Guns, Laws, and the Workplace
On May 14, 2008, Georgia’s governor signed the newest state gun law that may–may–make it more difficult for employers to ban guns in the workplace. At one point during the law’s circuitous route through the Georgia General Assembly, it would have prevented employers from banning guns from employee vehicles in employer parking lots. Although business groups sponsored amendments eliminating the parking lot provision, it’s less than clear what this new law does for Georgia workplaces or their parking lots when it comes to guns. Time (and no doubt litigation) will tell.
Guns and the workplace haven’t proved to be good partners. Between 1980 and 2006, there were 16,459 homicides by shooting in the workplace. (Click here and here for more.) Consequently, employers adopted strict weapons policies, banning guns from the workplace and from vehicles employees drive to work. Various state laws made it possible for employers to do this, serving as a welcomed barrier between guns and the workplace.
There’s now a movement afoot to alter, if not remove, this barrier. State legislatures are considering and adopting so-called “parking lot” laws, allowing employees with gun permits to keep their guns in their vehicles parked at work. Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota and Oklahoma have adopted such laws. Mississippi allows employees to keep guns in their cars at work–unless the employer’s parking area is restricted by a gate or other security device.
Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia legislators are considering similar legislation. Florida’s governor recently signed such a bill into law, this one even preventing an employer from searching an employee’s vehicle. And now there’s the convoluted Georgia law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the District of Columbia handgun ban (based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), momentum will be given to these proposals, and other state legislatures will undoubtedly jump on the bandwagon. Workplace gun bans may become history. I’m guessing the next wave of proposed gun legislation will allow employees who have gun permits to carry their guns anywhere. Indeed, Alaska’s legislature has already repealed part of a statute that allowed employers to prohibit the possession of firearms on their premises.
Opponents of laws like these argue that their enactment will cause shooting violence to increase. Proponents of the laws argue that everything from drive-by shootings to workplace violence could be prevented if law abiding citizens were allowed greater access to guns in whatever place they happen to be. Streets. Homes. Cars. Hospitals. Schools. Restaurants. Public buildings. Public transportation. Bars. Workplaces of any kind. So when the bad guy with a gun is up to no good, there’ll be good guys with guns waiting to thwart the bad guy’s evil intent. (For another point of view on stemming violence by the use of “violence interrupters,” check out an article in the New York Times Magazine.)
Fewer guns? More guns? Violence interrupters? In our society, there’s no simple answer. But it seems to me when talking about the workplace (and that’s all I’m talking about), employers should have discretion to control the workplace. Employers should be able to ban–anywhere on the premises–tobacco, loud music, charitable solicitations, pornography, alcohol, whoopee cushions, tank tops, muscle shirts, hunting knives, brass knuckles, chain saws, axes and guns. If employers can’t keep guns out of the workplace, we won’t be returning to the days of the wild west (because they didin’t have the kinds of weapons we have today). We’ll be moving into Terminator 5 territory, except it won’t be a movie. Employers issuing uniforms made of bullet proof vests, flak jackets, Dragon Skin body armor? Strange, but no stranger than employees with guns strapped to their sides.
No right, even a constitutional one, is absolute. We have free speech, but you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowed theater. We can bear arms, but you shouldn’t be allowed to do so at work.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- SayUncle » Guns in the work place - [...] Guns, Laws, and the Workplace by John Phillips. [...]
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
They just don’t get it, do they?
Jack, there are at least two sides to this issue, and both sides have trouble talking to each other it seems. I’m really not trying to take a side on the fundamental Second Amendment issue. My only position is that employers should have the right to ban a lot of stuff from the workplace, including guns, if that’s what they want to do. I also think it would be unwise to turn any workplace into the OK Corral. Thanks for weighing in.
Say Uncle, thanks for putting my post on your site. I’ll be interested to see if there are comments, criticisms, disagreements, etc.
Hey, found this through SayUncle.
Since I tend to approach this from a self-defense aspect, I am fine with workplaces banning guns on one condition – the ban must be effectively enforced, and must apply to security also. The company is also liable if any assault occurs on the premises. If I am disarmed by the company, the company is fully responsible for my safety.
