The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hobbes4Pres on February 17, 2009, 11:05:56 AM
-
I'd like to start a thread discussing weapon's policies at work. Before I get flamed for even the mention, let me first say I'm pro for allowing employees whatever rights their states provide. If your state allows for concealed carry or open carry, your place of business should as well. Same rule should apply to knives and other personal protection items ... so long as state and local laws are met for where business is located, company should not interfere.
However, this is not always the case. My company is considering implementing a weapons policy. For those readers who have them at their place of business, can you summarize them briefly? Who has one that should be replicated? Of concern that I've heard, is more about insurance than a political agenda. What to do if you have an employee at work who is handling a firearm erratically at their desk, displays threatening behavior, etc.? What if employee decides they don't want to store their gun collection at home and mount a gun rack and rifles over their desk? How about cleaning their gun at the lunch table?
I don't have any answers here so I'm hoping the community may have had some experiences here to present some good policy examples that protect our 2a rights while addressing workplace concerns.
-
I'm lucky not only does my employer not care about employees bringing weapons, but if you get a new pistol your encouraged to bring it in and have show and tell. But my work environment is what I would consider unconventional. Beer, bourbon, video games, a little bit of work here and there.
-
But my work environment is what I would consider unconventional. Beer, bourbon, video games, a little bit of work here and there.
Boy I'd say. ;D
-
What it all boils down to is liabilty. There is alot less of it if you have a no weapons policy, then if you don't.
The insurance angle really does not come into play very often. Don't forget that in many jobs a having a weapon on you is a danger to yourself, others and company property. Lets just say for example your a windown washer, if you fall and the gun is between you and your harness, your going to get hurt. If you drop it, you could hurt others. If you were to work in say a power plant and are close to the generators, having a big hunk of metal on you is a danger to yourself and could do hundreds of thousands in damages to company property.
Reality is, while on the clock, your employer is liable for anything and every thing you do.
-
I usually disagree vehemently with TAB on this subject, but this time I have to agree that his examples do point out that in some circumstances it would not be appropriate. Just as it would not be appropriate to bring a pin cushion into a condom factory.
Each persons work situation is different but my former employer handled it by having a "No Weapons" policy, but they did not ask questions, or subject workers to metal detectors, shake downs or other interference. If a worker was responsible and remembered the "concealed" part of the phrase no one knew anything, otherwise you could be fired on the spot.
I've worked in other places where I carried a pistol in a shoulder holster with my Supervisors knowledge.
-
By insurance, I'm referring to Liability Insurance. I get the concern. I can also appreciate there being a question of property rights of the employer. If I owned my house, and I was anti-gun, I can tell someone not to come in to my house with the gun. It's my house. The company's place of business fits the same ruleset.
In your example, if the window washer drops a tool from the 20th floor and it falls on the head of someone on the street, killing them instantly, is the company any more liable if the tool was a handgun vs. a hammer? Is the person any more dead? If wearing a firearm posses a danger due to the work involved that itself makes sense to me. If you repaired high voltage transmission lines, wearing a metal sidearm seems counterproductive.
A company does not have liability of their guest's actions. Take a restaurant. In Virginia, you may open carry to any restaurant, and conceal carry to those that do not sell alcohol. If a shooting takes place in the restaurant, the restaurant isn't liable for the action of its patrons although the individuals involved would be. Would a company enact a policy for its employees granting them more freedom than its own employees?
There is separate liability even if you do ban weapons at a workplace. Any company can be visited by those that are legally armed. Should a gun policy ban the carrying of weapons by off-duty police? What about customers coming to visit when they themselves may carry a firearm as part of their job? Does the company ask them to take out their loaded firearm and ask them to put it in a storage container or safe? We have out of town guests that fly in, use a taxi to come to the office, and a taxi to leave. In that situation they can't just keep it in their car. Seems like even if you have a ban on firearms, you still need to have a policy of what to do when one "shows up". Handling a loaded firearm outside the holster to me raises the liability factor substantially as the likelihood of an AD goes way up. In that case the company should be named party to the lawsuit as it was their policy that led to the AD.
To be clear I'm not arguing that laws are enacted to trump property rights. I'm suggesting I'd rather understand and promote work place policies that achieve what each interested party would want. I have an underlying assumption the owner or head of the company is at least neutral if not pro-gun in setting these policies up. If less than neutral I don't see there being much the individual citizen can do other than accept it or find an alternate place to work.
