The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 2, 2013, 02:38 PM   #126
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
If one of you wants to carry at work, and you get the owner to agree to allow carry at work, are the employees going to pay for any lawsuit settlement should something bad happen because of your concealed weapon?


With all the morality talk on this thread, no one has really said anything about why an employer should hang their butt out for the mental comfort of the employees.

Concealed carry accidents can and do happen. There's a thread about one right now on the semi board. Normally, if I screw up with my firearm, I am the one responsible. But when I do something stupid that I was essentially allowed to do at work, the responsibility falls into the lap of the person with the most money to lose - the business owner where the ND happened.

All it takes is one foolish person with questionable carry habits or a bad pistol or holster to financially ruin a business. Should it really be a surprise to anyone that most business owners don't want to embrace that additional risk???

What is the morality of subjecting your employer to all that unshared risk?


This just doesn't seem any different than an employer who doesn't enforce OSHA regulations just because his employees don't want to wear filter masks or hardhats. The employees' feelings don't translate into any sort of protection of the business.

I'm not saying that you should be helpless at work, but no one is talking about a business's right to mitigate their own risk.

I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.
RX-79G is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 02:47 PM   #127
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Well, this is why the great majority of businesses won't allow CCW at work. I understand that but the fact remains that unless the employer insures (to a reasonable degree) that disarmament is enforced OR takes other measures to protect the employees from harm in the way of the OP then the rule is immoral.

What the companies are saying is; You can't carry and we only have to protect you against stuff the law (not reality) requires. Since we can't predict crime you can't sue us if you are the victim of it while at work but we won't allow you to carry either. Immoral

Now as to lawsuits. I am sure that had a lawsuit been filed by the crook he would have included Mr. Cothran and all CCW holders are financially responsible for every bullet they fire. So, that is already the case.

Insurance companies already cover businesses for negligent acts committed by employees so that could extend to CCW too. But since the law doesn't require it the companies avoid the extra cost and leave us hanging.

Kind of like when Tucker made his care and had seat belts. The Big 4 said "well, it isn't required so we won't do it".
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 02:49 PM   #128
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX-79G
I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.
Not to get off topic but that reasoning is the same one used by antis to ban guns. We're too stupid to be allowed to have them.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 02:56 PM   #129
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Not to get off topic but that reasoning is the same one used by antis to ban guns. We're too stupid to be allowed to have them.
We all know people we wouldn't trust with a water pistol. I know people at work I wouldn't like near me with a firearm. What about employees that don't want other work colleagues armed.
manta49 is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 02:57 PM   #130
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
...So, I conclude that maybe you guys like how this turned out but don't want to be seen as endorsing wholesale lying to an employer?...
What basically troubles me is the sweeping characterizations of an employer's "no guns for employees" policy as immoral, and an employee's choice to ignore it as moral. Those characterizations in this case are really just based on the fortuitous outcome in this case.

What if the outcome had been different. What if the employee who armed himself in violation of his employer's policy had been wildly mistaken about the need to resort to lethal force and shot someone who everyone agreed did not present a lethal threat? Would the employer's policy still be immoral? Would the employee's choice to violate that policy still be moral?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
...Now as to lawsuits. I am sure that had a lawsuit been filed by the crook he would have included Mr. Cothran and all CCW holders are financially responsible for every bullet they fire. So, that is already the case....
Except Mr. Corthan is no doubt judgment proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
...Insurance companies already cover businesses for negligent acts committed by employees so that could extend to CCW too...
And businesses pay some pretty fancy premiums for that insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX-79G
I doubt most gas station owners view their $9 an hour employees as the type of people that are likely to always make great life decisions.
Not to get off topic but that reasoning is the same one used by antis to ban guns. We're too stupid to be allowed to have them.
That might be one thing when discussing the scope of government's power to regulated a constitutionally protected right and another when discussing a private entity assuming financial responsibility for the conduct of an employee.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 03:10 PM   #131
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
What basically troubles me is the sweeping characterizations of an employer's "no guns for employees" policy as immoral, and an employee's choice to ignore it as moral.
Well that is not my position but I was negligent in not articulating it better. As I replied earlier to AMP 44 I worked a job where we were guarded and I would not have thought of carrying there. Sorry I did not lay that out. The instances I am speaking of involve low income folk in jobs with no real choice of changing out and are working in a dangerous area where the company does little or nothing to mitigate the risk. The OP is the example I meant not in every case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
And businesses pay some pretty fancy premiums for that insurance.
Not really fancy. Normal. I used to sell the stuff and it is a cost of doing business. Actually, one is rather foolish to operate a business without it.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 03:24 PM   #132
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
TG,
Your post is an example of the sort of gun culture PC that clouds people's thinking.