I also believe guns should be allowed in private vehicles, no matter where that vehicle happens to be. If I can’t keep my gun in my car, I am restricted off work property too. I don’t always head straight home after work.
My problem is that my employer cannot guarantee my safety nor security while on their premises, so why should they be allowed to take away my ability to be responsible for myself?
Case in point, the recent use of a firearm for defense by a Pizza Hut deliveryman. He was not supposed to have a firearm on his person, but he used it in order to save his life. Yes, he was fired over it as well. But isn’t it better to be alive, and looking for a job?
Violence in the workplace will exist no matter what, for the simple reason that work is generally a high stress environment that you are in for extended lengths of time. If someone wanted to do violence, they’d find a way to do it. Just because they do not have a firearm on them doesn’t mean they won’t have easy access to something that can be made a weapon.
And this doesn’t even take into account those that act premeditated, as they aren’t going to worry about the “No Weapons” policy much anyway.
These laws hurt the law abiding, honest people. Those people that choose to carry firearms are statistically shown to be more law abiding than the average person.
Just a few thoughts from someone who firmly believes that we should be held accountable and responsible for ourselves every day, but also to be given the freedom to do so.
Thanks.
Andrew, thanks for weighing in. You raise some interesting points.
Workplaces should enforce the ban consistently. If they don’t, then they would be hard pressed to argue that they need to be able to ban guns from the workplace.
As to security, most security personnel in the workplaces with which I’m familiar are unarmed. In most workplaces, it would be disconcerting and counterproductive for people to be walking around with guns, concealed or not. That said, I suppose one could think of some workplace where security guards would need to be armed. Prisons come to mind. And maybe workplaces where nuclear reactors are located–that sort of thing.
Your point about having a gun in your vehicle (parked at work) since, if you didn’t, you would be required to leave work and go elsewhere without a gun for your own protection might be a Catch 22 issue to some. I see your point, but it’s the employer’s workplace, and if the employer doesn’t want you to have a gun in your vehicle while it’s parked at work on the employer’s premises, then the employer, in my opinion, should have that right, just like you should have the right to prevent someone from bringing a gun into your home if you don’t want that.
Thanks again for your comments.
Chad, I appreciate your taking the time to weigh in on this discussion. While I respect your point of view, I think we’ll have to end up agreeing to disagree.
No one can guarantee anyone’s safety in some kind of absolute way. Some employers, as is true with a lot of courts now, have metal detectors that anyone entering the building (or courtroom) have to pass through. That’s no guarantee. It’s just what we’ve come to. Creative people have found ways to get guns into court rooms and workplaces even though they’ve gone through metal detectors.
For every Pizza Hut deliverman story, there’s another one about a gun being taken away from the person who had it and is then shot with it.
You’re right about the existence of violence in the workplace. It happens in some form every day. But it’s the employer’s workplace, and in my opinion, it’s the employer who gets to decide who brings what into the workplace. I know you and I disagree on this, but I believe that by limiting weapons in the workplace, the amount of violence is curtailed.
I’m a big believer in freedom, too. In America, we unfortunately take it for granted too often. But as I tried to say in my post on this subject, no right–no freedom–is absolute. If it is, then there is no freedom, because everyone will be doing whatever he/she wants to do.
Thanks again for your heartfelt comments.
All of the security personnel where I work are armed, and very well trained. Building entrances are secured and there are multiple layers of security throughout, plus employees are drilled in what to do in an emergency. I don’t work for a place that builds nuclear weapons or houses violent felons, we build airplanes.
We are not permitted weapons on company property, but we are also not unprotected.
Mad, thanks very much for your comments.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m thinking airplanes are close enough to nuclear weapons to need the kind of security force you describe. Your point about not being allowed to have weapons at work but not being unprotected is a good one.
Some who don’t have that level of protection will argue that they need their own guns to have something similar. I don’t dismiss that argument out of hand. I just think (and I guess I’m beginning to sound like a broken record) that an employer sets the rules, particularly about weapons.
Your employer obviously thinks that, given the kind of workplace you have, weapons in the hands of people employed for security purposes are necessary. That should be your employers call.
Thanks again.
