Employer Policies the new gun control.

[Brian Pfleuger]

So you do still work for Safeway?

Their handling of the gun situation will feel like an awards ceremony compared to what you'll get if they find out an employee is actively trying to organize a boycott.

[Sefner]

So you open carried to a company event on company property and you're surprised that you got some kind of repercussion?

If you want to change this kind of policy this is the incorrect way to go about it. Maybe take your boss and coworkers shooting.

The private property end employers' rights arguments have already been hashed out in this thread.

[Washington Doc]

I'll claim the responsibility of muddling up my own words here, so I am going to start over, without the background story or anything because that seems to sidetrack people. Remove me from the equation people. Sorry for any "snarky" remarks, but I did receive plenty of them from the audience too. I was planning on deleting the entire thread, but don't seem to be able to. If the admins/moderators want to do it for me, then be my guest.
To start over again;

Does anybody else think company policies are the new gun-control? That's the question, if you've heard it already then please don't bother telling me you've heard it before. Just send a link to whatever old thread it's in because it's new to me.

Gun groups do plenty well to protect 2nd amendment rights from the government. Yet, most of us live in a world where we work for somebody else (from individual business to giant corporation) and those employers have "no gun" polices. We all understand why these policies are in place too(every postal worker knows why). They have every right to have that policy in place because it's their company and their private property.

Now, yes, we may chose to seek/relocate/find/work for other entities that do not have those policies if we don't like them, but those entities are few and far between. But, a gun does you no good if it's not with you.

There is obviously no way to force a company to change it's policies unless you are very rich (can purchase 51% of the stocks) or very insane (using violence (which only hurts gun owners as a whole)).

I have tried to think of peaceful ways for the people to influence such employers. There's;
1) Voting for a new president and hoping for the best.
2) Contacting your local govenors/senators and the legislature approach.
3) Attrition/boycotting the business.
4) Petitioning the local community for change.
5) Asking nicely.
6) Anything you suggest. Lets hear it!
Now, I think;
Number five and four would only really work for small, local independent businesses. Number one is a gamble. Number two has been the most suggested answer thus far and probably the most effective. In my energetic arrogance I thought number three was viable. As for number six, I'd love to hear it.

If a new business popped up in a town and it had a racist banner and sloagan (assuming there's no law against it), it would probably not last very long because people would not shop there. The business has the right to keep their sign just as we have the right to not shop there. It's a double edged sword. Same goes for "no-gun" policies and people not having to work/shop there. Both have their own rights.
As a hypothetical, I thought boycotting would be viable because, in the end the company needs the money and you can buy your goods elsewhere (unless it's the only store in town). The idea is that they would give in first and voluntarily change their policies. Is attrition forcing them, I don't know, I think that's the catch-22.

Again, remove me from the equation. I'm restarting this whole thing so I don't have to listen to "snarky" remarks. Or people telling me I screwed up instead of answering the original topic question. Or reading "policies are policies." I know policies are policies, I'm not asking IF they exist, or WHY they exist, or even if they SHOULD exist, we all know they exist and they're there as a part of modern society. I personally don't think they should exist and employers should be freed from the liabilty of gun owning employees too. The two questions that I asked (more or definately less) in the original post and this one is;
1) Does anybody else think company policies are the new gun-control?
and
2) Do you have any suggestions as how to peacefully influence/change a company's policies?

[KenL]

2) Do you have any suggestions as how to peacefully influence/change a company's policies?

Talk to your store manager and ask who you would talk to at Corporate about the situation. They may surprise you by being open to talk about it.

I didn't go back and re-read everything, sorry if this suggestion was posted before.

[Sefner]

Private entities banning guns on their private property is not the new gun control. I am not aware of any organized effort in getting private entities to disallow guns on their property other than the typical liability-lawyers and those private entities with an agenda.

As I said in an earlier post, take your boss and coworkers shooting. Show them how fun it is. There are multiple posts on this website on how to do it (a few tips, don't talk politics or self-defense at all and make a show of safety) effectively.

Boycotting and open carrying probably are not the best ways to go about it.

[Uncle Buck]

Doc, I understand your question and comments.

I still have to reply that private property is private property. I do not think it is a form of gun control. I think it is a decision of the company (Property Owner) and is probably based on what they feel is best for the company.

"I have tried to think of peaceful ways for the people to influence such employers. There's;"
1) Voting for a new president and hoping for the best.

So if the anti-gun folks get their say via a new executive officer, are you OK with this? Why should it be OK for you, but not for them? Would a new president order Safeway to allow concealed carry by all employees?

