changing my employers mind

Status
Not open for further replies.

srschick

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
130
I work in Missouri, which just recently allowed concealed carry.
The problem is that my employer, a medium (~1000 employees) size manufacturing company (mostly defense related goods) has posted the dreaded "not on these premises" signs.

I'm am going to plead "our" case to to the top tier of management.

The one question I would like to ask is:
Does anyone know of any particular instances of a CCW holder foiling an attempt by another person who was going to perform a work-place shooting?

Thanks,
Steve
 
I am having the same problem with mine in Ohio. I do however have a corporate meeting about it with the company lawyers in about a month!!
 
How did you go about setting up a meeting with the lawers?
I was just going to go to the HR VP and if he couldn't answer, to the Board of Directors.
I will try to keep this non-political, and try to plead my case without any emotion or hostility (towards these idiots)

I wasn't planning on pushing too far, just trying to get them to see it from another prospective, other than them covering their asses.
 
A few of us have tried at work to no avail even though we carry cash. Lawyer told us we were basically screwed but push on if you can.
 
Here is a couple of excerpts from an article I found here


States allow private property owners to prohibit concealed carry

In every state that grants concealed weapons permits to private citizens - and the two states that require no such permits, Alaska and Vermont - private property owners may forbid permit holders from entering their property armed. Dr. John Lott, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, believes companies that prohibit concealed carry should consider changing their policies.

"I understand people's desire to create these so-called 'gun free zones,'" Lott said. "The problem with it and the unintended consequences, though, are that the people who are likely to obey those rules are the law-abiding good citizens, who you don't have anything to worry about.

"Rather than creating safe zones for victims, I think you unintentionally create safe zones for those who are intent on trying to do the harm," Lott added.

To reinforce his point, Lott asks detractors to consider the possibility of a member of their family being stalked or threatened.

"Would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home that said, 'This home is a gun-free zone?'" Lott asks. "Would that make it less likely that they would attack you? I think most people have a pretty immediate reaction to that, realizing that it would be pretty counterproductive."

Lott believes prohibiting concealed weapons permit holders from bringing their firearms to work has the same effect.

"It encourages attacks to take place in those areas," Lott said.

Research shows so-called 'gun free zones' invite armed criminal attacks

That conclusion, Lott said, is not mere speculation. He and University of Chicago Professor William Landes studied "multiple victim public shootings" from 1977 through 1999 and reported the results in The Bias Against Guns.

"The normal types of law enforcement, where you impose penalties after the fact, aren't really relevant to a lot of these guys when they commit these crimes because they seem to have some expectation that there's a high probability that they are going to die," Lott explained.

In fact, in more than 70 percent of the rampage shootings studied, the criminal died at the scene, either from a self-inflicted gunshot wound or after being shot in self-defense by another civilian or law enforcement officer. The pair also examined 13 kinds of gun laws - including waiting periods, background checks, bans on so-called "assault weapons," etc. - and determined that passage of only one type of law yielded a reduction in such killing sprees.

"The only one that we found that had any impact was the passage of right to carry [concealed weapons] laws, and the effect was huge," Lott said. "After states passed right to carry laws, they saw about a 60 percent drop in the rate at which these attacks occurred and about a 78 percent drop in the rate at which people were either killed or injured in these attacks."

and...

"In those states that passed [right to carry laws], to the extent to which attacks still occur, they tended to be significantly related to the number of 'gun free zones' that were there," Lott explained, "and, also, they tended to be much more likely to take place in these particular areas, once they became 'gun free zones' as compared to other places.

"When the whole state, in some sense, was a 'gun free zone,' before they passed right to carry laws, you'd see a distribution across all sorts of places," Lott continued. "But it was much more narrowly concentrated in areas that were obviously 'gun free zones' after right to carry laws were passed and those places were given specific exemptions."

Maybe Dr. John Lott's work is the place to start for material. Just a suggestion.
 
When we were having our bit of activism here in Phoenix... see

http://www.unarmedvictimzone.com

the evil trolls at the Arizona Dept of Revenue tried to scare up an example of an armed state employee using a gun for mayhem. The only thing they came up with was an unarmed state employee who was killed by her estranged husband.

Rick
 
I am unfortunate enough to be in management and once a year our team of lawyers comes in and updates us on all the changes in all of the laws that are relative to our work. I have already informed many people to expect me to not keep quiet. I am surrounded by antis!!:banghead:

Today I saw all the new signs they are going to post :cuss:

I think I will post some of my own.
 
lets try again.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • nogun_sign.gif
    nogun_sign.gif
    4.6 KB · Views: 638
Guys you have to remember that even if the business owner/manager supportes CCW
they do face libabitly issues.

Bill Meadows
 
Here's my advice. Take it for what it's worth:

Don't fight the policy. You aren't going to win and all you will do is put yourself out as "someone to watch."

I DO NOT reccomend violating the law. But, in most cases, a violation of company policy is not, in itself, a violation of the law. It may be against company policy to carry a gun to work, but if it is within the law, just remember that "concealed means concealed."

If no one knows you are violating policy, how can you get in trouble? If you fight the policy ahead of time, you're just pointing yourself out as someone who wants to carry a gun at work and someone they should watch to see if you violate the ban.

Just keep your mouth shut and do what you have to do.
 
Rather than try to get the company to be pro-carry (it's not going to happen because of liability issues), try to get their position to be that they don't have a position.

Explain to the lawyers that posting signs and stating in the handbook the fact that you are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons opens them up to liability lawsuits if someone is killed at work by an outsider who walked right in and shot someone. Now, if they didn't have any policy and that happened, then the person would have had a choice and the chance of a lawsuit would be lessened. My work prohibits weapons and my wife is under strict orders to sue the hell out of the company if something like that happens to me.