The key is put the lies out early before people start thinking about what you are saying. Lets look at your topic paragraph.
“Guns and the workplace haven’t proved to be good partners. Between 1980 and 2006, there were 16,459 homicides by shooting in the workplace. ”
How many of these shooting were legal? or in accordance with company policy?
“Various state laws made it possible for employers to do this, serving as a welcomed barrier between guns and the workplace.”
What laws are you referring to? I am not aware of any laws that restricted companies ablity to create company policy about weapons on campus.
I suggest a new sentence for you.
“Criminals and the regulations haven’t proved to be good partners. Between 1980 and 2006, there were 16,459 homicides by shooting in the workplace.”
Joe, thanks for weighing in. No lies intended. I have been known to make a mistake or two.
Beginning with your disagreement with the sentence about the partnership between guns and workplaces not being good partners, I’m fine with your suggested substitution. It would be my position that this change in wording doesn’t make any difference in terms of the point I’m trying to make.
I would like to know the answers to the first two questions you raise, but I don’t. As to the workplace shootings of which I’m aware (admittedly a small percentage of the total number during the period in question), one or more people are shot by a disgruntled employee or former employee or an estranged spouse or lover and then the shooter is shot by law enforcement or security. So, I’m guessing that most of the shooting deaths are illegal, and a few are legal or in accordance with company policy that if someone is trying to kill your employees, you do your best to prevent that, which may mean shooting the villain. I also don’t see that the answers make any difference as far as the point I’m trying to make is concerned.
With respect to your final question, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Perhaps I said it poorly. What I meant was that various state laws have traditionally allowed employers to ban weapons from the workplace. Ususally these laws require a notice to be posted. In other words, these laws made it possible for an employer to create a barrier between guns and the workplace, because the employer was able to ban guns from the workplace. You’re right. Until recently, there have been no laws that restricted an employer’s ability to have weapons policies. I’m saying that this is the way it should stay and that the state laws beginning to be passed which take that ability away from employers are regrettable. Sorry if I caused confusion on that point.
Thanks again for your comments.
So if an employer made rules that required employees to participate in religious rituals offensive to the employee’s faith, would that be OK? “Employer sets the rules” right? So, if no right is absolute, then why should an employer’s private-property right to forbid weapons on company property be absolute? You’re talking about the right of an individual vs. (almost always) the ‘rights’ of a corporation.
And it’s funny how “no weapons” policies work so well at preventing workplace violence until they’re violated by someone attempting to commit murder.
Rob, thanks for your thoughts.
Yes, I believe an employer should have the right to set the rules for its workplace. It is, of course, possible for that right to be lawfully restrained.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents an employer from requiring employees to participate in religious rituals, unless the employer is a church or some ofther kind of religiously affiliated institution.
As I noted in my original post, it’s possible for legislation to be enacted that restricts the right of employers to ban guns from the workplace. That’s going on right now. While I think that’s too bad, it can happen and may happen increasingly.
I don’t know what the fact that an employer is a corporation has to do with this issue, but the vast majority of employers aren’t corporations.
As one of the previous commenters pointed out, there’s no perfect way to prevent workplace violence. If an employee is really intent on committing a murder at work, he/she probably will, whether an employer has a policy banning guns from the workplace or not and whether every single employee is armed or not.
Thanks again for weighing in.
I think that an employer not allowing firearms inside their buildings is one thing, and i cant say that i disagree with that idea… it is their property and they have almost absolute control… but they should be held liable for any injuries that result.
however, in the parking lot (unsecured ones) my car continues to remain my property even if i park it on someone elses property… and since the castle doctrine ideas usually consider your car an extension of your home for self defense purposes, that would imply that the 2nd amendment would also have that same extension… now, if a company wants to put up a fence and a guard shack and have restricted access to the parking lot, that is a whole different beast… but they should again be held liable for failing to protect their employees.
“For every Pizza Hut deliverman story, there’s another one about a gun being taken away from the person who had it and is then shot with it.”
That is a folk tale and I have never seen a statistic indicating the private citizens are disarmed and shot with their own weapon at anything approaching parity to the number of citizen that have defended themselves with firearms. This matters because you are resting your part of your justification on a fictional hypothesis.