Just because a gun grabber observes that some people shouldn't be trusted with firearms doesn't make the observation false. It is true. It just doesn't matter if it is true because a right supersedes even a practical truth.

Just reading this board for a few weeks would convince me that the average gun enthusiast is fairly unlikely to be a practical minded, well trained and smart weapon user. Since an employer isn't providing gun training, how does he satisfy his moral obligation to provide a safe environment when many CCW people are so obviously idiots???

Owners have a larger moral responsibility to everyone that comes onto their property. It is PC nonsense that they should just trust that any boob they hire can be expected to handle a weapon responsibly and competently. And I'm just talking about NDs, not shoot outs.

It's no different than having untrained people running the forklift. What sort of idiot owner is going to allow that?
RX-79G is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 03:25 PM   #133
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
And businesses pay some pretty fancy premiums for that insurance.
Not really fancy. Normal. I used to sell the stuff and it is a cost of doing business. Actually, one is rather foolish to operate a business without it.
It depends on the business and risk exposure (like the possibility of employees having guns).

I've had clients who buy the insurance. In some industries, the premiums are substantial. And sometimes to even get manageable premiums a business would need to accept a very high self-insured retention or very large deductible.

So even with insurance, a business can have a substantial financial liability exposure.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 03:27 PM   #134
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,388
Quote:
Now Brian seems a bit more rigid than you both, but I think we (Frank, Tom and I) may have a serious case of agreement going on here?
This is the internet. Perish the very thought.

Quote:
It also seems that both of you seem to not think Mr. Cothran was dishonest in ignoring a company policy and are happy with the outcome (not sure about his being fired).
Actually, my feelings on his situation are ambivalent. He did what he felt he had to.

While I won't condone dishonesty, I'd be a hypocrite if I condemned it. I've been in Mr. Cothran's position, and I've made a similar decision. There was no moral aspect to it, merely a pragmatic one.

Had I been caught and fired, so be it. I made my choice. However, that did involve subtle dishonesty, and I'd certainly have had no right to ride the drama llama around proclaiming my integrity.

Likewise, I don't like bans on employee carry, but I can certainly understand the unfortunate circumstances that lead to such bans.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 03:40 PM   #135
born2climb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
So if a man pulls a knife on you in a dark alley and demands ALL your money...is it lying if you only give him what's in your wallet...and don't bother to tell him about the $500 in your left boot? Or, does honesty and integrity compel you to mention to him that if he follows you home, there's another grand in the nightstand drawer?

I don't allow employees to carry cell phones around all day, as it hinders their performance. I have no issue with a pistol tucked in a pocket, however, as it is not a hindrance and is not a danger either.
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!!
born2climb is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 03:50 PM   #136
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
I don't allow employees to carry cell phones around all day, as it hinders their performance. I have no issue with a pistol tucked in a pocket, however, as it is not a hindrance and is not a danger either.
You are not going to accidentally shoot someone with a cell phone. Carrying a firearm in your pocket is a good way to have a negligent discharge. Other employees won't have a problem with colleagues having a cell phone they might with them having a firearm.

Last edited by manta49; November 2, 2013 at 03:57 PM.
manta49 is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 03:52 PM   #137
born2climb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
Being the employer gives ME the authority to make that call. I don't see anyone snatching their pistol out every few minutes to fool with it. A cell phone, on the other hand...is a work killer.
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!!
born2climb is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 04:06 PM   #138
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
I do disagree with you that "we always have choices" because a "choice" like not carry and be robbed or quit and starve" is not a real choice.
Of course it's a choice. It is a choice between two possible actions. The fact that you find both options unattractive does not mean there is no "real" choice.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 04:19 PM   #139
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX-79G
Just reading this board for a few weeks would convince me that the average gun enthusiast is fairly unlikely to be a practical minded, well trained and smart weapon user.
Well, this is off topic so I will not debate the point with you. I will just say that the right to self defense and RTKBA is not contingent on "being able to make good life choices". I can see you haven't been on here long so that may explain a lot.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 04:20 PM   #140
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Of course it's a choice. It is a choice between two possible actions. The fact that you find both options unattractive does not mean there is no "real" choice.
Yeah but like the choice of eat or starve it's not a real one. At least as far as the issue I am addressing.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 04:24 PM   #141
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
and I'd certainly have had no right to ride the drama llama around proclaiming my integrity.
I like the "drama llama" term a lot. Much better than "high horse".

