerned about liability, and that concern is often used as an excuse to blanket ban carry, there's more to it than that.

I know this is true because the TX parking lot law gives a company civil immunity if a person who legally has a gun in their parked car in the company lot under the authority of the parking lot law causes damages. In spite of that fact, the large corporations in TX still strongly opposed the law--so strongly that they killed it the first 2 times it came up.

So liability may be a concern, but it's clearly not the only one. What's odd is that the corporations that fought and killed this law repeatedly before it was finally passed were never able to articulate why they were opposing the law past repeating the concerns about liability--even though the law came with the liability relief from the very beginning.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 31, 2011, 11:40 PM   #120
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
Quote:
So liability may be a concern, but it's clearly not the only one. What's odd is that the corporations that fought and killed this law repeatedly before it was finally passed were never able to articulate why they were opposing the law past repeating the concerns about liability--even though the law came with the liability relief from the very beginning.
Writing the blanket policy of no firearms, even in the lot, is easy. If they have to change their policy and allow exceptions in the parking lot, well, there is little hole in the dike. They like the idea of no armed personnel on property, including if the arms are in the car. it places handguns, for example, far too close to both employees and customers, and once again, we have the chance that one of our employees is just nuts.

Having an employee go to his car and arming himself is far too easy. If he has to drive home and arm himself, that's a good thing.

but it will always come back, at least the way I see it, to self protection. We want our workers and our executives safe, but not at the risk of having an incident that sparks a bad thing like a lawsuit. Again, if the company has a comprehensive policy against firearms at the workplace and zero tolerance enforcement, they are well armored for a lawsuit.

Imagine a scenario. Don Quixote brings his .380 to work every day. he works at Best buy. He leaves it in the car, and is covered by corporate toleration and state law.

Don is under a lot of stress. Sancho's burro is messing up the yard, the lady D is premenstrual, and the sea air during vacation rusted his armor. Don, being of a certain psychological mindset, gravitates towards weapons when he is feeling upset and vulnerable. It makes him feel stronger and more secure to have the steel with him. He starts carrying in the store.

It's been a rough week. people are just all over his case. and being the odd duck at work, there are people there who don't like him. Several of these people, including 3 department supervisors, are harassing him in an effort to drive him to resignation.

So, one night, a drunk is looking at televisions. Don is tired, and the drunk is aggressive. Don finally calls him an nasty name, the drunk pastes Don in the mouth, and Don, who has finally had all he can take, drills a surgically neat hole from right to left through the guys frontal lobe.

In civil court, it has just become irrelevant that the gun was in the car legally, as Don carried in the store. When the entire story is told, about the negligence of allowing a stressed employee, who was stressed because of company actions, snuck a gun into work right under the noses of all those other employees, Best Buy will be toast. Best buy will holler night and day that if the law had not allowed him to have it in the car, he would not have had it in the store, and it is the fault of the state.

opposing laws that allow in car carry is just a further extension of the blanket ban. They know that allowing guns in the cars create a one in a trillion increase in risk. They will fight it, because it is easier to defend a zero tolerance policy, and it is going to go just a little farther along the way of keeping guns out of the workplace.

Big business has no dog in the fight for personal liberties. They don't care about the freedoms of the employees. They are going to oppress personal freedoms if necessary to keep the company safe, but of course, they will only go as far as they can get away with. I'm thinking that maybe only 1 or 2% of companies with assets over 10 million dollars will be concerned enough about personnel safety that they will take the risk of institutionalizing private carry of weapons while on work time, on premises. It's not worth the risk. Given the choice, I guarantee you, a lot of businesses would actually support totally disarming the public, because if none of their employees even own guns, well, they can't bring them to work and cause trouble.


50 years ago, you'd have had a hard time convincing anyone to believe what is going on right now. Would you younger guys beleive that I was well into my teenage years and in high school before I ever learned what it meant to sue someone?
briandg is offline  
Old November 1, 2011, 08:31 PM   #121
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,242
I'm in the same predicament -- My employer has big "No weapons or firearms allowed" in the entrances of my job so I can lose my job if I decide to carry at work and someone found out.

