Will We Be a Protected Class?

[Will Beararms]

Recently, I was offered a job from an international company with an HQ for the division I would work for in CA. Very nice people. The reason i did not take the job is because they do not manufacture their products in the U.S. It had nothing to do with the made in the U.S. mantra. It had everything to do with the fact when you sell for a company that does not have plants here, you spend one quarter of your time apologizing for late deliveries and the other three quarters of your time missing orders because the customer can't wait three weeks.

The other part that bothered me is the application had a question asking if you own firearms. I respectfully declined and did not fill out the application. Is this part of a California law or specific to this company or do a lot of Cali companies do this on their own?

I am sure part of it had to do with the fact the position was for an outside sales job. That said, I would have to provide my own vehicle and shooting and hunting are an integral part of my total sales process. I deal with engineers and most like to hunt and/or shoot.

In any event it bother me that they were so intrusive on the application on an issue that is clearly none of their business.

Added by Al Norris: I have merged the two formerly closed threads about gun questions in job interviews, as it is an intriguing question on civil rights when the right questioned is not protected by anti-discrimination laws.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Leave it to California.


I would have filled out the app and then I would have added something like "Yes, I do own firearms, I also regularly exercise my right to free speech and I attend church services too. In addition, I do not allow soldiers to be quartered in my home except in time of war, as prescribed by law. Also, I do not let law enforcement search my home or papers without a warrant. Additionally, were I ever charged with a crime, I would insist on a trial by jury.


Thank you, I am no longer interested in working for your company.

[Stiofan]

I've never seen anything like that on an application in California, while I didn't work for companies directly I did contract (as an independent contractor sales agent) for a number of them over the years and not one ever brought up firearms even remotely. Sounds like an odd ball company to me.

[aarondhgraham]

Yesterday I applied for a position as a weekend tutor/substitute teacher,,,
Local public school district here in Stillwater.

The interview was going normally,,,
Then the bomb was dropped.

"Mr. Graham, do you own a handgun?"

I answered as calmly and directly as I could,,,
I'm sorry, but that is not appropriate to this interview.

I know I will not get the position,,,
My non-answer was tantamount to a yes answer.

Was that even a legal question to ask though?

It's no biggie,,,
Just curious is all.

Aarond

[Will Beararms]

The company is based in Japan. Again very nice, professional people stateside----

[JerryM]

I would not answer that question. If they care they must be somewhat anti-gun. So if you admit that you do own one it is the same result.

Best,
Jerry

[egor20]

"Mr. Graham, do you own a handgun?"

Right up there with
"Mr. Graham, when did you stop beating your wife?"

They have a big agenda.

[Will Beararms]

I would have asked the interviewer if they wanted to meet at the gun range after work. You might also have asked them if they had heard anything on the new Ruger 9mm subcompact----LC9----I think it is called or whether they preferred semi-autos or revolvers for concealed carry.

Seriously, discretion is the better part of valor unless your life of those of your family are in mortal danger. I would have handled it like you did and moved on.

[Kreyzhorse]

"Mr. Graham, do you own a handgun?"

Wow. I'd have been tempted to get up and walk out right there. Nice job on your response however.

[Aguila Blanca]

"Of course. I'm sure you do, too ... don't you?"

[Brian Pfleuger]

I may have been inclined to inquire as to the purpose of the question. I guess once the 2A is "fully incorporated", we can start going after this type of thing the same way we would if they said "Sir, are you 30 years old, because we don't hire anyone under 30".

[Al Norris]

Job Application questions/Job interviews, while sometimes exasperating do not generally fall into the category of Law or Civil Rights.

Employers have pretty much a free hand in what they want to ask of perspective employees. Owning firearms are a civil right, but gun owners are not a protected class.

So I have merged the two threads that were closed into peetzakilla's thread on protected classes.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The issue has come up just today about questions asked about gun ownership on job applications and in interviews. I've also seen a few references in past discussions that gun owners are not a "protected class".

Fortunately, we now have the RKBA defined as a fundamental civil right.


We all know that employers can not refuse to hire women, can not discriminate based on age, or religion, or lack thereof, so....

The next question becomes should "we" be, and will "we" ever be, a protected class?

If we should be, how do we best go about getting there, beyond "sue for it".

[Al Norris]

Beyond suing for it?

In case we have all forgotten, it was because of discrimination lawsuits, and their subsequent rulings, that caused the lawmakers to change/rewrite the statutes to include those "suspect" classes.

Now perhaps you can get a "gun friendly" legislature to pass such anti-discrimination laws... But I really think that it will take a (some?) carefully crafted lawsuit(s) to make this stick.

[Kreyzhorse]

The next question becomes should "we" be, and will "we" ever be, a protected class?