Yes I empathize with your ambivalence too. Of course you know Mr. Cothran isn't really carping much about this. He accepted his firing but had no remorse for his actions.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 04:25 PM   #142
born2climb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
For what it's worth, I want to be on Tennessee Gentleman's side when the going gets rough. At least he'll likely be armed with more than an "I Obey All The Rules" pin to stick the perp with.
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!!
born2climb is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 04:29 PM   #143
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Well I'll just pull out my "Gun Free Zone" sign and they will have to leave without shooting anyone!
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 04:58 PM   #144
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
TG,
It is entirely on topic to compare the moral responsibility a property owner has to a single employee's safety vs. the safety of everyone. You want the untrained employee's desire for his personal safety to override the owner's moral responsibility to protect everyone from negligent death.

If an employer had the ability to control the training and equipment of armed employees it would be different, but his only choice is to endorse any fool endangering the workplace with their incompetence, or allow no one.

Given only those two choices, the only moral choice for an employer is to protect the greater group of people.

One person who wants to carry is a special interest. That special interest should not trump group safety on private property unless the owner wants it to.

If this was about soldiers, cops or any other category of person who's competence was certified, it would be different. Foolish people with guns ARE dangerous.
RX-79G is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 05:44 PM   #145
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Carry at Work

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman View Post
Yeah but like the choice of eat or starve it's not a real one. At least as far as the issue I am addressing.
That's a false dichotomy too. Those aren't the only two choices.
No one in 21st Century America ever starved to death unless by choice. Frankly, no one goes hungry or homeless, except by choice.
I have, in fact, quit a good paying job, while my wife was on fertility treatments even, because the owner of the business was a lying, cheating thief.
We had to sell our house and we lost an investment property through short sale.
It was the right thing to do.

We don't have to be perfect to encourage right choices. Any of you guys ever make an unsafe mistake with a gun? I'll bet every one of you has. Do you still encourage and insist on safe gun handling by yourself and others or do you not bother, since you'd be a hypocrite?

Moving doesn't have to be expensive either. I helped my sister move across several states, twice, and she was stone broke both times. She managed.

There are a lot of choices.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 05:45 PM   #146
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
RX,

Really you are off topic but I would refer you to this site: http://www.gunfacts.info/

and you can learn more about CCW holders and their accidents rates compared to police. Start on page 17 and move thru it.

Untrained people defend themselves successfully by the millions each year. After this post I will not debate you about training. But I think you need to know more facts. Hope you enjoy the read.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 05:53 PM   #147
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
There are a lot of choices.
There is a lot wrong factually with your post, particularly concerning homeless folk who I have worked with a bit. Many of them do not "choose" to be homeless.

A "choice" of feeding your family or getting murdered by a criminal is no choice. It is just immoral.

You are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion your "let 'em eat cake" choices are neither real nor particularly moral.

Rather than trade anecdotes all day about choices I will say we agree to disagree.

Also, I don't get your analogy about safe gun handling. Since all of us have been unsafe at some point with a gun that would in my view make insisting on good gun handling even more important.

I don't think Mr. Cothran had a real choice and I am glad he was able to defend himself. I'd rather he break some stupid immoral work rule than follow your guidance and be dead. But that's me.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 06:06 PM   #148
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Untrained people defend themselves successfully by the millions each year. After this post I will not debate you about training. But I think you need to know more facts. Hope you enjoy the read.
Millions of Americans defend themselves every year with firearms. I find that hard to believe or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.
manta49 is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 06:15 PM   #149
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Nope it's no misunderstanding. Gary Kleck, FSU professor has done the studies. Check that link I gave above.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 06:25 PM   #150
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Nope it's no misunderstanding. Gary Kleck, FSU professor has done the studies. Check that link I gave above.
If that's the case carrying a firearm in work might be a good idea. Then it depends where you get your statistics from and which ones you believe.

Quote:
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to (162,000) such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
manta49 is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
carry at work cothran

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 10:31 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 0.15398 seconds with 7 queries