The main issue is that corporations are trying to shield themselves from liability. Disarming people reduces their liability, so long as they have ‘industry standard’ security measures in place. Unfortunately the ‘industry standard’ isn’t very effective at preventing workplace violence.
You know, every time I read “You can’t shout fire in a theater”, I have to wonder exactly what logic is being used. I am able to buy a ticket and walk into a theater, and no one puts duct tape on my mouth or otherwise stops me from being able to shout “FIRE”.
There is a great difference between being responsible for your abuse of rights and being pre-emptively denied your rights because you MAY abuse them.
One other thing to think about… In Florida, we’ve been able to carry guns in our cars for years, even without a permit. In nearly any parking lot you go into, chances are pretty good that you’ll find at least one car with a gun, and probably many more, yet you never hear of vast waves of parking lot shootings here. I’ve never stopped carrying a gun in my personal vehicle, regardless of what company policy might say. Florida does not have the 30.06 rule that Texas has, which allows businesses to post signs forbidding firearms. My vehicle is my personal property, and is not available for any employer to enter. Therefore, the only time anyone would ever know I had a gun is when I have to use it for defense of myself or others.
Chris, employers are generally liable for injuries to employees. In a workplace shooting scenario, the question would be whther the employer’s liablility is limited by workers’ compensation laws, and that’s a somewhat complicated discussion. As to third parties, an employer could be liable for their injuries if the employer is negligent with respect to the third party injuries. If you’re talking about some form of absolute liability for employers when shootings in the workplace occur, there would need to be a change in the law.
Another law that comes into play in connection with a workplace shooting is OSHA. Under OSHA, employers have a duty to protect their employees from unsafe conditions. OSHA has made it clear that protecting employees from violence at work is part of an employer’s duty to maintain a safe workplace under OSHA.
I’m not familiar with the doctrine that makes your car an extension of your home. That doesn’t mean there’s not such a doctrine. I just don’t know about it. You make an interesting point about restricted vs. non-restricted parking lot. As I noted in my original post, the law in Mississippi allows an employer to ban guns from vehicles in employer parking lots only if the employer has a restricted parking lot. As state legislatures are considering this issue, the restricted/non-restricted issue is obviously something they’re thinking about.
I’m still where I was on what an employer should be permitted to do–and that’s ban weapons from any part of the employer’s property, if that’s what the employer wants. A lunch box is an employee’s private property. So is a brief case. And a purse. And a gym bag. And dozens of things employees bring to work. The fact that these things belong to employees shouldn’t give them the right to store a gun inside, if the employer has a policy banning guns from the workplace.
Thanks very much for weighing in.
Mostlygenious, you know as well as I do that people being shot with their own weapons isn’t a folk tale. But you’re right. I don’t have reliable statistics on how often that happens any more than you have reliable statistics on how often a person successfully defends himself with a gun.
Our conversation has devolved into one about street crime. That’s not what my post is about. I’m talking about the workplace and only the workplace.
It’s my position that employers should have the right to control their workplaces, including banning guns from them. State legislatures are beginning to take that right away. I think that’s a bad idea, but I don’t have a lot of clout with state legislatures like some organizations do. Every year, legislative bodies impose more and more liability on employers. This is just one more example.
Thanks for letting your thoughts be known.
Phillip, I think it’s good to revisit prinicples like “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater,” because there are times when prinicples need to be revised. This isn’t one of them, in my opinion. This principle and its logic come from a relatively old Supreme Court decision. I don’t always agree with the Court, but I think it got this principle right when it comes to the right of free speech.
You can yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and if by doing so, people stampede and are killed or injured, you can be held criminally and civilly liable.
You leave your house every day without anyone putting a piece of duct tape on your mouth. But you’re not free to approach people on the sidewalk or in a workplace and tell them that you’re going to kill them or beat them up or run them off the road the next chance you get. That’s an assault. It’s against the law.
As far as preemption goes, you’re preemptively denied all kinds of things, particularly as it relates to guns. You can’t take a gun on an airplane. You can’t take one in a courtroom. You can’t take one in the White House, the Pentegon, the Congress, state legislatures, power plants, etc.