Of issue to me is finding a policy that makes sense. The policy should reduce or transfer liability of the company, making the actions of the individual the same as their actions as defined by state or local law. Some places cite a "safe work environment" requirement out of OSHA and that allowing weapons violates that. I don't know the history of that rule, but I'm sure it was intended to say that the floors shouldn't be caving in and the water shouldn't be poisoned. To me a safe work environment would be one where if I choose to take an active role in my personal protection that I am allowed to do so as long as I meet state and local laws.
So the question is still out there. Does anyone have any sensible work weapon's policies they would like to share that address this?
-
Something else I would like to point out.
If you are fired for having a CCW against policy, it will be extremly hard to get another job.
"terminated for violating weapons policy" is pretty much a death blow for your chances of getting a job with any larger employer.
I've never seen a liabilty policy that had a no weapons cluase in it. I have seen workmens comp policys that do.
Even if the employer is found completly free of liabilty, it still costs them time. Time is money.
Lets just say that you have a ND at work and shoot yourself in the leg. Your employer will have to fill out reports, file a claim with the comp company( which will not pay), If your at the docs for more then 24 hours, OSHA will have to do a field inspection.( does not matter that you shot yourself ) I have never heard of an osha field inspection not finding a violation.
So this is how things add up... You employer had to spend hours dealing with thier workmens comp company, talking too the police( your comp company will want a police report)... on top of that, they now have a position they need to fill. I think you get the picture.
-
Where I work, no firearms are allowed on company property, period. Not even in the locked trunk of my vehicle. I don't really have a problem with it other than the inconvenience to go home and get my guns it if I want to shoot after work.
I don't have a problem with the policy. If I believe in the rights as given me by our Constitution than I must respect the right of a private company to allow or disallow what they do with their private property.
I don't allow anyone in my home with a loaded firearm other than my immediate family either.
-
My weapons policy is, if its legal for you to CCW, the property owner gives written permision, then you can do so.
To date I have only had 1 property owner given written permission to have weapons on thier property... It was a shooting range.
-
What it all boils down to is liabilty. There is alot less of it if you have a no weapons policy, then if you don't.
The insurance angle really does not come into play very often. Don't forget that in many jobs a having a weapon on you is a danger to yourself, others and company property. Lets just say for example your a windown washer, if you fall and the gun is between you and your harness, your going to get hurt. If you drop it, you could hurt others. If you were to work in say a power plant and are close to the generators, having a big hunk of metal on you is a danger to yourself and could do hundreds of thousands in damages to company property.
Reality is, while on the clock, your employer is liable for anything and every thing you do.
Sounds like the typical blanket statement that liberals often use to argue that no one should be allowed to have CCW rights anywhere.
-
Sounds like the typical blanket statement that liberals often use to argue that no one should be allowed to have CCW rights anywhere.
Yes, shame on us employers trying to stay in biz and keep are employees employed.
There are 3 types of small biz owners.
Those that are afraid of being sued
Those currently being sued
Those who have been sued.
One bad comp claim and your done. I've seen it happen, comp rates litterly triple over night. FYI Comp rates run about 50% of your hourly wage.
-
Supposing a company has a no weapons policy with the exception of locked in personal vehicles. And suppose that a worker goes postal for whatever reason. What would be the liability of a company if someone who had a permit and weapon in their vehicle had the ability to solve the situation, but couldn't do to a no weapons policy, which is irrelevant to a BG? What if it was an absolute ban on weapons, including personal vehicles?
I realize this is one of those, don't patronize while armed problems, but we're not talking about buying some products we could go without or get elsewhere, we're talking about how we make a living and spend a considerable amount of our time in these locations.
Yes, shame on us employers trying to stay in biz and keep are employees employed.
There are 3 types of small biz owners.
Those that are afraid of being sued
Those currently being sued
Those who have been sued.
One bad comp claim and your done. I've seen it happen, comp rates litterly triple over night. FYI Comp rates run about 50% of your hourly wage.
Tort Reform.
-
Sounds like the typical blanket statement that liberals often use to argue that no one should be allowed to have CCW rights anywhere.
