Ha! My employer just modified company policy to disallow firearms on the premises...

[YodaMage]

A basic moral principle should be that an employer has no right to set policies and behaviors for employees that are not directly and technically job related.

Glad we can get back to the good old days of sexual harassment.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by YodaMage

Boy does that open a slippery slope that I'm afraid no one would be pleased about.

Yoda, you sure do like that "slippery slope" fallacy. Let me post for you again from wiki the reason that idea doesn't work.

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done — an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

Here is the link for more study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

OR

If you don't like wiki try this one: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm

[divemedic]

I think I'll go to the movie theater later and be loud and annoying then head over to the public library and break out in song. When I'm done, I'll head over for some fine dining where I'll eat face down like a piggy. I believe I can finish up with a Trip to Chucky Cheese for some generally unacceptable behavior for the kids then I'll be exhausted.

Explain to me how this is comparable. Each of the above behaviors directly impacts the business by annoying the customers. How can you compare that to me carrying a concealed weapon, which not one person will know I have?

Comparing breaking out in song to the First Amendment is like comparing me holding a bowling pin match in the library to the Second Amendment. I am not saying I have the right to USE a gun (except self defense) anymore than I am saying you can't have a Bible in your pocket.

[YodaMage]

Annoying customers...scaring customers...customers uncomfortable with firearms in the building....all kind of the same thing to me.

Do I have an issue, no. But will I respect the opinions, feelings and such of others? Yes. Do I care if the guy next to me at the mall bends over and flashes a 9 at me? Nope...I could care less. On the same note do I respect the right of a place of business to set standards based on the feeling of their other patrons, employees, etc and enforce them? Yes.

Left out of this entire discussion, which has been 'boss man' vs employee is the rest of the people involved. Other employees. If I carried at work and a co-worker or two were uncomfortable and I knew it I'd stop regardless of work rules and the boss. Why? Because I respect others and their rights and feelings. Just me I guess...

[jamullinstx]

divemedic,

Every example of your policy-based discrimination is forbidden by government statute. Banning employee firearms possession is NOT. Firearms owners/carriers are not members of a protected class. Accepting many of these statutorial prohibitions is the price paid for liability limitations for LLCs, Inc's, etc.

As to those that say banning employee firearms possession is not job related, you're right. But it is business related. 99.9% of these policies are simply because of litigation avoidance. I think it is completely bogus because I've yet to see any valid actuarial studies that compare the likelihood of adverse financial consequences to businesses that do not prohibit firearms to those that do prohibit them. I've been looking for many years, haven't seen them, thus have concluded that they do not exist. However, insurance companies and corporate attorneys have convinced themselves to be on one side of the argument (with help from lobbyists like the Brady Campaign). Nonetheless, the issue affects a business' ability to carry liability insurance.

I think the stronger argument against firearms possession prohibitions is that it is simply too important a right to allow a private entity to limit. Framing it as a property rights issue only invites debate whenever some other right arises and property owners wish to limit its exercise on their property.

[Doc Intrepid]

Originally Posted by jamullinstx

"I think the stronger argument against firearms possession prohibitions is that it is simply too important a right to allow a private entity to limit. Framing it as a property rights issue only invites debate whenever some other right arises and property owners wish to limit its exercise on their property."

It is not being framed as a property rights issue, per se. It is being framed as a requirement that companies provide a safe workplace for their employees - a requirement that is being driven by litigation and judicial awards resulting from lawsuits, as well as by the insurance industry which must ultimately pay out those rewards.

The insurance industry seeks to avoid paying out large awards, and companies seek to lower their insurance premiums and overall risk by eliminating foreseeable and previously identified risk factors from their premises.

From an earlier post in a related thread:
Here is some scary stuff for background reading --

http://workplaceviolencenews.com/200...the-workplace/
[scroll down to the bottom of this link, and click on this link: ]
http://www.asisonline.org/foundation/guns.pdf

Note - the author, Dana Loomis, is a Brady co-conspirator.

Everyone interested in this issue should take the time to read what Loomis wrote, whether you disagree with it or not. It is enlightening regarding the strategic direction being taken by the anti's.

Also here:
http://www.asisonline.org/

Go down to "Hot Topics" then "Information on School Safety", click on "Workplace Violence Guideline"

Both are Adobe9 .pdf files.