You may take a gun in your car into Florida parking lots, but I bet you can’t take it into the Florida governor’s office or his parking lot, although he recently signed a bill preventing employers from controlling their own parking lots when it comes to guns. In my opinion, that’s not right, but it is the law in Florida.
Thanks for sharing your honest opinions.
It is clear to me that you have an ideological position on this issue. It is not grounded in any sort of facts. By narrowing your focus to civilian self-defense (for which no statistics are collected) and further refining it to the ‘workplace’ where firearm are generally prohibited you dismiss all of the similar circumstances as ‘street crime.’
“If employers can’t keep guns out of the workplace, we won’t be returning to the days of the wild west (because they didin’t have the kinds of weapons we have today). We’ll be moving into Terminator 5 territory, except it won’t be a movie. ”
Employers can’t keep guns out of the workplace anymore than educators can keep guns out of colleges. The “wild west” type of remarks have been floated by the gun control advocates for years and they never seem to materialize. Millions of Americans a licensed to carry concealed firearms in all but a few states and yet these average citizens still don’t tend to settle their disputes (workplace or otherwise) with gun fire. These are the same people who are disarmed by the laws and policies that you advocate. Unfortunately they are not the ones that are causing the problem.
I have heard a lot about protecting employers, but nothing about protecting employees. A company policy (or even a law) doesn’t seem to deter the people who decide to show up at work and start shooting.
Mostlygenius, one of my friends and blog advisors has just told me that I need to shut up. I suspect you agree.
I hope some of my other friends who know me well are also reading along. They’ll get a kick out of your opinion that I have an ideological position on this issue. I think the ideological issue is interesting, but I’m not a Second Amendment guy, one way or the other.
I am an employment lawyer, and I have fairly strong views about employment law and the workplace. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, then you know that I often talk about the fair treatment and protection of employees. But the workplace belongs to the employer.
I think you and I have made ourselves about as clear as we can on this issue. I do respect your point of view. I just don’t agree with it.
Thanks again for forcefully presenting your position.
I attempted to understand your article and went over it paragraph by paragraph summarizing it’s points.
In the process I found a lot of confusion on your part, and wild leaps of logic.
So paragraph by paragraph, with my comments
A law has been passed that doesn’t mention business, or their parking lots. This means it is unclear, if it effects business, or there parking lots apparently.
Lots of people are victims of homicide at work. To fix this laws were passed to make it possible for employers to ban guns, (You admit this statement is wrong). So this no people die at work, and nothing has been done in the past to fix this. The notification rules that you get confused on, simply state that signs that restrict concealed carry for the public on a location must meet certain condition, if they do they have legal force. This is a step above and beyond employee policies. These laws have come about at the same time as the CCW laws, and have nothing to do with the issue of “workplace violence”
Other states have passed bills allowing guns in parking lots, inside of locked cars.
More states are thinking of doing similar laws.
Thanks to Heller work place bans are going to be history. “Indeed, Alaska’s legislature has already repealed part of a statute that allowed employers to prohibit the possession of firearms on their premises. ” This is wrong, statute 18.65.800 makes no mention of employment being allowed, just if it would be illegal.
Introduces the phrase “violence interrupters”, no they are just people protecting themselves.
Random statement of massive gun violence if guns are allowed in the workplace.
So it appears when straighten out you misstatements of facts, what you are strive to do is not allow companies to make it against company policy to have guns. But to allow companies to make it illegal to have guns at work. You show no correlation, much less causation between work place violence and concealed carry laws.
I have come to the conclusion that you have intentionally mixed the notions of; employment policy, and legal restriction of CCW by law makers; with the storage of weapons in private cars in parking lots and guns in the work place. To create an alarmist essay bereft of truth or logical argument.
Joe, thanks for weighing in.
Also, thanks for the detailed clarification.
You almost convinced me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Almost.
Also note how broad “workplace shooting” is defined in the statistics you use and how manipulable this makes the numbers. “NTOF includes information for all workers aged 16 or older who died from an injury or poisoning and for whom the certifier noted a positive response to the injury at work? item on the death certificate.”
