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

[Colt1911forever]

Aren't you doing that as well?

Not at all. I look at the issue as an employer and a CHP holder. Unlike others here I do not think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that it trumps all.

My rights run up against the rights of others all day long. Where there is conflict I attempt to look at the issue from both sides. I try to imagine what the other perspective is bringing to the table.

I am objective. Which is why I can be a CHP holder who also supports the rights of businesses to control who carries on their property. I also think that it is appropriate for a business owner to dictate the terms of employment and an employees actions while representing the company.

I have stated several times that the OP needs to address the change in policy with his company. My objection comes in when people say that the policy change is not legal. I also disagree with those who are crying harassment. No one has been harassed. The OP has been informed of a pending policy change.

People within the gun community need to get rid of the myopic view of all rights as subordinate to gun rights. I see this view on every gun board I am a member of. It is sad that too many people cannot be objective and see the big picture.

[hogdogs]

He admits to selective morality. He is entitled to it but I consider it a slippery slope.

If an entity has the legal right to lie to me, Than i see it no different for me to lie right back.
Employer claims a legal binding contract which they were aware was not true, I called their bluff and when they tried to force my hand, they lost and paid up for it. Not everyone believes everything without researching it or paying a lawyer to research.

As for the cops... they are allowed to lie for various reasons, to the citizens they are charged to "protect and serve" so I have no moral obligation to be honest to them.
Brent

[fisherman66]

Unlike others here I do not think that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that it trumps all.

Clearly the 2nd isn't absolute. Private property owners have the right to dictate policy and apply that specifically with well defined parameters or broadly to all. They have the right to terminate employees who fail to meet those standards and if they have proper warning posted file criminal trespassing charges.

My employer does not have proper warning posted, so if I chose to violate policy the worst I would most likely face is termination. I could end up with lawyer bills in the process though.

My objection comes in when people say that the policy change is not legal. I also disagree with those who are crying harassment. No one has been harassed. The OP has been informed of a pending policy change.

Just for the record, I'm not crying harassment. If the policy is selective and undefined it could be harassment. I'm not willing to take one side of the story and draw a conclusion.

[Colt1911forever]

If an entity has the legal right to lie to me, Than i see it no different for me to lie right back.
Employer claims a legal binding contract which they were aware was not true, I called their bluff and when they tried to force my hand, they lost and paid up for it. Not everyone believes everything without researching it or paying a lawyer to research.

As for the cops... they are allowed to lie for various reasons, to the citizens they are charged to "protect and serve" so I have no moral obligation to be honest to them.
Brent

You have proven my point. You are the poster child for selective morality. You choose to apply different moral standards based on who you are dealing with. Nothing you have stated refutes that. You are entitled to that view. I guess I find it odd that you feel the need to justify it to me?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

I consider it a slippery slope.

Which like the strawman argument is a logical fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

confirmed that he has not problem lying for personal or monetary gain.

But I have not. So, how will you answer my question about lying?

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

Not at all. I look at the issue as an employer and a CHP holder.

That does not seem to be true from your posts. You have not acknowledged that the employer has any duty to the employee's safety who might be in a dangerous job but have simply said that the employer may disregard such.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

I see this view on every gun board I am a member of. It is sad that too many people cannot be objective and see the big picture.

Maybe the picture is bigger than the property rights of an employer?

[skeezix]

So do you think the Pizza Hut delivery men who saved their own lives with their CCW who carried against company rules did a disservice to our community? I think the public had great sympathy and understanding for their acts.

The public isn't paying the delivery mans' paycheck. Pizza Hut is. They are not forced to work for a specific employer, and have the right to work for a safer one.

They didn't do a disservice to any community by carrying, they just made their choice to follow the rules of the employment or not. Should they be able to protect themselves? Totally! That is why they have the option of working elsewhere that is safer.

I am self employed, as well as work for others. My rights only extend so far, right up until they violate the rights of another. This is a choice of how I deal with them. If I choose to agree to a set of rules for employment, then I am just going to have to deal with the consequences of breaking those rules. If I feel that in doing so it is worth the risk of losing that job, then great! But it is still a choice, and there are still consequences. I can always work elsewhere.

[Colt1911forever]

Did you look up the definition of slippery slope on Wiki? I have not ignored the middle ground what I have stated is that when one rests their morals on subjective criteria you have laid the ground work to justify anything. This then leads to the possibility of corruption of the moral foundation.

That does not seem to be true from your posts. You have not acknowledged that the employer has any duty to the employee's safety who might be in a dangerous job but have simply said that the employer may disregard such.

The employers duty is implied. A safe environment does not = personal guns on property. Businesses have the right to choose how to create a safe environment. Again like many here you are using a myopic view that CHP and guns at work in individuals hands is the only way to achieve the goal of safety. :barf:

Really? How about undercover cops who "lie" to drug/illegal gun dealers? How about US government intelligence operations and official deceptions? How about those who hid jews from the Nazi's and broke the law? They all lied.