2) Contacting your local govenors/senators and the legislature approach.

Would it be OK for these people to push through legislation/ordinances that mandates all houses be painted purple? What if they wanted to push through a law that allowed the police to do random checks of your house with-out a warrant or probable cause? Who needs private property rights.

3) Attrition/boycotting the business.

That might work. But if it does not, I bet Safeway's would just close the store, putting you and a lot of others out of a job. Again, if you worked for me and I found out you were recommending a boycott of my business, you would be gone.

4) Petitioning the local community for change.

While you are asking the local community for a change, why not ask them also to pass a law that says anyone who carries must carry ONLY an Colt 1851 Navy revolver? (No reproductions!)

5) Asking nicely.

BINGO! Explain in clear, precise terms why you want them to allow you (and others) to carry a concealed weapon at work. Maybe you can get a dozen others to sign the letter.

I have heard people talk about their Constitutional Rights before and they do not fully understand what those rights are. Your First and Second Amendment Rights stop on my front lawn. As a private property owner, with a few exceptions, I have the right to stop your First and Second Amendment Rights
at my property line.

Write a letter to the company. Get like minded co-workers to sign the letter. But be prepared for it to be denied.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Washington Doc

1) Does anybody else think company policies are the new gun-control?
and
2) Do you have any suggestions as how to peacefully influence/change a company's policies?

1) No. Small businesses employee over half of the labor force. Concern about impersonal national corporations instituting gun control through their corporate policies is overblown.

2) While employees may have little influence over mega-corporations, most workers can talk directly to decision makers in the small businesses they work for.

[MLeake]

Uncle Buck, in general I agree with you.

However, there is some disagreement about whether a public entity, such as a store, really counts as somebody's "front lawn."

IE, if you are open to the public, you already give up a lot of the rights that would attach to your home.

I don't have to allow Basques, algebra teachers, country singers, Lutherans or mimes into my home if I don't want to. (My father-in-law is Lutheran, guys, I'm just using random groups, and have nothing against the ones I've listed... except maybe the mimes.) But if I open a cafe, and decide I don't want to allow people in because they belong to those groups, it's a two-sided coin. On the one side, I can refuse to serve anybody in my establishment; on the other, as a public entity, I am liable for lawsuits and loss of license if it can be proven that I have discriminated against those groups (again, with the possible exception of mimes).

So there is a potentially valid argument that a business that is open to the public does not have all the rights that an individual would have. IE, my second amendment rights may carry, or perhaps should carry, more weight at a public market than they would at the business owner's home.

The problem with that whole approach, though, is that (at least in at-will states), employers could come up with a host of other reasons to get rid of an employee who was trying to force such an issue.

Therefore, I still think the only real fix to the problem is tort reform. Take away the sword of liability hanging over the business owner's head, and much of the motivation for firearms bans will go out the window.

[Uncle Buck]

You are right (of course, dang-it!) that there are differences between private property being used for a business and private property that I own for my personal use and enjoyment.

Either Florida or Texas, I can not remember which one, passed a law recently that said employees can leave a handgun in their cars while working. (Very rough interpretation of the law.)

The point I am trying to make is: What if the government made every company hire a mime? What if every company had to allow a mime to do what they do on your business property? What if every company had to give mime breaks?

(Thanks, now I can not get Marcel Marceau out of my head.)

Therefore, I still think the only real fix to the problem is tort reform. Take away the sword of liability hanging over the business owner's head, and much of the motivation for firearms bans will go out the window.

I agree 100%, but until that happens, I think the best response is still the letter writing.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I believe that private property rights are the second most important rights we have, second only to life.

All other rights hinge on private property rights. Without being able to own and CONTROL private property, all other rights can be eliminated by manipulating private property.

Freedom of speech? What's it mean without a place to practice it?

Religion? No good if I can't practice it.

If I can control property, I can build a church. If I can control property, I can stand there and speak and no one can tell me I can't.

Without private property, I am under someone else's control.

I expect to be able to control my property and I expect other people to do the same.

Government buildings restricting my rights are one thing.... that's MY property (and yours). It doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to US. The government, which also belongs to us, should not be able to tell us that we can't do peaceful things on property that belongs to us. Silliness.

Business is different. It's private property. Aside from a few restrictions regarding race and creed... they have the right to control who accesses their property, under what conditions and why.