A successful lawsuit might stop those types of questions but otherwise, I just don't see it happening.

I don't think those types of questions are typically very common however during the job interview process. If they become so, then perhaps you might start to see the lawsuits fly.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

Beyond suing for it?

I wasn't very clear on that, eh?


I meant, please explain BEYOND "sue for it".

I know we'll have to file suit, how do we do it?

[Aguila Blanca]

Women, minorities, and other protected classes did not become protected by suing. They became protected by lobbying to be labeled as protected in state and/or Federal non-discrimination laws. When they sue, it is not based on vague references to fundamental rights; they sue based on violations of the non-discrimination laws that say their class can't be discriminated against.

So the obvious answer to how to become a protected class is to lobby to have "firearms owners" included in non-discrimination laws as a protected class.

Don't hold your breath.

[csmsss]

I think a core part of the argument is being missed. If you consider the categorization of those types of persons regarded as "protected classes", you'll notice that the term s not applied to them on the basis of their possessing a right but, instead, being born a certain way - whether that be homosexual, female, black, whatever. It's not something a class member can opt in or out of. Owning a firearm doesn't fit within that framework any more than the free exercise of any other right, such as speaking in public.

I happen to think the entire notion of "protected classes is as grotesque a notion as forced sterilizations, but that isn't the point. The point is whether there is any applicable precedent for granting such a notion statutorily, and there just isn't one.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by csmsss

I think a core part of the argument is being missed. If you consider the categorization of those types of persons regarded as "protected classes", you'll notice that the term is not applied to them on the basis of their possessing a right but, instead, being born a certain way - whether that be homosexual, female, black, whatever. It's not something a class member can opt in or out of. Owning a firearm doesn't fit within that framework any more than the free exercise of any other right, such as speaking in public.

That's not always the case.... it's illegal to discriminate based on religion also and that's entirely a choice.

We have freedom to choose any religion (within reason) or no religion, we have freedom to choose any firearm (within, er, "reason") or no firearm.

Why would being baptist, or muslim, make me a protected class but being a gun owner does not?

[Don P]

Employers have pretty much a free hand in what they want to ask of perspective employees.

I disagree with this statement. From all the management/HR seminars I attended they should not be asking questions like the OP stated. It would be like asking a potential employee if her pregnancy is going to effect her traveling and working overtime. Ask it they might but is not a legal question.
It is called discrimination.

[overkill0084]

My answer:
Not that you know of.
It's like asking what your polical leaning is, irrelevant.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by csmsss

I happen to think the entire notion of "protected classes is as grotesque a notion as forced sterilizations, but that isn't the point. The point is whether there is any applicable precedent for granting such a notion statutorily, and there just isn't one.

Of course there's a precedent for granting such status statutorily. That's exactly how it has been granted (established), for ALL the classes that are currently "protected." The government has enacted laws (statutes) that mandate, "Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone on the basis of his or her race, religion, color, creed, age, gender, etc."

You have a point that all of those factors (other than homosexuality, which I am not 100% prepared to accept is a factor of birth/genetics rather than education and environment) are factors we are born into, but that's not what makes them protected classes. What makes them protected classes is that somebody wrote a law saying they are protected. That IS "precedent for granting such a notion statutorily." I was born being blond with blue eyes, but blue-eyed blonds are not a protected class. Nor is there a general prohibition against discriminating against people based on hair color (well, maybe the general prohibition on "color" would cover this), eye color, left-handedness,knock-kneedness, pigeon-toedness, or any of a number of other factors.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Of course there's a precedent for granting such status statutorily. That's exactly how it has been granted (established), for ALL the classes that are currently "protected." The government has enacted laws (statutes) that mandate,...

That's exactly right. That's how any class becomes a protected class -- a law is passed protecting the class.

Originally Posted by Don P

...It is called discrimination...

Discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.

Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.

Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category.

It may be unlawful discrimination not to hire a pregnant woman, either because of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender or laws requiring reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. However, those laws also take into account that in some cases gender could be a bona fide occupational requirement or that gender or physical disabilities could disqualify a person for a job if they would be unable therefor to perform the duties of the job and their inability can't reasonably be accommodated.

[44 AMP]

My personal take may be splitting hairs, but I believe it is technically accurate and correct.

"MR 44AMP, do you own a handgun?"

No.

The fact is that I do not own "a handgun". I own dozens of handguns, but I am under no moral or legal responsibility to tell anyone that, if I choose not to.

I am telling the truth. The fact that someone else may inferr something in error from what I said is not my responsibility, as I see it.

Now if they asked if I owned any handguns, then I would have to give a different (and if possible sarcastic) answer.

[armsmaster270]

There is no CA law (yet) where you have to answer that question.