So I just leave my cc weapon in my car parked in the garage. It really puts us employees at a huge disadvantage not having our cc weapons on us. We already had a shooting where an employee was gunned down and killed in the parking lot. If that person was able to carry at work, he would've had a chance to defend himself from the BG.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 12:25 AM   #122
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,185
Quote:
Imagine a scenario.
There's always a scenario to support or attack a particular course of action, subject only to the creativity of the person crafting the argument. One could just as easily make the case for disarming security by coming up with a reasonable sounding scenario "proving" that a security officer could shoot someone and create liability for the company and thus eliminating any armed security anywhere due to fear of corporate liability.
Quote:
Having an employee go to his car and arming himself is far too easy. If he has to drive home and arm himself, that's a good thing.
You're mixing two things (liability limitation and prevention) which really confuses the issue.

Your earlier assertion was that the policies were in place to limit liability in the event that an employee breaks the law. I pointed out that liability was prevented by the TX parking lot law and yet the corporations still strongly opposed the passage of that law. Your response begins by stating how the policy actually reduces the chance of an incident (amounts to prevention) and then in turn uses that argument to support the liability limitation argument.

The problem with the idea that the policy is equivalent to prevention or even amounts to a significant deterrent is that if Don is undeterred by the "no guns in the store" policy then it makes no sense at all to pretend that he somehow WOULD be deterred by a "no guns in the parking lot" policy.

It's like saying that a person bent on murder would somehow be pacified if he couldn't get his hands on an 11 round magazine and was forced to make do with a 10 rounder, or that the OKC bomber would have been stymied by more restrictive truck rental laws. Clearly not a logically supportable argument.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 12:39 AM   #123
TXGunNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: If you have to ask...
Posts: 2,851
That, my friend, is why I don't do scenarios, "what-ifs", and rhetorical questions.
But you're a lawyer and I'm a jaded ex-LEO. You love the arguments and I could care less, but we'll always get along.
__________________
Life Member NRA, TSRA
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call Lonesome Dove
My favorite recipes start out with a handful of used wheelweights.
TXGunNut is offline  
Old November 2, 2011, 02:18 AM   #124
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 1,701
John, you didn't get the meaning of most of what I said. I was tired, i'm tired now, and no, what I say doesn't always make sense.

When you can get even one scenario that goes completely against the conventional wisdom of an idea, that right there is a chip off of the truth of the conventional wisdom.

A corporation that bans carry on property will be at a certain amount of risk, still. Since we're not talking about reality, necessarily, but the perception of realithy by the corporation, we need to accept that the corporation may assume that banning in the lot will make it safer still, and in some cases, it will be. so, they will oppose guns within easy walking distance, based on the terribly small advantage it will give. Given the right and opportunity, companies would forbid employees to own guns at all, because that may add a little more margin of safety. Given opportunity, they would disarm the nation, to make it even safer. What in the world do they have to gain by allowing guns in the parking lot? even if they have only a miniscule increase in perceived risk, with nothing to gain, they will choose the risk averse course. The fact that they did oppose it supports what I have said.


isn't this what the brady foundation is doing? trying to make the world safer by removing all firearms from the hands of the public? Not just in the workplace, the parking lots, bars, churches, hospitals, etc, but completely taking them out of the hands of every citizen?

The bradyites (ostensibly) want to do it for public safety. A business would want to do it for several reasons; one is workplace safety, and the other is to prevent company liability if an armed employee causes trouble in any manner that implicates the business. Like dragging a gun out of the car after a particularly stressful termination.

It doesn't have to make sense, if a company perceives potential loss, they will block it, logical or not. You honestly would not believe the "safety" bulletins and other regulations that my wife winds up getting at work. Some imbecile comes up with an idea that nobody ever had, goes shouting to the paranoids in the administration, gets a pat on the back, and as of then, employees are forbidden to carry personal flash drives that could be used to steal valueless files or carry viruses.

Perceptions of risk are more important to a lot of people, especially a risk averse large capitol corporation.

Perceptions of wrongdoing are also important in court. Especially when a jury is spoon fed a story of how evil and stupid a company is, and they then have to decide whether that company was negligent and liable when something random and crazy happens.

yes, the people who come up with policy are often way out of touch with reality. Reading dilbert is not amusing to me. Dilbert is the shadowy reality of business. I worked for a place once that had a written policy that we couldn't cash our monthly pay checks until a full seven days had passed. Nobody ever explained why.
briandg is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16187 seconds with 9 queries