I disagree with these tactics which is why I would personally never have a conversation with a cop without a lawyer for anything other than a minor traffic violation.

With the US govt we would be much better off without the lying, cheating covert ops we conduct all over the world. Our need to control causes more trouble than the perceived problems. IMHO our foreign policy based on deception and lies has gotten us into the mess we are in today.

I also already stated that there are times for civil disobedience. There are times that the stripping of human diginity and human rights is cause for deception and lying. For issues of this nature I draw a clear distinction between this type of action and the actions of the CIA which I have already addressed.

Thanks for bringing Nazis into the discussion. It always helps one make their point to invoke genocide. :barf:

[Colt1911forever]

The public isn't paying the delivery mans' paycheck. Pizza Hut is. They are not forced to work for a specific employer, and have the right to work for a safer one.

They didn't do a disservice to any community by carrying, they just made their choice to follow the rules of the employment or not. Should they be able to protect themselves? Totally! That is why they have the option of working elsewhere that is safer.

I am self employed, as well as work for others. My rights only extend so far, right up until they violate the rights of another. This is a choice of how I deal with them. If I choose to agree to a set of rules for employment, then I am just going to have to deal with the consequences of breaking those rules. If I feel that in doing so it is worth the risk of losing that job, then great! But it is still a choice, and there are still consequences. I can always work elsewhere.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Nicely said

[hogdogs]

You are the poster child for selective morality

You have no idea how much I agree with that statement!
Nor do you or any member here or will you ever know the extent to which this is true!
The skeletons in my closet have skeleton dogs as pets and their skeleton children have reproduced creating skeleton grand children...
Brent

[zxcvbob]

The skeletons in my closet have skeleton dogs as pets

Can I have one of the pups?

[hogdogs]

Bob, You can't sleep a wink when these rattling buggers go to scratching the skeleton fleas!
Brent

[TenmaNeko]

I would think everyone has selective morality to some extent. Some are just more honest with themselves about it than others.

[mavracer]

Brent n Bob thanks that's funny right there
Thank god I wasn't drinking anything you guys woulda cost me a keybord.

[spacemanspiff]

An employer could decide to fire you because they decided that 'Bob' (your name) is not acceptable.

'At will' employment is just that, at will.

You can be terminated for any reason (or no reason).

In order for 'At Will' to work in the employers favor then, every time they fire someone, they should not give any reason, nor any hint that there is cause. Because if there is cause and the now-fired employee learns of it, then the terminated employee can sue them for wrongful termination.

What the employer should do, is simply inform the employee "Your services are no longer necessary here".

This method can work for employers that don't do adequate documentation of employee personnel files.

[44 AMP]

We percieve people with CCW/CHL licenses as the good guys, and generally more competent and stable than the general public.

The business owners do not.

Policies to prevent the carry of weapons are blanket prohibitions, who's main flaw is that they cover permit holders as well as those who do not. How many of us would have a problem with a company policy that prohibits concealed weapons on company property only for unlicensed people?

Why not take that tack with your boss? The state has investigated you, and (by virtue of issuance of the permit) determined you are fit and safe to carry a firearm. Why not try to get the policy modified to exempt permit holders?

[skeezix]

Selective morality works great in government, or in anarchy :-)

[fisherman66]

In order for 'At Will' to work in the employers favor then, every time they fire someone, they should not give any reason, nor any hint that there is cause. Because if there is cause and the now-fired employee learns of it, then the terminated employee can sue them for wrongful termination.

What the employer should do, is simply inform the employee "Your services are no longer necessary here".

This method can work for employers that don't do adequate documentation of employee personnel files.

I have no responsibility in preparing to defend an unemployment claim. Would this "your services are no longer necessary" likely affect the outcome in favor of the claimant?

[fisherman66]

We percieve people with CCW/CHL licenses as the good guys, and generally more competent and stable than the general public.

The business owners do not.

In our (collective for my employer) case it's the insurance company that does not view CHL holders as white hats.

[Colt1911forever]

We percieve people with CCW/CHL licenses as the good guys, and generally more competent and stable than the general public.

The business owners do not.

Policies to prevent the carry of weapons are blanket prohibitions, who's main flaw is that they cover permit holders as well as those who do not. How many of us would have a problem with a company policy that prohibits concealed weapons on company property only for unlicensed people?

Why not take that tack with your boss? The state has investigated you, and (by virtue of issuance of the permit) determined you are fit and safe to caourrry a firearm. Why not try to get the policy modified to exempt permit holders?

This is not the case in shall issue states like VA. All you have to do is take a basic firearms course, NO LIVE FIRING REQUIRED, and submit your application. The state then has to prove why they should not issue you a permit.

This process does not make any assessment or judgment on your ability to actually use a firearm properly.

IMHO you are making huge assumptions about how states issue permits which in turn leads you to make assumptions about people with permits. I could never have fired a gun ever and still get a permit in VA. I do not have a problem with it. I think shall issue lics are the correct way to approach CHP/CCW but we as community have to properly represent the reality or else we look bad.