Granted TAB, as usual, is going off the deep end here (in the wrong pool I might add).
But, the part you quoted IS out of context. He did preface it with " in many jobs", which is true enough. However the question that Hobes4pres is asking is what would make a sensible POLICY.
Since visitors may or may not be armed (assuming a CCW state) I would make the rule read "DISPLAY of weapons is grounds for termination with or without CCW permit." That way permit holders who carry are not impeded, but those who are irresponsible or threatening can be fired on the spot .
-
Unless you screwed up very badly, your employees would have no case against you.
-
But, the part you quoted IS out of context.
Actually, I was saying that his entire comment was just left wing propaganda.... the part I emphasized was the main idea of his entire statement....
"We don't want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence."
-Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
* What would make a reasonable policy is to allow CCW as per state law..... When someone gets a permit and carries a concealed gun, they are assuming any and all legal responsibility that goes along with carrying that gun, and they are held accountable by the laws that govern concealed carry in that state. There should NOT be a third or fourth party having a say in the matter. It should not make a damn bit of difference if the CCW holder is carrying at work, or just going out around town on their time off. The CCW laws of the state should not be able to be superseded.
-
Supposing a company has a no weapons policy with the exception of locked in personal vehicles. And suppose that a worker goes postal for whatever reason. What would be the liability of a company if someone who had a permit and weapon in their vehicle had the ability to solve the situation, but couldn't do to a no weapons policy, which is irrelevant to a BG? What if it was an absolute ban on weapons, including personal vehicles?
I realize this is one of those, don't patronize while armed problems, but we're not talking about buying some products we could go without or get elsewhere, we're talking about how we make a living and spend a considerable amount of our time in these locations.
Tort Reform.
That was exactly the case in the Pearl Miss. high school shooting, The Principle had parked OFF school property because he had a pistol in his vehicle. When the incident began he ran to his vehicle, retrieved his pistol and ended the attack.
-
Actually, I was saying that his entire comment was just left wing propaganda.... the part I emphasized was the main idea of his entire statement....
"We don't want more people carrying guns either openly or concealed because the more guns you have in a situation, the more likely you are to get gun violence."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Jeez, I can't believe I'm defending this knucklehead on this. BUT, Eric, you are wrong about the first post, granted the rest is BS, but there ARE jobs where having ANY large piece of metal with you is a danger. MRI tech for example, or electrical worker as TAB cited. There was a case in SF while I was living out there, PG&E worker dropped a wrench, sounds minor right ? He blacked out all of SF for 12 hours or so. Would you want that kind of jolt going through a J frame in your pocket ?
-
Jeez, I can't believe I'm defending this knucklehead on this. BUT, Eric, you are wrong about the first post, granted the rest is BS, but there ARE jobs where having ANY large piece of metal with you is a danger. MRI tech for example, or electrical worker as TAB cited. There was a case in SF while I was living out there, PG&E worker dropped a wrench, sounds minor right ? He blacked out all of SF for 12 hours or so. Would you want that kind of jolt going through a J frame in your pocket ?
Right, and you would expect the person to use professional judgment in each of those cases and be as safe as possible.... BUT what is reasonable to expect is for the rules at the work place to read "no large pieces of metal with you in this area", NOT "No guns anywhere on the premises or you are fired".
-
Right, and you would expect the person to use professional judgment in each of those cases and be as safe as possible.... BUT what is reasonable to expect is for the rules at the work place to read "no large pieces of metal with you in this area", NOT "No guns anywhere on the premises or you are fired".
Yeah professional judgment... here is the deal, you have to write policy so that the dumbest person on staff gets it.
Not to mention the countless gun owners that beleave in "concealed, means concealed"
We all know people don't read signs. So let me ask you this, are you willing to pay, say 2 mil+ do to one of your employees carrying at work? Do you think you could stay in biz if you did that?
-
Unless you screwed up very badly, your employees would have no case against you.
That depends upon the state in which you reside, and the mood of any particular court.
-
"Its deja vu all over again."
-
Good discussion so far.
