Canon USA demands employees reveal CHL or be terminated

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From the latest TSRA Alert:

We know that Canon USA in Irving threatens their employees with termination if they so much as apply for a CHL and do not inform the company. Their employee manual states that The Company may, from time to time, obtain this information from the Texas Department of Public Safety, under the Texas Open Records Act. Any employee who misleads or actively prevents the Company from obtaining information regarding their status as a licensed handgun permit holder will be immediately terminated.

TSRA is seeking legislation (HB 991) to protect CHL holder privacy and given incidents like this and Roanoke, I can see why. The bill (HB 991) is doing well and is scheduled for a floor vote now; but I was appalled to see that a company felt it had the right to demand to know whether its employees had applied for a CHL. This is way beyond the usual nonsense of prohibiting firearms on company property or parking areas.

I searched THR and wasn't able to find any mention of this; but you can bet that I will be contacting Canon USA and asking about this policy as well as not buying any more of their product until I receive a satisfactory answer.

[vis-à-vis]

Is that even legal to be terminated on the basis of whether you have a lawful permit to carry handguns and do not reveal it to your employer? That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

[hankdatank1362]

Canon the photography company?


Ummm.... I wonder why they care? They should be more worried about employees packin without a license.

[American_Pit_Bull]

What if they are truthful with them and they inform them that they are applying for the permit? Any links to this story?

[No_Warning]

This is sad. I am very much into photography and just purchased a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and have been very exclusive with Canon (printers, etc). Unfortunately I will not be "boycotting" them because of their stand on CCW but I will most definetly be writing a letter to them. I don't know why they would care if their people LEGALLY carry guns. If I owned any company I would allow CCW but if you were caught with anything illegal (drugs, guns, etc) you would be term'd and reported. They are probably afraid of everyone else and think that no legal guns = no bad guns which everyone who isn't a lawyer knows. Sad.

[Geno]

Note to self...check Minolta policy.

See, the problem with America being willing to permit foreign ownership of its companies, is that these companies do not hold American values. They bring into our country, their perverted foreign lack of values, and force us to live the way they live. That is fine for their land, but in our land, we should be able to live like Americans, not Amerikans.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I wonder what Canon will do to an employee if that employee goes out and gets flight training, and maybe even gets a pilot's license, what with 9-11 and all...

It's odd that Canon has no problem with licensed drivers who might BRINGING THEIR DEADLY SUV'S AND PICKUPS onto company property where they could be used to run down a guard shack or crash into the lobby...

What about those employees who engage in the martial arts? Or pray?

This is all information no company needs to know. I'd be willing to bet this is information no company is allowed by law to collect. Dig into this, Texas.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

There is no doubt this might have bearing. If a state cannot pass a law that would infringe upon the right, what makes a company - a construct of state law - think that it can do more than a state can do? A company may only do that which state law permits them to do. Period.

[rbernie]

Is that even legal to be terminated on the basis of whether you have a lawful permit to carry handguns and do not reveal it to your employer?

Most jobs are classified as 'at-will' employment, meaning either party may dissolve the relationship without notice and for any reason. As such, you can walk out the door one day without fear of legal recourse by your employer, but they in turn get the same ability to push you out the door without so much as a by-your-leave.

The principle exceptions to at-will employment involve legally defined protected classes of employees. The definition of protected classes generally revolves around skin color, sex, or other such things that are a traditional basis for discrimination. Of course, if you're part of a bargaining unit/union, there likely are specific binding employment contracts that provide alternate definitions of appropriate hire/fire processes.

In short - Canon USA can do this. It's untenable that they would, but they certain can.

[Deanimator]

Note to self...check Minolta policy.

Minolta's out of the camera business. I didn't find out until Christmas when I was looking for a Minolta digital SLR and couldn't find any, or even online reviews for them.

Feel free to not buy a Konica-Minolta office copier...

[BobMcG]

That sucks. I bought someone a Canon camera for Christmas and never would have chosen that brand if I'd known this.

[obxned]

I am about to buy a new camera - it won't be a Canon!!!

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Only people have rights; be they the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the right to self defense, or rights they would enjoy as a result of owning property. Corporations are allowed to own property by state and federal law. Corporations can only operate in accordance with the law, as proscribed by the law, not in accordance with anything that would be considered a right. Corporations are granted powers by the law. A corporation can no more violate an inalienable right of a person than government can(or is not supposed to!).

Any bylaws a corporation might have must fall within the confines proscribed by the law that provides for their creation. The state law that allows for the creation of a corporation comes from powers granted to the state in its constitution, and that power is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. All we are talking about here are powers. The state has no, nor could it ever have, power to covey a right upon a corporation. A state cannot even convey a right upon a person, because it is the other way around. States and the Union have powers granted to them by the people - said powers being derived from the rights of the people, for the convenience of the people.

A corporation may be granted power to peacefully conduct its business, free from undue interference. Just as a person's freedom of speech does not give them the right to besmirch someone, it does not give a person the right to interfere with the lawful conduct of a business. "Rights" under the First Amendment are not absolute rights, but aspects of the Freedom of Speech. An action such as holding a KKK rally in a McDonald's parking lot is not protected as an absolute right either. Such a rally is not likely to be peaceable or conducive to the business at McDonald's and would interfere with McDonald's power to conduct its business free from undue interference.

The Second Amendment protected right is absolute and cannot be violated. The PROCESS for reasonable violation of the rights covered in the Fourth Amendment can not be violated either. If a state cannot conduct a search of your property, nor violate your right to be secure in your papers(think "permit" here) without a warrant, neither can a corporation. That power has been denied to the government and government certainly cannot delegate power it does not have to a corporation. If you are observed shoplifting, even the the store security personnel cannot conduct a search of your person without your permission. Law enforcement must be called in and even then it might be necessary to acquire a warrant to search you. That would be true even if you worked there.