See pages 20, 25, and 28/29 --

Issues are numerous, but among them are these:
1. Mentioning firearms gets you identified as a potentially violent employee. Not a good career choice.
2. "Pre-employment Screening" - if the potential employee reveals that s/he is a sport shooter, participates in competitive shooting, is a hunter, etc. potentially "pre-employment screening" could suggest that another potential employee be selected instead - under the concept that people who own/handle firearms are potentially of greater liability concern to corporations than people who do not own/handle firearms.

Similar to issues involving people with pre-existing health conditions (or genetic predispositioning towards certain undesirable health conditions) being screened out of "employability" by health insurance employability pre-screening (by Human Resources), the pseudo-science of violence prevention is slowly adopting an attitude that persons who are involved (to any stated degree) with firearms offer a higher degree of "dangerousness" in terms of insurance underwriting and mortality tables, etc. Ergo, companies who hire such persons may find their liability insurance policies more expensive.

At its simplest, the objective is to define, by using various behavioral sciences and insurance industry coercion, "firearms ownership" as a deviant characteristic - a characteristic that employers would be wise to be aware of and avoid at all costs. Simultaneously, of course, being labeled a 'deviant' behavior by some pseudo-science would, over time, tend to cast all gun-owners in an 'anti-social' light - which, over time, could be quite effective in altering people's behaviors, social standards, and perceptions or norms.

A company's right to limit both who works for it, and their behavior, has a chilling effect on those who would protest their intrusions. They are free to protest, but they may find themselves unemployed as a result. Take the matter far enough...and they will become known, and hence unemployable.

How many are going to be willing to risk losing their livelihoods over this?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by YodaMage

Annoying customers...scaring customers...customers uncomfortable with firearms in the building....all kind of the same thing to me.

Just like customers who are afraid of African Americans, Arabs, Latinos etc and don't want to be around them. See, you need to distinguish between the right and convenience and prejudice.

Originally Posted by YodaMage

If I carried at work and a co-worker or two were uncomfortable and I knew it I'd stop regardless of work rules and the boss.

That's your choice but that can't be forced on me. I have a right to protect myself but you have no right to "feel comfortable". If you are uncomfortable about the right that another excercises; too bad. He/She still has the right.

Using the slippery slope argument you are so fond of imagine if we start regulating rights based on how others "feel" about the right. Where would that take us?

Originally Posted by YodaMage

On the same note do I respect the right of a place of business to set standards based on the feeling of their other patrons, employees, etc and enforce them? Yes.

So do we if the rule is moral. As Glenn put it so well

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Those who postulate that the employer is divine monarch over his or employees don't get it.

Originally Posted by jamullinstx

Nonetheless, the issue affects a business' ability to carry liability insurance.

I used to sell the stuff and I never saw a commercial policy that excluded coverage for employees who CCW. The reason compnaies ban CCW is the same logic used for most Gun Control regulation. If we ban guns then there won't be injury from guns in our workplace. Of course that argument relies on faulty premises but the employer, who in many cases only cares about profit/loss and not the personal safety of the employee beyond something like OSHA feels that if he bans guns he is less likely to suffer a lawsuit. You are right that there is probably no basis to this fear but as Eugene Volokh says; the argument is intuitive.

[YodaMage]

I have a right to protect myself but you have no right to "feel comfortable".

2A trumps the pursuit of happiness. Good to know.

So do we if the rule is moral.

And you of course get to make the determination of what is moral. I submit that if your 'rights' trump the feeling of everyone else you do not know the meaning of the word.

See, you need to distinguish between the right and convenience and prejudice.

As a gun owner I've never made the leap to playing the race card. BTW...race is not a choice, you are aware of that right?

[wmeSha]

@YodaMage:

2A does trump the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is a notion of the Declaration of Independence. The Second Ammendment is coded in the Constitution, the law of the land. The Constitution safeguards life, liberty, and property. You're on your own for happiness.

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Yoda Mage

2A trumps the pursuit of happiness. Good to know.

You apparantly fail to understand the pursuit of happiness isn't the same as the right to have happiness.

Originally Posted by Yoda Mage

And you of course get to make the determination of what is moral. I submit that if your 'rights' trump the feeling of everyone else you do not know the meaning of the word.

