Canon's Policy on CHL

[MechAg94]

Reference: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=269526

I contacted TSRA and tried to get more information on Canon's policy toward concealed handgun permits. They couldn't give me anything but the excerpt below from Canon's policy; so this is, to the best of my knowledge, 3rd hand from an employee. This gives a few more details anyway.

Aside from that section B, this looks largely the same as my employer's weapons policy. I don't know why they want to know about CHL's or applications. The rest of the policy covers their position well enough. It just seems to me that it crosses over a legal privacy line. Most HR guys I have met were very picky about legal issues. What would they use that information for that wouldn't increase liability or get them in hot water legally? Just one more excuse for a terminated employee to sue. I would think Canon's HR guys would have better things to do. TSRA primarily notes this as one of their examples why Texas needs a law that is under consideration now that would make CHL information private. I don't think TSRA is trying to start any boycotts right now, just publicize it a little for the legislative hearings.

Just wanted to pass this on, not start another 7 page thread. My suggestion is that if you want to talk about it, contact Canon and politely let them know your opinion.

Concealed Weapon Policy

The following will serve as a reaffirmation of Canon USA, Inc.'s long standing policy of strictly prohibiting the "possession of firearms, explosives or other weapons on company Premises" (See current edition "Inside Canon USA ~A Handbook For Employees")

I. Purpose

To prevent the use, sale or control of firearms (including handguns) on Company premises whether or not a permit or license exists with regard to such weapons.

II. Policy
A. THE USE, POSSESSION, SALE, CONTROL, OR CARRYING OF HANDGUNS OR OTHER WEAPONS BY ANY PERSON ON COMPANY PREMISES IS PROHIBITED. A VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY BY AN EMPLOYEE WILL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. GUESTS OR VISITORS OF THE COMPANY WHO VIOLATE THIS POLICY WILL BE ASKED TO IMMEDIATELY LEAVE THE PREMISES.

B. All employees, who are residents of the State of Texas, are required to confirm, with the regional Human Resources Manager, whether they have:

~ applied for or been issued a license to carry a handgun;
~been denied a license to carry a handgun;
~had their license to carry a handgun revoked, suspended or limited in any way;
~been charged with or convicted of violating any law or regulation relating to concealed handguns.

The Company may, from time to time, obtain this information from the Texas Departments 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.

C. The Company may conduct personal and property searches on Company premises, to determine the presence of prohibited weapons. The failure or refusal of any employee to agree to such an inspection will result in immediate termination of employment.

 

[Old Fuff]

B. All employees, who are residents of the State of Texas, are required to confirm, with the regional Human Resources Manager, whether they have:

~ applied for or been issued a license to carry a handgun;
~been denied a license to carry a handgun;
~had their license to carry a handgun revoked, suspended or limited in any way;
~been charged with or convicted of violating any law or regulation relating to concealed handguns.

The Company may, from time to time, obtain this information from the Texas Departments 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.

While I am satisfied that Canon has a right to determine if an employee or potential employee has been convicted of any crime involving a handgun or concealed weapons license, I don't believe it is any of their business if an employee or potential employee has simply applied for, or been issued such a license.

Therefore I will no longer purchase Canon products.

 

[Sven]

Looks like a solid confirmation by me. See ya later, Canon.

 

[MechAg94]

Well, if someone hears something different, please post it.

 

[F4GIB]

Now, don't all of you people who wouldn't believe the TSRA e-mail (see the closed thread) feel foolish. TSRA is as believable a source as NRA.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Damn. I was leaning toward Canon for my next photo printer too, as their ink prices are more reasonable than Epson and HP.

Sux for them. And me, but more for them. (More reason to stick with a DSLR that takes Nikon mount lenses as well, rather than considering a switch.)

 

[obxned]

Already wrote Canon and told them why my new camera and all future cameras would NOT be Canon.

 

[Johnnybgood]

I sent this email with a copy of the employee policy cited above.

This supposed gun Policy of Cannon inc. has been floating around the internet. This was supposedly supplied by an employee. Since no link can be found that shows this policy I am requesting a clarification if this is the true policy of Cannon Inc. A link to the appropriate policy would be appreciated.
You should know that a number of people who were going to purchase Cannon products are now considering your competitors based on this policy.
The main contention is the policy concerning off property behavior i.e. whether an employee has applied for or received a concealed carry permit. Many believe this is none of your buisness as long as the employee is abiding with your wishes not to carry on company property.
If you have any questions, comments, please feel free to contact me and I will pass on your views to the internet community.

