Fort Hood: Guns and Workplace Violence

The Fort Hood military base is the largest employer in Texas. Until recently, it was thought to be one of the safest. It’s now another workplace of terrible violence. (Read other posts on the shooting at Ft. Hood.)

On this blog, I’ve consistently supported an employer’s right to ban guns from the workplace. I’ve consistently decried laws that impede the right to have such a policy.

But state legislatures are inundated with proposals making no-guns policies more difficult to enforce. Proponents want employees to keep guns in vehicles parked in company parking lots and even bring concealed handguns to work.

Fort Hood was a military base, but it had its own form of no-guns policy. It allowed only military police to display weapons, permitted the removal of military-issued guns from an arms room only for training and maintenance, and required personal weapons to be kept locked.

Some will now contend that if those shot at Fort Hood had been allowed to carry guns, they would have prevented the carnage. Given the chaos described once the shooting started, that seems just as unlikely as it does in any workplace when a shooter with one or more semi-automatic handguns begins suddenly firing.

Within 3-5 minutes, two civilian officers arrived at the scene, one of them a firearms expert and the recipient of active shooter protocol intended for this kind of situation. Showing extraordinary bravery, they brought the shooter down and ended the violence.

Some state legislatures will renew efforts in 2010 to give employees more rights and employers fewer rights when it comes to guns at work, increasing the likelihood of violence. If one person can shoot 43 people at the largest military base in the country, it can happen at any workplace no matter how many employees are carrying guns.

But the gun controversy will continue. Some sincerely argue today that guns can prevent the kind of violence occurring at Fort Hood. Some myths die hard, and some never do.

Find information about state laws regarding weapons in the workplace in 50 Employment Laws in 50 States.

1. 

   stirling says:

   November 13, 2009 at 12:56 am

   John,

   Feel free to point out that one of the main Military Police stations at Fort Hood is located just a few blocks away from where the shooting took place. I know, I was stationed there 9 months ago. Do you think maybe that had anything to do with the 3-5 minute response time? Good luck out there to everybody else who is not in that close proximity to a police station!
2. 

   John Phillips says:

   November 13, 2009 at 9:24 am

   stirling,

   Thanks for the update on the location of police station in conjunction with military base. As I recall, one of the news reports said the two responding officers were actually driving by the military base when they heard the call about the shootings. So, I would say that had something to do with response time as well.

   Thanks for expressing your point of view.

   John
3. 

   John G says:

   November 13, 2009 at 10:33 am

   John,
   A couple of points you overlook:
   First, simply making it illegal to possess a gun anywhere is no guarantee that someone with no regard for the law will obey it. Legally excluding guns only affects those who obey the law, and puts them at the mercy of the criminal. You seem to believe that the situation would have been much worse had the soldiers (victims) been armed. I contend that, had that lunatic been faced with attacking armed people, there is a good chance he wouldn’t have attempted it in the first place. In addition, the victims wouldn’t have been simply an armed mob, but people highly trained in the use of weapons. The three to five minute response time, during which so many died and were wounded, would have been reduced to seconds. I wonder how many lives could have been saved? It amazes me that we trust our brave military to go abroad and fight in our behalf, yet we can’t trust them to be responsible enough to possess firearms on their own soil.
   While I don’t dispute an employer’s right to exclude guns from their property, I do question the wisdom of such a policy. I am blessed to work in a place where there are always a few armed employees present, myself included. None of us has ever gone no a rampage and started shooting anyone. All of us have been properly trained, gone through extensive background checks, and paid substantial fees in order to be able to legally carry our weapons. I believe that we are some of the most law-abiding, stable people here , or anywhere.
   A gun is merely an object. It is not a good or an evil thing, and its presence does not influence a person to be evil. The goodness or evil is the choice of the individual, and one who chooses to be evil will not be affected by any law or policy.
4. 

   John Phillips says:

   November 13, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   John G,

   Thanks very much for your comments.

   First, I’m no gun or firearms expert. Far from it. My interest in this subject is purely from that of an employment law standpoint, which usually involves working with employers in the development of various policies, including a guns in the workplace policy.

   You’re surely right that making it illegal to possess a gun anywhere is no guarantee that all persons would obey that law. Crimes are committed every day by people who have no right to possess a gun and by people who possess a gun lawfully. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s fairly recent decision, it wouldn’t be permissible to have such a law anyway, as it would violate the Second Amendment. As you probably know, the Supreme Court has another case before it now which will allow the Court to further define the Second Amendment’s parameters.

   I have no way of knowing whether the situation at Ft. Hood would have been better or worse had everyone there been armed. Since the shooter’s intent seems now to have been more premeditated than insane, I’m not sure that would have made any difference as far as he was concerned. I will leave it up to you and others who have gun expertise to speculate on how many people would have been shot by Major Hasan if every soldier where the shooting occurred had been armed, but it’s my impression that a person with a semi-automatic handgun can shoot several people before anyone else has a chance to draw his own weapon.

   The fact that a military base places restrictins on the possession of firearms supports, in my opinion, the proposition that employers are better off having no guns policies than not having them. I would think that the military has given its policy much thought and debate and has concluded that its policy is a good one. Perhaps now the policy will be reconsidered, but it’s hard to imagine that everyone on a military base in this country will be allowed to be armed at all times. I guess we’ll see.

   I have no doubt that you’re a law abiding citizen and that your carry a gun with the best of intentions. Clearly, you have the right to do that within certain restrictions. The nature of the restrictions are still being sorted out.

   Your point about good and evil is, it seems to me, indisputable.

   Thanks again for your comments on this subject.

   John
5. 

   John G says:

   November 13, 2009 at 1:25 pm

   John,
   Thanks for your reply. I would like to say that I’m reasonably certain that the number of lives saved and violent situations stopped by law-abiding firearms owners far exceeds the miniscule number of crimes committed by such people. also, I don’t think there can be any question whether the Ft. Hood shooter’s death toll would have been reduced had there been an armed presence there before the civilian police arrived. Three to five minutes is an eternity when you have a well-armed criminal shooting at unarmed innocent people. As they say, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. This is in no way critical of the police. They can’t be everywhere. Their primary job is not to protect, but to prosecute. And a policy that requires the disarmament of a group of law-abiding people is, in my opinion an invitation to the criminal element to come and do as they will.
   To bring this back around to the subject of employment law, again, I don’t dispute an employer’s right to exclude guns from their workplace. But if I am not allowed to keep a gun secured in my vehicle in a parking lot, then that employer is violating my second amendment right to carry my gun to and from work. Therefore, I do question the wisdom of such a far-reaching policy. I challenge anyone to show an instance of a gun locked in a car committing an act of violence.
6. 

   John Phillips says:

   November 13, 2009 at 2:28 pm

   John G,

   It’s likely, based on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that if you have a permit for a gun, you can carry it in your own vehicle. I think it’s unclear, however, whether an employer’s policy saying you can’t bring a gun onto the premises even if you keep it in your vehicle, is enforceable. Some state legislatures have addressed this, but just in terms of Second Amendment rights, I think it’s still uncertain. The Supreme Court may clarify that in deciding the case it now has before it, McDonald v. Chicago.

   Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

   John