Him and 299,999,990 other Americans make the determination of what is moral. So, yes, he does. For you to think TG doesn't know the meaning of the word I'm debating whether I should warn you about that banana peel directly in your path...

[divemedic]

Every example of your policy-based discrimination is forbidden by government statute. Banning employee firearms possession is NOT.

So if it becomes codified in the law, it changes the morality? So the 'rights' of the gun owner and the property owner depend on the whims of the state?

BTW: In more and more states, this is becoming law.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What rounds for red herrings?

Sexual harassment is a direct attack on a fellow employee. It directly impacts their employment.

Making your fellow employees uncomfortable by a behavior they won't even know about if you carry concealed makes no sense. Do you intend to trumpet your gun status. I'm uncomfortable by people who mention they are Christians or a woman in Islamic garb - should they change their religions because I'm uncomfortable. Thus, you make a specious argument.

Race is a not choice but religion is. It used to be the case that employers would discriminate on the basis of religion. So did colleges and universities.

Saying we play the race card is a cheap rhetorical trick. The issue is comparable as it seems 'property rights' folks want to discriminate against a basic characteristic. In fact, I am old enough to remember the anti-integration folks making the exact same arguments. My property, my rules, scared of blacks, etc. It springs from the same mind set.

Yoda, the force is not with you. No argument you made trumps the basic right of self-defense for the venial interests of the employer.

The fear argument is just the mantra of the antigunner. That's just you.

[YodaMage]

Him and 299,999,990 other Americans make the determination of what is moral.

This I 100% agree with, though there seems to be a general opinion that 299,999,990 American's agree and agree with a very few common shared opinions.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by YodaMage

2A trumps the pursuit of happiness.

As stated by others, most definitely!

Originally Posted by YodaMage

And you of course get to make the determination of what is moral.

Based on objective criteria I have laid out in previous posts.

Originally Posted by YodaMage

I've never made the leap to playing the race card. BTW...race is not a choice, you are aware of that right?

You miss my point completely. You assert the right to feel comfortable and I assert that prejudice and convenience (eg I don't like and want to be around THOSE people) are not rights that you can assert against. Prejudice and convenience (and antigun IMHO) are examples of the non-right to feel comfortable.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Yoda the force is not with you. No argument you made trumps the basic right of self-defense for the venial interests of the employer.

Give THAT man a seegar!

[jamullinstx]

divemedic,

I usually enjoy reading your reasoned posts. However, I have a book to recommend to you, Don Quijote. Your battling windmills, man. The law and morality have almost no relation. Generally, the law has come down on the side of prohibiting policies that discriminate on the basis of things the targets cannot change, like race, etc. They include religion for historical reasons, but there is no Constitutional barrier for private businesses to bar individuals of certain religions from being on their premises. It is only by statute that this behavior is prohibited.

No, just because something becomes codified in law doesn't make it moral. However, Congress critters have proven time and again that they don't care about morality. The BofR originally applied only to the federal government until passage of the 14th amendment. The authors of that amendment clearly intended to have it apply all of the BofR to the states. However, due to rampant racism of the time, post Civil War, the courts, including SCOTUS, went down the path of "selective incorporation" in order to keep blacks and other minorities unarmed. You must deal with reality. 2nd Amendment hasn't even been incorporated against the states, yet, much less apply to private businesses.

[divemedic]

Here is the law:

There is nothing in the COTUS that prevents a law from being passed that restricts a property owner from prohibiting invitees from having weapons. Hence, such a law is constitutional. (See 4th amendment, "takings" clause)

Morally:

1 A property owner has the right to exclude others from his property.

2 Once a property owner decides to open a business on that property, he waives that right, and agrees that he has a duty to the public that now enters that property. Moral basis for fire codes, handicapped access, etc

3 My right to self defense is a preexisting right. Just like a minority does not choose to be of a certain race, I do not choose to have a right to exist. Merely by existing, I have the right to defend my existence. To deny me the ability to effectively do so is to deny me the right to defend my existence. Hence, you are saying that your right to operate a business is more important and should supercede my right to exist. To read this any other way is to deny the very "natural rights" theory that this country was founded upon.

I know what you are going to say, "But no one is forcing you to enter my business, you can always work/shop somewhere else." The problem with that is that the same logic would then apply to that minority we just talked about, for example, "No one is making you eat at the coloreds only counter, you are free to eat somewhere else." or, "No one is making you stand at the back of the bus, you are free to walk."

