The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Old January 8, 2010, 10:04 AM   #51
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,653
I work on a "National Defense Contractor" facility. No firearms allowed on the property with the exception of the armed guards and LEOs.
Oh, and the occasional armed military vehicle dropping in.
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old January 8, 2010, 08:44 PM   #52
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: WA
Posts: 344
I do. Local ordinance doesn't allow firearms on the companies property. My situational awareness is the same. The only thing that changes are my self defense options to and from my vehicle.
isanchez2008 is offline  
Old January 8, 2010, 11:11 PM   #53
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 641
My local state (VA) delegate just introduce a parking lot bill

HB 171, Delegate Pogge (R - Yorktown), makes it so no person, property
owner, tenant, employer, or business entity can prohibit a person from
having a firearm locked in or locked to a motor vehicle in a parking
lot. It also exempts that person, property owner, tenant, employer,
or business entity from any civil action that results from any
occurrence of such lawfully stored firearm. The bill exempts schools
and company vehicles.

I do not know how much muscle she has to get it passed, but it is a good start. There is also at least one bill to remove the restaurant (alcohol serving) concealed carry ban. I certainly support both bills. It would be interesting to see if the parking bill applies to federal property.

Read the complete bill, no discussion of federal property in it.

Last edited by wally626; January 8, 2010 at 11:19 PM.
wally626 is offline  
Old January 10, 2010, 08:52 AM   #54
Land Shark
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Melbourne Florida
Posts: 34
My Company has a no weapons policy .

They have zero reguards for the safety of employee.

I must walk out of store nightly with bank deposit alone.

Last month a employee in another store was robbed and shot

Still the policy has not changed this company has always been

anti safety for employee from the jump .

I carry daily they can stick it I am going home nightly
Land Shark is offline  
Old January 10, 2010, 12:38 PM   #55
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 13,596
A moral one, but not a legal one

Does the employer have a duty to protect an employee from a 'nut job' ?

If they affirmatively strip me of my ability to protect myself, then yes they do have a responsibility to do it for me.
I have to play devils advocate here. No company has a legal responsibility to protect your person from a "nutjob". The best you will be able to do is find that under US law, they have a responsibility to provide you with a safe work environment. They are required to provide you with information, training, and protective equipment for workplace hazards.

Armed nutjobs are not a workplace hazard, as defined by law and regulations. They may be a workplace hazard in reality, but until they become one in law (and covered by OSHA), your employer is off the legal hook.

While preventing you from having a loaded gun or any gun or even any ammo in/on company property may seem to you to strip you of youir ability to protect yourself, in the eyes of the courts it does not. As long as you have any means of self protection at all (and yes, that includes fists and feet), your right has not been stripped. It has been restricted.

And, on top of that, you chose to comply. Simply by working for the company, you are giving your agreement to their policies. And that is what will kill any lawsuit for damages, if you get shot. You knowingly accepted the risks, by working there.

SO, you know the risks, you know the rules, and you choose to work there anyway. That makes it your responsibility, not the employer.

I agree, that if they prevent you from being armed, they have the moral obligation to protect you. But not a legal one. It will be a tough case to prove, and I doubt any really smart lawyer would take such a case, hoping to win. Such a case would be a bluff, hoping for an out of court settlement, if they take it at all.

And I do work in a place where no personal firearms (or ammo) are allowed. But since we are 35 miles from the nearest town, and no one without a badge is going to get within 20 miles of where I work, and we have a full time professional armed security force, I feel fairly safe, at work.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 10, 2010, 01:15 PM   #56
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 16,650
It is not a good idea to announce that one will violate a company policy on the Internet. You might be recognized and turned in.

Second - if your company has an announced policy - violating it may violate the carry laws in your state and you have announced here that you are a lawbreaker.

So let's stop doing that.

I am personally in favor of laws that prevent companies from banning carry unless there is a specific and technical risk but that is another argument that we have done many times.
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
Being an Academic Shooter
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 10, 2010, 04:08 PM   #57
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,488
I must respectfully disagree... I do believe that a business has an implied responsibility to protect it's employee's, and customers from harm. Not just from work place hazards but from common hazards also. Although a nut-job may not constitute a common hazard, a parking lot mugger may. Otherwise why limit access, lock doors, or have security personel (other than loss prevention). Business's operate everyday under various codes designed to provide protection from uncommon hazards. (fire codes, bulding codes)

anyway... just my thoughts on the matter.

Glenn Dee is offline  
Old January 10, 2010, 06:35 PM   #58
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 7,555
Originally Posted by Glenn Dee
I must respectfully disagree... I do believe that a business has an implied responsibility to protect it's employee's, and customers from harm. Not just from work place hazards but from common hazards also....
If you mean morally, that's a matter of opinion; and I'm sure there may be differing opinions on that point. If you mean legally, maybe and maybe not, and maybe under some circumstances and not others, and maybe only if some special conditions are satisfied.

It's all going to depend on where and what the law is there. But in general, I think it will be a very rare event for a court to find an employer to be responsible.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 10, 2010, 06:50 PM   #59
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2005
Location: Knee deep in Galveston Bay
Posts: 144
I think it quite interesting that the place I work part-time supposedly has a strict no weapons policy but my presence is requested by the boss or a supervisor every time there is any type of suspected problem upcoming. "Call Delz, he's a retired cop!"

I think I'm expected to carry. Nobody has ever come right out and asked if I was carrying but it is routinely hinted by coworkers that they are glad I can protect them!
delzo is offline  
Old January 10, 2010, 09:20 PM   #60
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2000
Location: Trinidad, Co. , USA
Posts: 225
I worked for Keebler Denver Bakery, We could not even TALK about guns at work. Keeber was the worst bunch os SOB's I have ever worked for. Got layed off thanked god.
My X representive Fran Coleman told me that if I don't like the laws of Denver I could move, So I Did!
rellik74 is offline  
Old January 11, 2010, 11:45 AM   #61
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 16,650
Again, folks are hinting at breaking policies at work. Since, this could come back to bite them - going to close this as per some Mods discussion.

We have discussed the issue before at length.

NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
Being an Academic Shooter
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07579 seconds with 7 queries