A pizza deliveryman and a taxi driver are both in their “workplace” while driving around in the course of their duties, carry cash, and can be summoned to areas away from police or employer-provided protection. Hence 38% in retail-related shootings. Almost 10% in transportation.
Also, are line-of-duty shooting of police officers included? Certainly work-related, and if so the bulk of the “public administration” category. I’ve seen one alarmist figure thrown out where police officers shot in the line of duty were included.
While spree shootings do occur, they are rare and don’t make up a significant number of the shooting deaths in the US. Factor 60% in as suicides (about 16,000 out of the 30,000 or so annually, and generally male senior citizens who with failing health) and a good portion of the others as young males between 18-24 involved in the drug trade. The stereotype we think of with tragic shootings – kid finds loaded gun, shoots self or friend – occur at a rate of less than 150 per year, mostly hovering around 100-120. Less than drowning and traffic accidents by a mile.
So basically, I’m saying throw out statistics.
Do employees, and people generally, have a cognizable liberty interest in their own safety? It seems the Supreme Court may find so in the Heller case. Makes sense – employees do not check their religious convictions at the door as you point out, they shouldn’t check their remaining liberty interests (heck, call it what it is – a life interest) either.
Does the employer-employee relationship entirely remove their right to self-help when dealing with a personal safety emergency while off-premises? Certainly not – you couldn’t tell them to not defend themselves when attacked while driving home. Why force them to be disarmed? I know, even a finding of a personal right in the 2nd Amendment will leave concealed carry laws squarely within traditional state police powers of health, safety, and welfare, but as a policy choice it’s something I disagree with.
There are two types of “gun-free” zones – ones that serve a civic purpose and are more rightly called “secured facilities” such as the ones you cite – courts, prisons, nuclear facilities. However, as the “wild west” predictions against concealed carry have not panned out, opinion (and hopefully boycotts on a larger scale) will organize against those other types of “gun-free” zones that we see in some malls and retailers – legal fictions. Legal fictions that, while comforting to some, should provide for civil liability against the commercial land owner. Either let people carry or make your business a secured facility – armed guards, metal detectors, the whole bit.
Dave, thanks for these comments. Very interesting points.
Certainly agree that statistics aren’t always reliable, and even when they are drilled into, the person doing the drilling will often put his/her slant on them. I’m not in a position to analyze your statistics, although I’m sure they come from somewhere. It seems to me that however the statistics about homicides at work are viewed, there are too many of them. Do I think that if all employers had had strictly enforced policies banning guns from the workplace, there would have been no shootings? Of course not. But I think an employer should be able to control the workplace and ban weapons if the employer thinks that’s best.
In the case of pizza delivery folks, taxi drivers, convenience store clerks, etc., I would imagine that employers require the employees to carry guns or, at least, do not prevent them from doing so. In a kiddie care facility, a nursing home, a toy store, etc., I think it’s equally resonable for the employer to ban guns. It’s the employer’s business, and it should be the employer’s call.
If the legislative drive to place restrictions on employers’ ability to do this, then all the debate about my post becomes pointless. Many employers argue that the government has pretty much taken them over anyway, so this would be just one more step in that direction.
It is increasingly clear, whether because of reality or perception, that more and more businesses are going the way of the last sentence in your comment. It’s amazing how many “secured facilities” there are these days. If employers lose their right to control the workplace as far as weapons are concerned, they’ll have no choice.
You’ve given me something to sleep on. Thanks for weighing in.
As you put it: “In the case of pizza delivery folks, taxi drivers, convenience store clerks, etc., I would imagine that employers require the employees to carry guns or, at least, do not prevent them from doing so.”
I agree. So do many of your commenters. Employers do not – see the example of the pizza delivery guy involved in a shooting cited earlier.
“Pizza drivers are so at risk that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court ruled that even though carrying a concealed weapon is illegal in Wisconsin, a pizza driver was an exception the concealed carry prohibited law.
Wisconsin is one of two states [Illinois is the other] that have no civilian concealed carry.”
For a listing of other pizza delivery shootings, see: http://www.ksccw.com/site/showthread.php?t=6499
This is point commenters are making – given a compelling argument for armed employees versus their liability interests, employers choose to protect their liability and feel-good policies every time. Given a “leave it in your car” policy but barring arms from the workplace, they make the same choice. Push comes to shove, so let’s legislate away their ability to put employees in this position.