If they remove the signs and references in the employee handbook, most won't even notice. They don't have to actively promote CCW. I think if you look at it in this way you might have a chance.
 
Do they prohibit the possession of ALL drugs, or only illegal drugs? Ask if they would change the policy to prohibit only illegal or illegally carried weapons.
 
"Zero Tolerance," don't ya know? If it's good enough for the children...

Good argument, HB. I'll adopt it as my own. :evil:

Rick
 
This is becoming a common enough occurence that the dance should be worked out by someone (lawyer?) somewhere.

Offhand, other than anti gun bias and fear of workplace rage incidents (like a rule would stop someone from murder), they can probably cite insurance liability costs and concerns.

On your side, you can say that if they force you to give up your right to self defense, then they accept responsibility for your security.

Pretty weak argument for you, because they are probably responsible for your security anyway . . . . . or at least no more responsible.

Hate to admit it, but aside from the obvious disclaimer that I am not recommending you break any laws, if you conceal the gun well, then they won't find out about it unless you need to use it.

In which case better to be unemployed and alive than dead.
 
I have had two interactions with companies who were biased against guns.

One, I was fired for refusing to sign a "I won't carry a weapon in the building even though I am a lawfully licensed carrier". The company settled my claim for wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit out of court. It is sealed, so please don't ask what happened or why beyond the above.

The second, the company had no policy on weapons at work.. because it never even occurred to them someone might be carrying. Well after three months of working there, my brother in law (who also works there) made some stupid remark, asking if I was "packing" today. I just walked away, but not before the owner heard the comment and asked what he meant. It was then discovered that I carried everyday. He told me not to carry anymore because he wasn't comfortable with it. I told him I would continue to carry until he posted signs and then I would no longer enter the building at all (i.e. I would quit). After several days of negotiations, I now continue to carry my weapon.

Well, after the last 7 months now at this company, the owner got his CCW and is now not carrying on a daily basis, but has come around to the idea that ANYBODY could be attacked by a disgruntled employer.

So it isn't impossible to change people's minds... but you have to do it eloquently enough. John Lott quotes above are good... they are part of what I used.

It just so happened that while I was talking to the boss about this, Utah had a public slaying where a disgruntled work killed some people about 15 miles from our office building... that helped too ;)

Semper Fidelis
 
The new Ohio CCW law expressly protects the employer from liability if they ALLOW (or do not prohibit) CCW. It is silent on whether there could be liability if CCW is forbidden. An employment lawyer at my firm (who has been urging client companies to "consider" banning all weapons) agreed with this analysis and said that we would not know until there is a test case in the courts. Hopefully, the legislature will fix that and other problems on the law as soon as Ken Blackwell in Governor in 2006 before we need a test case.
 
i happened to come across a 'word' document on my server, seems eventually the entire employee handbook will be revised with all kinds of new 'dont dos'.

currently we have a 'no weapons policy'. the next handbook may or may not have been 'altered' to make it a 'no illegal weapons' policy. :D

they shoulda password protected that document.


my supervisor knows i carry, but hes told me that if the head boss finds out, i'd have to stop. i told him that i'd quit if it came to that, because i will NOT compromise.
only half of my job is do-able by anyone else, they'd be screwed if i did quit.
 
On the question of a CCW licensed person stopping or preventing a workplace shooting ...

No, I don't know of such a case, and it's unlikely one would happen because so many employers prohibit arms. However there was a case where a school vice-principal used a personally owned .45 pistol to deter a teen about to shoot up a school. This of course was before the schools started prohibiting staff from carrying in most areas. Utah might be an exception.

On the other hand ask them to document a case of a CCW licensed person commiting a workplace shooting. I don't know of any of those either, and over 30 states have CCW laws.
 
Ahh, but you couldn't drop the damn leaflets in DC as it is also a no-fly zone :)

No guns. No planes. No fun :(
 
Metro is the name of the subway, so I couldn't use a plane anyway ... well perhaps a really, really small ultralight. Woosh Woosh Thud ;)
 
I don't have any stories about a CCW licensed person stopping a workplace violent crime... but here is one story that is sorta related.

Edgewater Technologies, Wakefield, MA shooting

An Army veteran, Sandy had been trained to stare death in the face. He barricaded several coworkers into a room and went out to meet McDermott.

There was no naivete on Sandy's part. As an avid sportsman, he was quite familiar with firearms. He even possessed a concealed carry license from the state of New Hampshire.
 
I can't give you an example of a shooting being stopped by a CCH holder at work.

I can give you 2 clear examples of how a shooting could have been stopped had a CCH holder been permitted to pack at work.

1>Wakefield Mass shooting. IIRC 7 people were murdered by the perp. No 3 in line to be killed was a CCH holder from New Hampshire who was unarmed because Mass law prohibited CCH in general much less CCH at work. We will never know if victim #3 could have stopped the deaths of #4, #5, #6 and #7.

2>Meridian MS at a defense contractor recently had a nut employee get PO'd and come back in shooting. I saw a report (only once) that said one of the victims who was wounded lost a hand because he attempted to wrest the gun out of the hand of the perp. If he was close enough to grab at the firearm, how much more effective would he have been if he was packing. Again, lots of whatiffin' but the principal is the same. We will never know.

Slightly tangental to the pooint at hand was the shooting at a southwest Virginia law school. News reports said two students confronted the perp after the shooting and he surrendered. The first 4 onsight reports got it right. The two students had guns in their cars and they ran to said cars, grab their handguns and confronted the perp with their hand guns. Follow-on reports on the wires curiously omit the little factoid of the guns in the hands of the students.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top