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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

...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.:D

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.

[cerberus65]

I think is how it would have gone down with me:

Interviewer: "Mr. K, do you own a handgun?
Me: Laughing, "what does that have to do with anything?"

[BGutzman]

I would (If I had enough coffee) gone with "Why yes, do you have a problem with the constitution and Supreme Court Rulings?"

[jgcoastie]

Thankfully, my chosen career tends to encourage gun ownership... But, if the question were asked of me...

- Mr. JG, do you own any firearms?
Mr./Mrs./Ms. Interviewer, do you read newspapers, magazines, or books?

- I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question I just asked you.
And I'm not sure that you asking me about if or how I exercise my Constitutionaly-guarenteed Rights is relevant to this interview.

- Please just answer the question Mr. JG.
Would you like to know what (if any) religious organizations I am affiliated with as well? Because if you want to know if or how I exercise one right, you'll probably want to know about the rest of them, correct?

- I think we're done here.
You bet your ass we are.

EDIT: The only job interview I can think of where that would be an appropriate question is if you're applying for a job at a gun shop, shooting range, etc... And that would be to gauge your experiences and knowledge of particular types of firearms. But the odds of a non-gun owner applying at one of those places is slim to none, so it would likely just be a point of conversation and not officially part of the interview...

[TXAZ]

"Well Mr. Dingleberry, if that were a requirement for the job and you could recommend a gun shop and a range I could learn on, I guess I could save up and go buy one."
(with appropriate respect to Bill Murray in "Stripes)

[jaysonr]

"Why, are the schools in the district dangerous enough that you recommend I get one?"

[aarondhgraham]

But I really could have used that job,,,
So I went with a polite refusal,,,
I knew it wouldn't work.

The reason I posted the event was just to vent,,,
I have a Master's Degree in Education,,,
I have 8 years experience tutoring,,,
In short I am very well qualified.

But because the superintendent of the board is a rabid anti-gunner,,,
I won't even be considered for the position,,,
I might contaminate a young mind.

There's nothing actionable in the event,,,
It just bums me out is all.

That part-time paycheck would have bought a lot of ammunition. ;)

Aarond

[Aguila Blanca]

And the sad thing is that, due to an administrator's prejudice over something totally unrelated to the position, the kids will be deprived of exposure to someone who would probably be a good teacher.

I'm old enough to have attended a day camp, run by two prep school teachers, that included riflery and archery in the daily activities -- for girls as well as for boys. Learning to use firearms was NORMAL in the 1950s. There was a small shooting range in a corner of a town-owned field that also housed softball fields. The softball fields are still there, but the town now has an ordinance that prohibits even carrying a loaded firearm on ANY town-owned property (even if you have a state permit).

It doesn't help solve anything, but I have to wonder how we have fallen so low within my lifetime?

[natman]

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

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

My God, are the kids there that tough? :)

Seriously, this is not a business enforcing a "policy". If it's a public school, it's a government entity.

[tmlynch]

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".

Actually, skipping over everyone under 30 would be perfectly legal. The protected class for age discrimination is folks 40 and over.

Regards,
Tom

[blume357]

a lot of questions on job applications are violations of federal law and if someone wanted to could probably sue...

just like the big sign at Home Depot that says they test all applicants for illegal drug use... can't do it. If you are hired you can be tested but not when you apply.

the gun question is the same... if you can prove you were not hired because of how you answered the question... a good lawyer could get him or herself a nice sum and let you have a small part of it.

[Frank Ettin]

...the gun question is the same... if you can prove you were not hired because of how you answered the question... a good lawyer could get him or herself a nice sum and let you have a small part of it.... Care to cite some legal authority for that assertion?

[ROGER4314]

Since the electronic application age is upon us, companies are getting away with law violations and improper questions routinely. In fact, some applications ask for your birth date. That is clearly illegal but if you 1) Falsify the birth date, you get fired. or 2) Try to leave it blank, the application is not complete and will not submit.

Age discrimination is rampant in hiring now and they get by with it. I got to the point where I wasn't even nice about it when I saw it. I'd tell them to stuff their job!