I don't buy the "there are no viable options" argument. What if that place goes out of business? Are they going to be forced to stay open because there "are no viable options"? Horse hockey. Patronizing a business is voluntary.

Freedom of speech... I can put up signs that say "No shirts with profanity in this establishment." and I can kick people out who ignore the rule and I can have them arrested for trespassing if they do not comply.

Freedom of religion... not on MY property. You can't come in hear and just start worshipping satan and the "monks" from the airport aren't allowed either, if they're proselytizing. Believe what you want but what you DO or BRING to MY property is MY choice, not yours.

Freedom of the press... Not on my property. You can stand OFF my property and take pictures, yell questions, write articles about what a jerk I am... but not ON my property.

The right to "bear arms".... it's MY option on MY property. Just like speech and the press and all the other rights (except life). My property, my rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Now, on the flip-side, I do support boycotts of businesses that restrict concealed carry. Why? I think it's unreasonable and it's my right to boycott them if I think they're being stupid. Just like the guy who wants to wear the t-shirt with profanity can boycott me if he thinks my restriction is unreasonable. It's called freedom. If there were some rationale explanation for banning concealed carry in businesses, I might support doing it. There's not, least none I've ever heard or seen, so I don't.

However, not supporting it and even actively trying to convince people not to do it isn't the same as believing that it should be illegal or it violates my rights. It doesn't.

[MLeake]

Uncle Buck, some companies might be better off with mimes working their CS lines...

But I digress.

In answer to your question, I am pretty sure both TX and FL passed laws denying employers the right to ban guns in parking lots. Florida provided some exemptions for security-sensitive businesses (munitions storage facilities are a specific example that spring to mind, as Disney was trying to use the fact that they have fireworks as a way to work the loophole); I think Texas has similar language about businesses with security perimeters, but I'm not sure.

And I think you're right about letter writing being more readily available than tort reform. Based on my experience (and the experiences of others) with IKEA, though, I don't have much faith in their effectiveness, unless a MAJOR grassroots campaign takes place.

[Double Naught Spy]

Therefore, I still think the only real fix to the problem is tort reform. Take away the sword of liability hanging over the business owner's head, and much of the motivation for firearms bans will go out the window.

Right. If business owners were not held responsible for weapons carried by employees for personal protection or their use (versus employees who carry weapons as per their job descriptions), a huge amount of the problem would go away. The main issues would likely then become the regulation of the visibility of weapons carried for personal protection while one the job, how the weapons are secured or retained in the workplace, and whether or not the weapon would interfere in the performance of a job.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I posted this in the Jared's thread - so I will redo it here - it refers to property bans but employer bans go by the same rules. I will add some leading comments culled from the discussion.

It was said that property bans were not systematic used to control gun rights. That is incorrect, the antigun folks specifically have written about using store, property, employer, parking lot bans, religious bans as ways to make carry so inconvenient that it won't happen.

Using this mantra they suckered the property rights folks into buying into it.

Why is property more fundamental than life? That is not the tenure of modern self-defense law. The rationale for using lethal force is the following:

1. All life is sacred (not in the holy sense).
2. When you offer grievous bodily harm to someone, your right to life becomes less valuable than the person protecting his or her own life or that of another.
3. But if grievous bodily harm is not immediately threatened, lethal force is usually disallowed in most circumstances (with a few property exceptions that related to threat to life or livelihood). Shooting for simple property is not legit or is it legit to shoot a fleeing suspect, surrending suspect - without a real and immediate threat.

Thus, property is secondary to life.

What I said in the Jared post

We have done this before - many times.

Let me summarize:

1. We have the battle of two rights.

2. The right to protect yourself

3. The rights of a property owner.

4. The latter are not inviolate. Health rules and civil rights protection show that in our society, what is seen as the great good overtakes the property owner of a business open to the public to be king or queen of the castle.

5. You may disagree with that.

6. Some folks argue that civil rights protection is based on a protected class. Some argue that carrying a gun for self-protection should have the same status for class protection as race, religion, gender, etc. You may disagree.

7. The argument that you can go elsewhere is not always practical, depending on locale.

8. The use of store bans is promoted by the Brady folks as a method to make carry impractical and discourage it.

That's it folks. I'm on the side of gun rights trumping property rights if you open for business to the general public. My call on the battle of rights. Life trumps your property. You don't have to have a business open to the public, just as folks say you don't have to go there.

As far as still complaining about being snarky - or deleting your own OP - that is poor style. A strong hint.

GEM

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Closed as the OP didn't like the heat in kitchen, so to speak.

GEM