 

[mec]

The person who responded to me said that he/she/it was not aware of that particular policy. You can bet they are aware of it now. The policy does not violate any criminal or civil statute in Texas including anti-discrimination laws.
Nevertheless, it is a morally bankrupt intrusion and Canon USA should be ashamed of itself.
I hope the proposed privacy act gets unlodged from committee and passes.

 

[Geister]

Canon has absolutely no business knowing what an employee does in his personal life as long as it does not affect his work performance.

 

[Erebus]

Where are you guys sending these emails? I would like to send one of my own to inform them I will no longer buy their products.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Related information from Oleg's exchange with Canon that is a "must read" for anyone following this situation:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=274016

 

[30 cal slob]

organized boycott!

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

organized boycott!

Did you even bother to read the link I posted with Oleg's exchange with Canon or did you just decide to run straight to thumping on your chest and screaming "boycott!" before having all the information?


For those that can't be troubled to click a link before posting:

Just got this email:

Dear Mr. Volk:

I am the head of Human Resources for Canon U.S.A., and your recent email to Mr. Ishizuka has been referred to me for reply.


The statement to which you refer was previously distributed to new Canon employees in Irving, Texas, however, this is no longer being done. The statement is not included in our current employee handbook, nor was it ever included in the previous employee handbook which was superseded many years ago.

In light of recent national events, Canon is currently reviewing its policies regarding workplace safety, which includes, amongst other things, possession of firearms on Company premises and while on Company business.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention and for being a loyal Canon customer.

Sincerely,

William E. Gilbert
Vice President and General Manager
Human Resources Division

I sent them a reply:

Dear Mr. Gilbert,

Thank you very much for your reply. As you may have observed from the discussions on the web, a number of people are contemplating a boycott of Canon products. Since I am quite happy with the gear and with CPS support, I am glad that it would be unnecessary for me to do so.

In the light of the recent and not so recent events, I'd like to offer for your consideration that -- especially in restrictive California -- people who legally wear sidearms are almost invariably more law-abiding in all areas of their lives than the average population. They already passed numerous background checks and so pose no threat to their co-workers.

Conversely, the psychopaths who do pose a threat tend to be attracted to the locations where laws and/or workplace policies guarantee them a pool of disarmed targets. The threat of job termination doesn't impress people who come ready to murder and suicide.

With those considerations, I would recommend making no policy either restricting or encouraging discreet carry of sidearms for self-defense. The wearing of arms is no more a company matter than having air bags in vehicles: both go bang and have life-saving potential for the individual employees, neither impinges on the company interests.

If the decision makers would like additional input into this matter, I would happily arrange contacts with professional firearms use and safety trainers, including gratis admission to the courses required for California carry license or to general handgun use and safety classes. Having experience with the devices which are far simpler -- and equally morally neutral -- as any Canon camera, may prove helpful to the policy discussions.

Oleg Volk

If you write to Mr. Gilbert at [email protected], please keep to polite, practical suggestions. Utility and ethics would make better input than appeals to the Second Amendment guarantees.

Again, the link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=274016

 

[Soybomb]

good to see canon isn't a problem

 

[morcoth]

Thanks Oleg!

Im going to incorporate this into my anti/uninformed conversion database

The wearing of arms is no more a company matter than having air bags in vehicles: both go bang and have life-saving potential for the individual employee

Ill paraphrase it a bit, but Its great.

OT: I was sceptical that Canon had such a policy, Thanks to all that helped clear it up, now Ill have to take the Canon camera out of the "Future Tannerite Targets" bin, /sigh


Hmm, I smell a new poster here...
top: brick wall, + car(with arrow pointing to airbag) = Happy Family

Bottom Perp with knife + father from above with gun = Happy Family

"they both go bang, and can save your life!"

Morcoth

 

[Erebus]

Glad to see this. I really want a new Canon Digital Rebel.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff will continue to wait and see how the "reviews" come out. They may be serious, or simply doing some damage control while they decide what too do. It may have been that the manager in Texas acted on his or her own, but I would expect such a preson to pass it on the the company headquarters for review and approval first...