Actually in the jobs most where employees are like to come into contact with criminals (taxi drivers, store clerks, etc.) they are usually banned from carrying firearms by company policy.
There is no way to build a secure facility and still have contact with the general public. In order for a facility to be secure it needs to have it’s own armed guard force. This is certainly not feasible for most retail establishments. These are the same establishments that are so frequently victimized.
I think the premise is flawed. You can only disarm those that choose to comply, and those people aren’t the problem. At best, a no-guns policy would reduce firearms accidents in the workplace (I don’t think there have ever been many of those.)
Perhaps you can give me a better answer as to what a businesses responsibility is to protect it’s disarmed employees from violence?
As I have stated before while I like the idea that business should be able to set it’s own rules, disarming the workforce simply allows a business to point the company handbook after an incident and say “we have a policy against that.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356710,00.html
“SuperAmerica said he violated company policy when he came to his colleague’s aid in the early morning of March 26. So instead of accolades, Beverly got the boot.”
Dave, Mostlygenius and Joe,
Haven’t been ignoring you guys. I’ve had to work the last couple of days. Bummer.
Dave, I understand your position but disagree with it. I don’t think legislatures should be allowed to legislate away an employer’s right to control its workplace, particularly as it relates to guns and weapons.
Mostlygenius, I have no way of knowing whether most employees who have the most high risk jobs are prohibited by their employers from carrying weapons. That doesn’t make any more sense than allowing all employees in every workplace to be armed. But if you say so, ok. The fact that an employer has something in a handbook on guns isn’t going to negate liablity the employer may otherwise have for a workpace violence event. An employer could be liable under OSHA and could be liable under state common law for being negligent toward its employees, as well as having liability under worker’s comp, although workers’ comp could end up being an employee’s exclusive rememdy, depending on the facts. I agree that there’s no way to make a facility absolutely secure. One sure fire (no pun intended) way to make it unsecure is to allow everyone to bring a gun to work.
Joe, the reason employers have the policy that is described in the FoxNews piece can be seen in the piece below:
http://www.wftv.com/news/10883765/detail.html
For every news item like the one you sent me, there’s one arguably showing that when you try to prevent an armed robbery, the chances go up that you’ll get shot.
Got to go back to work.
Thanks again for all your comments.
This is insane. As a HR professional, this new GA law and all the other states’ recent gun laws make me sick to my stomach. We have a hard enough time keeping everyone safe without these idiots allowing more guns. Good idea guys…
Thanks for weighing in, Amy. As you can see from the other comments, your point of view is the minority view, at least among those who’ve commented. I continue to believe that laws taking from employers the right they should have to control their workplaces are ill-conceived. It’ll be interesting to see where all these laws are in five years or so. Thanks again for your comment.
Amy, I also live in NH. Not sure where you are but I haven’t heard of a gun problem in NH let
alone any company with a gun problem.
Do you honestly think that banning guns at work will keep the NUT from coming to work with one. I can hear him/her now, “I can’t shoot my
boss, we’re not allowed to bring guns to work”.
Tell us Amy, how many people have you seen in NH with a gun on their side. I bet “0″ because that’s how many I have seen in the past 18 years
that I have been here. I work with 14 other guys
and a few girls that carry guns and I have never seen any of them. The reason being is that law
abiding gun owners will not let you see their guns. We prefer to be left alone and not draw attention to ourselves. Each of us have our own reason to carry that is personnel. I’m not sure where you work but it appears to me that HR doesn’t have a plan if someone comes in shooting. The only thing HR does is make sure we have our Safety glasses on so we don’t lose an eye. I do want to thank you for that since it would be a shame if I lost my “Shooting Eye”
Roger, what took you so long?
Amy, as I mentioned in my original response to your comment, your point of view among those who have left comments is in the minority. Don’t worry, though. Just keep your head down.