I agree with TAB with what the issues are. Regardless of personal beliefs of whether you should or should not bring your gun to work, what is a policy that works. I'll be honest, I'm part of senior management and will thus have a large influence on the policy if one is enacted, and at this point I don't see not putting one in place an option. We have had a case in the past where one employee was clearly off balance. If the policy was blanket "ok for guns" or was silent, and this individual brought one in and started playing and fidgeting with it, how would you ask them to remove it if you don't have a policy against weapons? How do you have a reasonable policy, that isn't overly complicated, and address the liability insurance? How can you have a policy that supports you when you need to address an issue, without having the policy simply ban everyone. Separate issue ... if you do have that situation ... who wants to go unarmed to tell the employee to put it away? If you are a small company as we are, you don't have a security force to call.
The debate on this thread is the same debate we are having at the company. TAB made a comment that while you are on the clock the employer is liable for your actions. To some extent I agree, but to me that only applies if the employee is acting upon the company's orders. Let's say that while at work, the employee while sitting in their cubicle starts picking up the phone and making threatening phone calls to their ex who has a restraining order. Is the company liable for not monitoring the phone conversations or for providing the phone? One would think not. However, the question of firearms seems to through out the basic common sense approach to looking at the situation.
So I'm trying to see who has a good policy. It seems to me there is either a complete ban (with possible allowance in vehicle) or there is no policy at all. Does anyone work or have heard of an alternate policy? I've spent lots of time Googling and haven't come up with much.
While it may require extra hoops, are there some type of certification approaches that could work? What about an employee liability agreement that must be filled out, along with conditions that have to be met such as agreement on conditions of carry, good performance, appropriate job function (not MRI tech), or even carrying of a personal umbrella policy?
There has to be an acceptable way that everyone's needs can be met. Again the base assumption is that the company owner(s) and executive management have to at least be neutral to the issues of guns. If they are a large donor to the Brady campaign I think it is a non-starter.
-
To get back on topic and off the bickering partisan rhetoric that we have been through so many times before...... Like I stated earlier, I think the best policy is to simply defer to your state's CCW laws.
I dont think that you should get into company certifications or conditions that need to be met (unless you are in a business that does security or armored car work or something like that). This may open you up to accepting plausible liability and make you look like you have hand selected and approved people as being capable of handling a gun in the workplace....... or it may make you look like you were providing a defacto "security team", which may become a liability one day if they are ever needed to act in such a manor.
I think that it is best to neither encourage/approve people to bring guns to work or discourage those who can legally carry a concealed firearm from doing so. Let your state CCW laws dictate who can and can not carry a gun. This may also keep you out of a civil law suit if there is a shooting at your business and a CCW permit holder died because you denied them the right to carry simply because of "company policy".
-
I carry everyday at my office, concealed, and I have 2 more firearms in my tool box, 1 pistol and 1 rifle, key employee's know where they are. Our company policy is " no unregistered firearms allowed " now that is the owners of the business that made it, and they don't know unregistered from non licensed or licensed to carry, they put this exclusion in for me, as they know my background, but I did not correct them on their policy. If I had a policy that I wrote, it would basically copy state law, about concealment, and I would add a provision about brandishing. I do gunsmith work, and have clients bring guns to my place of business, when they do, we go to a quiet room and all safety rules apply, before they bring the gun out from whatever sack they brought it in. I do not want to alarm other employees although they know what I do on the side. I do think it would be good to have an agreement of compliance that if if you are allowed to bring a firearm, you will follow company policy and it is non negotiable, if your firearm becomes public for any reason, you could lose your privilege, this would include talking to your co workers and managers, before presenting it, and in my situation, it should never be shown in the presence of clients, unless like me, my clients also like firearms, and you retreat to a non public room to play show and tell, but with all safety rules applied.
Firearm safety is paramount, and should be, rules should be written and adhered to, muzzle direction, must be safe, even with an unloaded firearm, someone has to decide, " what direction is safe " that is always rule #1, if all other rules fail, someone is embarrassed, but no one is hurt. So decide what is a safe direction, and maybe there is not one, so in that instance, the firearm stays put, no presentation unless it is life or death. I would probably allow cleaning in a workstation, my business is automotive, but with all the preceding rules applying, if during work hours and a client might walk in, no dice.
I am lucky to be in the situation that I'm in.
-
Good discussion so far.
We have had a case in the past where one employee was clearly off balance. If the policy was blanket "ok for guns" or was silent, and this individual brought one in and started playing and fidgeting with it, how would you ask them to remove it if you don't have a policy against weapons?