[Colt1911forever]

I have no responsibility in preparing to defend an unemployment claim. Would this "your services are no longer necessary" likely affect the outcome in favor of the claimant?

In VA yes. They would be able to claim that they were fired at no fault of their own which qualifies them for unemployement insurance. You could show up at their hearing and make a case otherwise but you have opened the door to their claim.

[brickeyee]

In order for 'At Will' to work in the employers favor then, every time they fire someone, they should not give any reason, nor any hint that there is cause. Because if there is cause and the now-fired employee learns of it, then the terminated employee can sue them for wrongful termination.

This is as circular as it gets.

You can always be fired 'for cause.'
Larger employers have all sorts of paper trail defining what you can be terminated for.
Many smaller places do not have 'employee handbooks' and clearly defined rules.

You can try and go after an employer fir violating his own rules, but good luck. The rules are NOT a contract that they MUST abide by on their side.
Most contain more than enough 'or similar' phrases to make it nearly impossible to win a suit. They made the rules, they can break the rules.

Firing for cause can affect unemployment benefit eligibility, so employers need a well documented case. They will not be the final judge.

It is often far easier to take a hit on your unemployment insurance rates than bother making a 'for cause' termination and defending it.

I have even paid severance pay to move folks out the door.

"Sorry, your services are no longer required. We are giving you 2 weeks of severance pay to help you out."

And thinking the whole time, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Bashers]

Is it really that dangerous in the states that you have to carry a firearm to work? We're obviously living a more sheltered life here the UK. having said that though, where I work theres 24hr armed police presence (they carry G36 assault rifles I think)

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

I have not ignored the middle ground

Then what middle ground are you proposing to the battered woman being stalked by her ex?

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

what I have stated is that when one rests their morals on subjective criteria you have laid the ground work to justify anything

That is the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. The real question is; Is it ever morally permissable to lie? The answer most all creeds and ethical frameworks go by is yes. The problem is what criteria you use. If you read a guy named Dieter Bonhoeffer (died in a Nazi Concentration Camp)he will tell you that not only should you lie to prevent evil but that YOU are morally defiecient if you don't.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

Businesses have the right to choose how to create a safe environment.

Or do nothing based on their bottom line? Maybe legal but hardly moral.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

Again like many here you are using a myopic view that CHP and guns at work in individuals hands is the only way to achieve the goal of safety.

Not at all. There are many things businesses can do to protect employees against crime. The problem is many don't because of the cost. So back to my original position; if the business does nothing reasonable to protect the employee and then prohibits the employee from protecting themselves by banning CCW. That is an immoral rule and could be ignored morally.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

I disagree with these tactics

OK, so you would have turned the Jews over to the Nazis, wouldn't use covert operations to interdict terrorism and would do away with undercover law enforcement? Well, that is your opinion, but I think your code is problematic as you have stated it.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

There are times that the stripping of human diginity and human rights is cause for deception and lying.

I think not allowing for instance, a battered women who is being stalked to protect herself by a crazy ex is stripping away the most fundamental human right and that is the right to life.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

Thanks for bringing Nazis into the discussion.

Ok, we can substitute the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Mao or whoever you wish but the principal is the same. This is why I submit you are only looking at the employer's side of the issue.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by skeezix

The public isn't paying the delivery mans' paycheck. Pizza Hut is.

Doesn't mean you forfeit your safety for the paycheck. Anyway, the question Colt posed was that those who carried against company rules made the gun community look bad. I think in the Pizza Hut case, PIzza Hut looked bad.

Originally Posted by skeezix

They are not forced to work for a specific employer, and have the right to work for a safer one.

Maybe but often there is no economic alternative and even if there was most companies will prohibit carry not because they think it is "safer for the employees" but because they don't want the liability and wish to be "safe" from lawsuit. They don't care what happens to the employee because unless they foresee the event (crime in this case) they will not suffer from liability. In other words there may be no where else to go and not everybody can work for themselves.

Originally Posted by skeezix

If I feel that in doing so it is worth the risk of losing that job, then great! But it is still a choice, and there are still consequences.

Here we agree. If you violate the rules you can expect to be fired. My beef is those who judgementally condemn others who would rather live than die by immoral work rules.

Originally Posted by skeezix

Selective morality works great in government, or in anarchy

There is no morality in an anarchy only might.

[fisherman66]

Is it really that dangerous in the states that you have to carry a firearm to work? We're obviously living a more sheltered life here the UK. having said that though, where I work theres 24hr armed police presence (they carry G36 assault rifles I think)

I think you'll find we are a passionate bunch on 2a (being a gun board and all). Perceived danger and actual danger need not be present in order to desire a proactive response to a threat. I'd imagine I'm 10 times more likely to be in a vehicle accident than a situation where I'd feel the need to have a handgun. I keep motor insurance and where possible "life" insurance.