A religious group would not have a "right" to solicit funds or to proselytize in someone's restaurant without the restaurateurs permission. It would be no different than a group of Baptist storming a synagogue and holding its services there and trying to convert all the Jews without their permission.

Forbidding you as a visitor to carry arms into a prison, for all intents and purposes, is a violation of your Second Amendment protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a denial of the means for you to defend yourself. If you must be in contact with a prisoner, that prisoner should be restrained, not you. It is the duty of the state to contain prisoners, be it keeping them off the streets or held incapable of causing harm even while they are in prison. On the same token, you can be denied access to a prisoner. It is also the duty of the state to protect anyone it has in custody.

So, back to the heart of the topic at hand, the bottom line is that a corporation cannot adopt any bylaw not allowed by law. Corporations do not have rights nor the power to violate rights. That said, there are instances where It would be practical for a business to disallow weapons in certain areas. The area around an MRI machine is a good example. In those instances provisions should be made for the secure storage and easy access to the bearer of those arms.

Woody.

[MattC]

I'm not finding any sources for the claim against Canon USA as I search through Google. Bartholomew Roberts, can you please offer a strong citation for Canon USA's stance on concealed carry permits? Thanks

[Scanr]

Sent them an email. Hope it does some good.

[gm]

It would be interesting to see how many they have terminated based on this topic and also how many received or will receive unemployment from them for such actions.


Im partial to nikon anyhow.

[Erebus]

Well I would like to see an article or something before I go calling for a boycott of Canon. I would like to see them confirm the policy or at least several employees statements that they have been threatened.

If it's true it looks like wrongful termination lawsuits waiting to happen.

[okiebuckout]

I will definately have to find out about this...If its true then that sucks because I love their camera equipment and have LOTS of money tied up into it.

[Double Naught Spy]

See, the problem with America being willing to permit foreign ownership of its companies, is that these companies do not hold American values. They bring into our country, their perverted foreign lack of values, and force us to live the way they live. That is fine for their land, but in our land, we should be able to live like Americans, not Amerikans.

Canon was never an American Company. They are Japanese. As for bringing in foreign values and not holding American values, how do you account for American companies who don't share the same gun values/interests, etc.? Gotta hate foreign values, like hard work and quality workmanship. A lot of those good American values nearly killed a lot of the Ameircan auto industry in in the 1970s.

And what about that great American camera company Minolta. Nope, not American but Japanese-German. In 2006, they announced getting out of the digital and optical camera business.

---------

I looked for the Alert on the TSRA website, but they had nothing. It didn't turn up in news http://www.tsra.com/?p=news or when I searched for "canon" http://www.tsra.com/?p=search&keywor...&search=Search

--------

I don't follow how Canon will get CHL records from TDPS under the Texas Open Records Act given that CHL records are protected by law. I don't see where Greg Abbott has ruled on this during his tenure since 2003. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/...indexpdf.shtml
or John Cornyn during the previous two years.

Unless there is an open records decision on CHLs not yet posted, it does not appear that CHL information can be released under open records claims. Canon can try to request the information, but that doesn't mean they will get it any more than you or I.

[LubeckTech]

We (the firearm owning community) need to send a simple message to Cannon "Can you say Imus"? What would happen to their stock if we get ticked off at them? Boycotting products in an arena where there is stiff competiton is a tactic but so is targeting their stock price. Where's Jim Cramer when you need him? We represent roughly 30 percent of the population and we ars not just a bunch of beer drinking zombies - many of us are business owners and are in positions of management that make decisions about purchasing office equipmentplus a lot of us are in the market most are into mutual funds to some extent and if we pressure our brokers not to have Cannon in our portfoilos it WILL make a difference. Just the fact we are asking for this will have an impact. If Wall St were to understand Cannon had earned our contempt it could be sinificant to their stock value. CCW is an area where we are winning - it is a major battle in this war and must be protected aggressively! NO PRISIONERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is vital we make the businessmen as well as the politicians understand DON"T MESS WITH US!!!

[lance22]

I will NEVER buy a canon printer, paper, camera, film, FLASH memory or anything else.

[Amish_Bill]

Guys -- THIS IS ONE REPORT so far...

Give this a minute to shake out, be proven true and be responded to before you start making decisions based on it.

[rbernie]

I will NEVER buy a canon printer, paper, camera, film, FLASH memory or anything else.

You might wanna wait for proof that this is indeed their corporate policy first.

Not saying that it's not - just sayin' that all I have to go on so far is hearsay.

[Flyboy]

See, the problem with America being willing to permit foreign ownership of its companies....

Canon, Inc. is a publicly-traded company; you can find it on the NYSE under the symbol CAJ: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=caj.

[Sindawe]

You might wanna wait for proof that this is indeed their corporate policy first.

Not saying that it's not - just sayin' that all I have to go on so far is hearsay.

Now what fun would THAT be?

I agree, lets step back and make sure this is indeed Canon Corp. policy and not internet rumor or the folly of some brain-dead manager or HR hack that Corp. knows nothing about.

[Elza]

Their employee manual states that The Company may, from time to time, obtain this information from the Texas Department of Public Safety, under the Texas Open Records Act.

If this is the case, why would they require their employees to disclose it? They (Canon) can get this information any time. I’m starting to detect a familiar odor here folks. I would suggest checking this out. My Daddy taught me to get in the water and check the depth before jumping in head first. I plan to call Canon Monday and see what they say before formulating an opinion. The contacts listed on their web site are for sales. A phone call to the office in Irving would be of more value I believe.