Of course, no one is making you open a business, either. Since you seem to think that the property rights of an owner are supreme, tell me how fire codes, handicapped access, and requirements for emergency exits are all lawful and moral. Or do you chain your fire doors shut, since you get to decide?

This is something I will not cave on. Your right to make a few extra bucks because you save on insurance by having an anti-human rights policy that requires me to be unarmed in the face of an attacker means nothing to me. I will continue to carry, and I don't care what any business owner thinks.

[Doc Intrepid]

Good luck with that, especially if you have a Q clearance and want to work for the government or a government contractor.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

Good luck with that, especially if you have a Q clearance and want to work for the government

Many of the places where they work are guarded. The last place I worked in the military was guarded by Marines so I had no need to carry

[armoredman]

And in the midst of this acrimonious debate, it was mentioned breifly in passing only once, that the original posters argument has been answered, that Governor Brewer of Arizona signed the parking lot bill into law? Your employer in AZ, with some minor excpetions, (prison employees, etc), may store lawfully owned firearms in thier locked vehicles, or the company must provide both a safe parking lot and safe and accessable storage for thier firearms.
Gov actually signed about 4 pro rights bills, but that doesn't play in this argument. I return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

[NJgunowner]

I'm starting to agree with the pro cc in the work place group.. Not out of "moral" reasons, just for the fact that you can have all the rules in the world... but you'll never get 100% compliance. (there's always someone who breaks the rules.)

After thinking about it, you'll never be able to control/stop delivery people, guests, or customers from bring in a concealed weapon. Very few places of business have the ability to stop an armed individual from violence, how many businesses have armed security guards? I work at a place that employs security guards. None are armed, yet being a hospital we have a huge amount of non employees present. We don't have metal detectors or any type of screening to prevent someone from sneaking in a weapon. The same goes for your typical Mall or department store.

Maybe companies should just adopt a don't ask don't tell policy

[Tophe]

I wish Michigan would pass a "parking lot " law like that...( unless they have and I dont know)

I work for a huge corporation whose company policy doesn't allow firearms on company property.....which includes parking lots. I would have no problem leaving them in the car because we have turnstiles and have to be badged to get into work. Plus Im a mechanic so I wouldnt want to have to carry more than I already do at work.

I hate the fact that whatever I want to do after work....I cannot carry unless I go home and then get my weapon....

This may have already been covered in this post somewhere, but I felt like ranting a bit, and didnt feel like starting a new post about it!

[21CFA]

If it's safely locked in your car, aren't you still violating, because you're parking on co. property?? There was a case in 1975, involving the Belt Rail-road in Chicago, of hooligans riding pick-ups alongside refrigerated trailers mounted on rail-cars, ripping the sides open, and stealing the ribs and chops for neighborhood parties. On some occasion some ruffians actually boarded the ladders on our engines, brandished weapons and demanding a stop. Our locomotive cabs have bullet-resistant windows. We were forbidden by RR Rule-book from carrying side-arms. But we "lost" those pages, and all head-end and all caboose employees packed. We were all in jeopardy of losing our jobs, but we were all a bit safer. Finally the company hired private "Blackwater" types to ride shotgun (literally) along both sides of our trains. Armored vans with bullet-resistant windshields would high-sign us when we entered "the gulch." No problems after that. 00-buck against a Buck worked well.

[CSHammond]

My place of employment has also handed out some new guidelines for us to look over and one that really struck me was the one they titled, 'Weapons free workplace'. They go on to say that everyone where I work has the right to not be scared that anyone will have a gun in their car or be frightened that someone might shoot them if they disagree on something. Not word for word, but basically that is what they are saying. They go on to say that we can't even have anything that looks like a weapon, knife, gun, paintball gun, airsoft gun, BB gun. You get the picture.

Can they do this?

I occasionally go shooting after work since the range is between where I work and home, but now I have to leave them at home and drive the extra miles back and forth. They also say that even if you have a legal carry permit, I can't do that either at work. Then if someone does go "postal" so to speak, I guess we better hope they read the new guidelines so they don't bring a gun to work.

Chuck

[NJgunowner]

The have the same rules where I work, but NO ONE has ever asked to search my car and nor would they be allowed to.