In Oklahoma, that would clearly be "brandishing" and he would be arrested for such...
-
I agree with M25, I would allow with the stipulation that "concealed" means "CONCEALED".
"I would make the rule read "DISPLAY of weapons is grounds for termination with or without CCW permit." That way permit holders who carry are not impeded, but those who are irresponsible or threatening can be fired on the spot ."
In my first post I mentioned that I had worked at a place where I carried with my Supervisors knowledge, I will expand on that example here.
The Company was located in 1/2 of a building that also included a ware house , my Supervisor was told to keep an eye on it as there had previously been thefts from the warehouse. I was working 2nd shift operating a machine in an area separated from the rest of the shop and walking home at 1AM, (that is why I was carrying) one night the Supervisor heard something in the warehouse and asked me to go over there with him, that was the only time he actually SAW my pistol. While we didn't find anything disturbed he later commented that he was glad I had it. A day or so later the Co. owner asked me about it, if I had a permit, did anyone else know I carried, (he was Pres. of the local Sporting Clays Club ) when I told him I did have a permit, did not think any one else was aware I carried, and explained about walking home, his only comment was "OK, lets keep it that way."
-
How bad do you want to work for someone that disagrees with your basic beliefs and Rights? I know times are tough, and sometimes it is good just to have a job. However, how much are you willing to comprimise for a paycheck?
On my list of things I believe in my Second Amendment Rights are a little way down from the top. Things I expect my employers to work with me on are my Christian beliefs, my need to support and care for my family, my needing to take care of myself, and my Constitutional Rights. If I am not allowed to take care of these basic needs I am not able to be the best I can be for my employer. If they won't let me be me for the items above, I can't be me for the job.
I am at this business rather than my previous one because I was expected to put the job as number one instead of a neck and neck race for #4. If I can't serve my God and care for my family I don't have a need for the job ... period. Don't get me wrong, I can't afford not to work for even a day, but I will worry about that bridge if I need to cross it.
-
We covered a lot of this ground last year, summer I believe. Here's my $.02 for gas to throw on the fire . . . .
The ND state constitution - paragraph 1 or Section 1 of Article 1 recognizes the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Here's the literal text:
Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain
inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring,
possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;
and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for
lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
As I read it, and with the concept of preemption, state law trumps company policy, and the state Constitution trumps state law. I have a CCW (lawful purpose) and therefore the company would be directly violating my rights as enumerated in the Constitution to fire me for having a concealed weapon at work.
Your state may vary . . . .
-
We covered a lot of this ground last year, summer I believe. Here's my $.02 for gas to throw on the fire . . . .
The ND state constitution - paragraph 1 or Section 1 of Article 1 recognizes the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Here's the literal text:
Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain
inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring,
possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;
and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for
lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.
As I read it, and with the concept of preemption, state law trumps company policy, and the state Constitution trumps state law. I have a CCW (lawful purpose) and therefore the company would be directly violating my rights as enumerated in the Constitution to fire me for having a concealed weapon at work.
Your state may vary . . . .
has anyone ever taken that to court and won? if yes strickly on the grounds of the state cons or for something else?
-
has anyone ever taken that to court and won? if yes strickly on the grounds of the state cons or for something else?
Yes Ok. and Ga.
-
Guns-in-vehicle law ruled valid
The appeals court overturns a Tulsa judge's order on firearms at a job site.
By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent
Published: 2/19/2009 2:35 AM
Last Modified: 2/19/2009 2:47 AM
DENVER — Oklahoma's law requiring employers to allow workers to have guns in their locked vehicles at work is valid, an appeals court decided Wednesday.
The decision by the Denver-based court overturns a court order by a judge in Tulsa who in 2007 barred enforcement of the law.
A panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided 3-0 that U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern erred in concluding that the law is pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.
The appellate judges said Kern's ruling "interferes with Oklahoma's police powers and essentially promulgates a court-made safety standard — a standard that OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has explicitly refrained from implementing on its own. Such action is beyond the province of federal courts."
The law sparked a national dispute over gun rights, pitting some employers and gun-control advocates against workers and the National Rifle Association.
"We're pleased with the court's decision," said Charlie Price, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. "It was our opinion that the law is constitutional, and the court agreed with us today."
The law was passed in two stages in 2004 and 2005 by legislators who were incensed that the Weyerhauser Corp. fired eight workers at a timber mill in southeastern Oklahoma because they had guns in their vehicles at the mill in violation of company policy.
Over the years, a changing lineup of employers, including the Whirlpool Corp., which later dropped out, and more recently ConocoPhillips, challenged the law, starting with a 2004 lawsuit. Kern issued his permanent injunction in response to the challenges.
Gov. Brad Henry and Edmondson, the defendants in the lawsuit, appealed Kern's ruling.
ConocoPhillips spokesman Rich Johnson said Wednesday that "the safety of our employees is a top priority of ConocoPhillips, and we are disappointed with today's decision."
He said the company has not had time to determine what its next step will be.
In an unusual step, Edmondson had an attorney for the National Rifle Association, instead of one of his own lawyers, argue the case before the appeals court in November. The court had allowed the NRA to submit arguments as a "friend of the court."
Price said the NRA "provided great help."
The court allowed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and other safety and business groups to submit arguments as friends of the court in support of Kern's ruling.
Among the employers' arguments against the law were that it violated their constitutional due-process right to exclude people from company property and that the law constituted a "taking" of their property.
The appellate judges disagreed with those arguments but concluded that Kern's basis for blocking the law — preemption by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act — was wrong.
Kern had held that gun-related workplace violence was a "recognized hazard" under the act and that the state law impermissibly interfered with employers' ability to comply with the act.
"We disagree," the appellate judges wrote in a 23-page decision. "OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard" banning firearms from the workplace.
The law does not conflict with any OSHA standard, the judges wrote.
"We understand (the) plaintiffs may disagree with the wisdom" of the law, the judges said. "Our task, however, is not to second-guess the Oklahoma legislature, but rather to interpret the Congressional intent behind the OSH Act and its general duty clause."
Edmondson's spokesman said the attorney general thinks last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a gun for private use "may have weighed in our favor in today's case."
It was the first Supreme Court decision to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent
-
YEAH!!
-
Wow what a thread!
Hobbes,
I am a member of senior management as well and do have some input with respect to policy. Our bank (one that is not in financial trouble and has taken no gov't money), has a policy of no concealed carry in the office, but no statement on having a firearm in your car in the parking lot. Texas law allows the bank restrict carrying while at work/on premises, but does not currently have a statute addressing the right to keep a firearm in ones vehicle at work, but it is likely Texas soon will. ;D
Reality is, a "sensible" policy, like it or not in today litigeous world, is the policy your best attroney feels like he can defend in court and one that does not push the limits of your insurance policy and bond. We struggled with the policy, especially since all but one member of executive management are active hunters and shooters. My biggest concern is what will happen should something awful happen at work and there was an opportunity for a CHL holder to defend himself or others.
Also, you made a comment about restricting off duty LEO's from carrying on your property. In Texas i don't think you have that option. M25 am I right? I know my son, who is a sheriff's deputy is required to carry at all times.
-
Wow what a thread!
Hobbes,
I am a member of senior management as well and do have some input with respect to policy. Our bank (one that is not in financial trouble and has taken no gov't money), has a policy of no concealed carry in the office, but no statement on having a firearm in your car in the parking lot. Texas law allows the bank restrict carrying while at work/on premises, but does not currently have a statute addressing the right to keep a firearm in ones vehicle at work, but it is likely Texas soon will. ;D
Reality is, a "sensible" policy, like it or not in today litigeous world, is the policy your best attroney feels like he can defend in court and one that does not push the limits of your insurance policy and bond. We struggled with the policy, especially since all but one member of executive management are active hunters and shooters. My biggest concern is what will happen should something awful happen at work and there was an opportunity for a CHL holder to defend himself or others.
Also, you made a comment about restricting off duty LEO's from carrying on your property. In Texas i don't think you have that option. M25 am I right? I know my son, who is a sheriff's deputy is required to carry at all times.
Tex, as a member of senior management and if you're all avid hunters, etc., perhaps you could take the lead and have the company note that since CCW holders are law-abiding state-certified good guys, CCW at work is OK so long as the holder has a valid CCW. Be discreet int he wording, if you even state it as bluntly as I did. It would be a start.
-
You're preaching to the choir Pathfinder. Some of us have not given up.