Sorry my post’s are so late but I spend more time
working and less time surfing, wish I could change that. John, do you honestly believe
the Terminator 5 statement? If you do you need
to take a walk around a State that allows you to
carry. Like I said to Amy, I bet you will see zero
guns. What makes you think that we would bring in these giant guns just because we can.
Most people that carry have a gun that will fit
in the pocket which means a small Caliber and
limited clip. If someone were to carry one of those large guns, that you are referring to I believe they would have trouble keeping their pants from falling down let alone doing there job.
The Reason the NRA has to fight all these stupid laws is because the Lefties and Far Lefties just can not mind their own business.
Just because they don’t like guns doesn’t mean
they need to pass laws banning guns. Just because they put their seat belt on every time
they get in the car doesn’t mean they should
make it a law that I have too. If the Lefties
would stop fighting the death penalty they wouldn’t have to waste so much energy trying to Ban guns.
Why do the Lefties care more about criminals rights than mine, the guy who works 60 hours a week, has a family and carries a gun that hopefully nobody will ever have to see. I am asking you directly, John tell me how passing
a law banning guns at work will keep someone from coming to work with a gun and shooting up the place?
How will banning guns in the US keep a criminal from having one.
How many laws will be enough before the US is no longer FREE! I will never understand what world the Lefties live in because they sure don’t live in mine. The law to kill a child rapist just got rejected. I wonder what type
of people voted against that law? Most people killed by a gun are killed with an illegal gun. Most people killed by a gun have a Rap Sheet longer than my arm. The only problem I have with two Gang Bangers killing each other is the negative impact it has on the gun fatality stats that the Lefties are always throwing around.
If there was only some kind of law preventing a criminal from possessing a gun.
Roger, thanks for your latest comments.
All I’m saying is that employers should have the right to control their own workplaces, including whether their employees can bring weapons to work.
The same people who rejected the death penalty for child rape are the people who rejected the District of Columbia ban on handguns in the Heller case. I suspect you fully support the Heller decision. How can the same Court get one decison so wrong and another decision so right?
As to the rest of your comments, I think I’ll just rely on the following video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FF3LQlhBs
If you can’t access this video clip, let me know, and I’ll figure out another way to get it to you.
John, thanks so much for your thoughtful article. These laws are insane, a violation of the Constitution and a direct threat to employees in all these states. Higdon in Kentucky was no career criminal, right until the moment he opened fire he was the prototypical “law-abiding gun owner” that the NRA loves to crow about – the people they tell us make us safer by being constantly armed. Hopefully, the rest of these laws will be deemed unconstitutional as Oklahoma’s laws was. Thanks for speaking out on this critical issue.
F4A,
Thanks for your comments. I haven’t received much in the way of support, so it’s nice to get a comment that’s friendly.
As I’ve tried to explain, I’m not a gun rights guy or a gun control guy. I think the arguments about the Second Amendment are interesting and intellectually stimulating. I particularly enjoy discussions about what the founders intended. With all due respect to the Supreme Court, however, that anyone thinks they KNOW what the founders intended is almost comical.
My main interest in this issue is from a workplace and employment law standpoint. If an employee thinks he has the right to carry a gun and if the law says he has that right, that’s fine. I don’t think he has the right and I can’t imagine the Supreme Court ever saying he has the right to bring it into the workplace, if his employer doesn’t want him to. And I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an employer to conclude that it’s more likely that the workplace will be safer if guns are banned than if they’re not. This proposition can be debated until the cows come home, but it should be the employer’s call, in my opinion.
I don’t know where all these laws will end up. It’ll take quite a while for the courts to sort them out. I’m hoping that state legislatures will give it a rest until the laws now on the books can be litigated.
Your comments about the Kentucky situation are interesting. It was my understanding that the employee turned shooter didn’t have a criminal record and had a permit to carry the gun he used. I had not, however, done any real research on that. If a person has decided to kill one or more people in a workplace, there’s a decent chance that it’ll happen, regardless of what a workplace policy says or how many law-abiding citizens come to work armed. If it’s my workplace, however, I should get to set the rules on guns in the workplace. If employees don’t like my rules, they don’t have to work for me.
Well, I think I’ve started repeating myself. Sorry about that. Let the debate continue. It’s still a free country.
Thanks again for weighing in.