Flash

[44 AMP]

The legally protected classes are age, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, race,etc. and are legally defined with various restrictions and applications. Political opinion, is not a protected class like religion. And in our society, currently, gunownership, (for any and every reason) is a political statement, not a religious one.

And we worked a long time just to get that. Gun ownership as a political statement gives us an avenue (albeit a very narrow one) outside of the 2nd Amendment argument.

A private firm or individual is free to hire or not, anyone the care to, so long as they do not violate those limits specified in law. Individuals acting as agents of the government have much more defined rules, one of which is that nothing that is not prohibited by law should have any bearing on the selection of one qualified individual over an other. Equal treatment under the law is supposed to be the guiding concept.

I once had a govt paid for Health and Risk Analysis survey, all the usual questions, and NONE about firearms at all. When the results came back, one of the suggested behaviors to reduce my risk in life was to "avoid handguns".

I complained. For once, it did some good. A general letter of apology got issued, and the company contracted for the survey did not get the next year's contract, and I never saw anything from them at work again.

If you get turned down for a school position, only because you "admitted" to owning a gun, AND you have a reasonable chance of proving it, you ought to seek legal council. If it is a private business that does business with the govt, same thing. Otherwise, write it off and move on.

But short of having video or a signed statement saying that you were not considered because you own a gun, its real tough to prove to a court, unless they admit it. And that isn't really likely, is it?

[Frank Ettin]

...In fact, some applications ask for your birth date. That is clearly illegal...Agreed, because persons age 40 and older are a class specifically protected by statute.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I don't own a gun, I don't attend church, I don't follow our constitution, I believe everyone should get citizenship if they come over the border.

I think that makes you a Liberal on the application. If I missed anything, you guys can fill in the blanks!

Maybe a US Citizen Carry Card with DNA! Just so they know it is us and not some bad guy like Bin Larder.....
:D

I actually don't worry much. I am sure people are fed up with Liberals and the liberals that mean well are seeing how they are being used and responding intelligently.

[Will Beararms]

Schools and Churches in America both fall in the same category. They want people who tow the line and fly under the radar. They do not want any unpleasantness. They are long on talk and policy and short on action. Anything that might tarnish a reputation or bring on potential embarrassment is swept under the rug if not held at bay at the door. The question posed to the prospective teacher falls right in line with the mindset in America.

Without going into details, I am a person of Faith and I attend Church regularly. I just call it as I see it when the 2 ton pink elephant is in the corner of the room. Via first hand experience with a rebellious son I know first hand how modern schools and churches operate. Still you can't let humans cause you to lose sight of what is really important in life.

In the case of my potential job, I am sure this is something that either came from the ownership in Japan or someone in a high leadership position stateside who was unfriendly to firearms. I am actually glad I learned up front but just the same it was cause for concern.

[DG45]

Just noticed this thread which is a little old now, but thought I might add something.

Everybody here jumped to the conclusion that the company doing the hiring didn't want you to own a gun, and were offended because they owned one but didn't want to have to answer "yes"to that question, but hey! There are a few 2A supporters who own companies too, and answering that question "no" might for them might have as easily been interpreted to mean the applicant was a nutso left wing union activist limp-wrist or something.

If I'd been asked in a job interview if I owned a gun, I'd have acted surprised and said something like "Your job advertisement didn't mention that I'd be required to own a gun. Is this a dangerous job?" and then I'd try to mindread from their reply which way the wind blew in thaqt company on that question. Then I'd give them the answer I thought they wanted to hear. I'd certainly never let the truth or my personal political sentiments stand in the way of feeding my family.

I carried a concealed weapon against the policy of my employer for 20 years under the same "street" logic that's inheirent in the old saying that "it's better to be to be tried for a crime by a 12 man jury than to be carried to your grave by 6 pall bearers.

The whole purpose of carrying a concealed weapon is so that nobody will know you're carrying it, isn't it?

[Silver Bullet]

"Do you own a handgun?"

"Why, how soon do I need to get one to qualify for reparations?"

[Gary L. Griffiths]

"Why, are the schools in the district dangerous enough that you recommend I get one?"

That's priceless! :D:D:D:cool: