Guns in the Workplace
What does yesterday’s argument before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether a District of Columbia ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment have to do with the workplace and employment law? Nothing directly, but perhaps a lot indirectly.
According to news sources following this case (click here, here, and here), the majority of the Court seemed to indicate from their questions and comments during yesterday’s argument that the Second Amendment applies to an individual’s right to carry a weapon as well as a militia’s right to bear arms. If this turns out to be the Court’s ruling, then it’s almost a certainty that state legislatures will begin enacting a wave of gun legislation, some of which will have an impact on the workplace. In fact, some states have already started their attempts to do that.
In most states right now, even when citizens have the right to carry a concealed weapon if they have a permit, employers are able to ban weapons from the workplace, which includes company parking lots. Challenges are being made to the right of employers to do that. This legislation started with attempts to allow employees to keep a gun in cars in company parking lots. If the Court rules as predicted, there will be legislation that attempts to allow employees to carry weapons into the workplace, as long as the employees have permits for the weapons.
Workplace violence, already a problem, will become a bigger one. I don’t want to get too far ahead of what’s happening, however. More permissive individual rights gun legislation will be strongly opposed, but the Court’s ruling in this case can provide more legitimacy to proposals already being advanced by the National Rifle Association and other gun advocacy groups to expand citizens’ rights to carry weapons and the places those weapons can be carried. Employers should pay close attention to how the Supreme Court rules in this case (District of Columbia v. Heller) and exactly what it says, since even if the Court rules as observers are now predicting, the Court will presumably opine about the kinds of restrictions that the government (and maybe employers) can still impose on owners of weapons.
Leave a Reply
About Chris Parker
Chris Parker's practice focuses on the representation and counseling of companies in matters pertaining to the workplace and the protection of their intellectual property and trade secrets. In addition to serving as an advocate for clients, Mr. Parker is also trained as a mediator and frequently serves as a third-party neutral.
Read more about Chris Parker
About Jimmy Daniel
Jimmy Daniel provides counseling to businesses of all sizes related to the employment relationship. He assists in the drafting of employment agreements, policies, and handbooks, as well as provides guidance related to compliance with federal, state, and local legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Read more about Jimmy Daniel
About Larry Bridgesmith
While serving in an Of Counsel relationship with the firm, Mr. Bridgesmith also serves as the Executive Director at the Institute for Conflict Resolution at Lipscomb University and as an officer and principal in Strategic Resolutions Group, LLC. In these roles, Mr. Bridgesmith brings over 30 years of legal experience in dispute resolution and innovative workplace strategies to clients, students and business entities alike.
Read more about Larry Bridgesmith
“Workplace violence, already a problem, will become a bigger one. ”
Does any research support this assertion?
I don’t know of research on whether workplace violence will beocme a bigger problem. It would seem reasonable to believe that if laws are passed that allow people to bring guns into the workplace, there will be more violence, but until there are such laws and there has been enough time to see what happens, it would be hard to say for sure.
With respect to current workplace violence, I suggest you look at reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) or from OSHA (www.osha.gov). As I recall, homicides amount to at least 10% of fatalities in the workplace each year.
Research on guns and crime may show that more guns in the hands of law-abiding people yields less crime.
From economist John R. Lott: [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp]
“The experiences in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.”
More:
“During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals’ abilities to carry firearms. Thirty seven of the fifty states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns after passing a criminal background check and paying a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murders and other violent crimes.”
I suspect that there is plenty of research to support all sides of the debate on gun laws. To be honest, I have never been too interested in any side of the debate. I do believe, however, that it makes sense for employers to be able to ban weapons from the workplace, just as I believe that employers should have the right to ban a lot of stuff from the workplace.
Thanks for weighing in. I’m sure the Second Amendment debate will continue long after the Supreme Court issues its opinion in the District of Columbia case.
Mr. Phillips,
I have read numerous articles by you over the past few months, and normally I appreciate your articles because they are written with common sense. However, this article, as pointed out by Mr. Simpson, stereotypes gun owners. I am neither a member of the NRA or a hand gun owner myself, but I have quite a few friends that do own hand guns and are members of the NRA. Let me say that, to a person, they are all law-abiding, honest, decent citizens that anyone would glad to have as a neighbor.
The issue, in my opinion, comes down to people having the right to defend themselves against someone who intends harm with a gun. The criminals and crazies (Columbine, VT, etc.) have no compunction about bringing in guns and doing harm to anyone and everyone they come into contact with. The victims in these senseless crimes had no way to defend themselves because they were not allowed by the authorities to carry a hand gun. If someone is truly disgruntled, do anyone seriously think that a gun ban at work will deter them? If anything, the gun ban will encourage them because there would be a belief that they could easily execute their insidious plan.
I can imagine a time in my office (white collar) that a disgruntled employee (laid off or otherwise) could bring in a gun and kill a number of people. Currently, employees have no way to defend themselves and many would be harmed or killed. If even one were allowed to carry a weapon, our safety would be immensely improved. Some pundits believe that we would be less safe or that the western gunslinger mentality would return, but statistics show otherwise. If you look at the situation in D.C., violent crimes have significantly increased since the gun ban. Bottom line is that criminals do not fear gun laws; they welcome them because their victims have no way to defend themselves. Hence, the brilliance of the Second Amendment…
I am a hunter, shoot skeet, and have a license to carry in the gun-restrictive Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However, I do not want guns inside our workplace, any more than I would want machetes, brass knuckles, etc. On the other hand, if I want to shoot at my club after work, I would want to be able to keep my firearm, in my personal vehicle, secured as state statutes mandate. Licensed gun owners are on the whole, law abiding citizens. Conversely, by definition, criminals have no regard for any statutes and could care less about any gun related restrictions.
Mr. Franck, thanks so much for weighing in with your thoughtful comments. If I stereotyped gun owners, I apologize. That was not my intent. As I said in my response to one of Mr. Simpson’s comments, I have never gotten involved on any side of the Second Amendment debate, so I don’t have strong feelings. I also have not done research on this topic, but as I also stated in one of my previous responses, I would be surprised if there isn’t a lot of research to support various arguments on this subject. Although it makes sense to me that allowing employees to bring guns to work would likely increase the chances of workplace violence, I’m familiar with the argument you’re making. And maybe you’re right. The more basic proposition from my standpoint is that, for the most part, employers should have the right to determine what personal items an employee brings to work.
If the Supreme Court rules as it’s predicted to rule, I think we’ll have a lot more discussion on this subject, because state legislatures will crank out a bunch of new gun legislation, in my opinion, some of which will impact the workplace. The Court’s decision, if it occurs before the November election (which it should), will also become an issue in the presidential campaign.
Thanks again for your thoughts. Keep them coming.
Mr. Heward, thanks also for your commnets. I have no doubt that I’d rather run into you while you’re armed than a criminal who’s armed. Your points are well made.
I guess the place where you and I would differ has to do with whether an employee can keep a duly licensed gun in his car on his employer’s parking lot. Again, my point of view is that the employer should be able to control what an employee brings on any part of the employer’s property. My guess is that if the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment applies to an individual’s right to carry a gun, you’ll see a bunch of state legislation that will make it clear that an individual who has a permit can keep his gun locked in his car on company premises, while restricting an individual’s right to actually bring the gun into the office or plant. It wouldn’t be surprising, however, if some legislation permitted an individual who has a permit to carry a gun to do so at all times.
We’ll see. As soon as the Court rules on the DC case, this issue will become hotter, regardless of which way the Court goes. Lots to talk (blog) about. Thanks again for your thoughts.
The issue is not about whether someone has the right to pack a gun. That is already included in the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. The issue is whether the employer has the right to tell an employee to take his gun and leave the premises and don’t come back. The issue is whether the employer has the right to tell his security agents to be on the lookout for anything that may endanger the workplace and then act on it without fear of having an employee take him to court. What would have happened in Dodge City had Wyatt Earp been prohibited from demanding that all firearms be dropped at the city limits? I think Wyatt Earp and his deputies would have been gunned down in a New York minute. The person in charge of maintaining the peace has to have the authority to do so.
The first Amedment is clear about who it affects –” Congress shall make no law” etc. The other amendments do not specifically say who is affected. I think they are generally understood to mean what the government cannot do. If so, then the second amendment might not affect the policies of a private employer, but could affect a governmental employer. (If so, some may hope the postal service would be deemed private, rather than quasi-governmental.) Any legal scholars reading these comments?
The First Amendment is clear about who it affects — “Congress shall make no law…” etc. The other amendments do not specifically say who is controlled by them. I think they are generally understood to mean what the government cannot do. If so, then the Second
Amendment might not affect the policies of a private employer, but could affect a governmental employer. Any legal scholars reading these comments?
Mr. Allen, thanks for weighing in.
As I’ve said in earlier comments, I’ve never gotten into the Second Amendment debate and, thus, am not an expert of any kind on Second Amendment issues. I would say, however, that for some folks, the two issues you talk about are definitely intertwined. Based on news reports I’ve recently read (which is certainly not the same as doing Second Amendment research), I don’t think the Supreme Court has ever ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun. It appears that the Court is getting ready to do that, and the Court could say, of course, it’s been that way all along–the issue was just never squarely presented to the Court before for a ruling.
As to Wyatt Earp, if he wasn’t gunned down during the numerous opportunites people had when he was in and out of law enforcement as he roamed the wild west (remember, not everyone followed his orders to drop their weapons at the city limits), I’m betting he could have adequately taken care of himself, no matter what the law said.
Thanks very much for your comments.
By other amendments, I mean the Bill of Rights Amendments.
Mr. Alfaro, thanks for your three comments. I’m afraid I’m not the kind of legal scholar you’re looking for. But I am hoping that the Supreme Court will address some of your questions when it decides the DC case.
Generally, regardless of what an amendment to the constitution says, the Supreme Court has always ruled (I think) that no right is absolute, not even rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Therefore, if the Court says that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun, I’m inclined to believe the Court will endorse some limitations on that protection, some of which could directly impact the workplace.
Thanks again for weighing in.