Carrying At Work

[Sparks2112]

The two answers are too closly related. A better answer would be Do you violate the law in order to remain armed?
Such as carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol when State statute makes this specifically illegal.

I didn't figure it would be in the Forum's best interest for me to ask how many of it's members break the law on a daily basis. What with the promotion of responsible ownership and all.

Also let me clarify. My second job that I carry to is NOT a gun free zone. In fact I've seen many armed patrons just in the last week that I've worked there. They do however have a company policy that prohibits it's employees from being armed / defending themselves against attack (their wording). I'm of the opinion that it's an unlawful policy, mainly the not defending yourself against attack.

It's by no means my main source of income, so, if I was forced to quit, that'd be ok. I honestly don't think it'll ever be an issue.

If I can hide a Glock-21SF on my person and have my wife not notice after an entire day out, including random hugs, hip bumps, and all the other PDA's that married couples who still like each other tend to exhibit in public, I think I stand up to the casual observer test.

[Wang]

I carry everywhere it's legal. I can and do carry at work.

[w_houle]

I don't need to carry around work or keep one in the trunk because my next door neighbor is the area where the MPs train their dogs... and I think they would love to let their dogs chew on someone.

[fivepaknh]

Of coarse the legality of carrying against company policy varies from state to state, but in NH there are very few restrictions on where I can carry. In my case I’d be violating company policy, but not breaking the law.

I work 3rd shift and for several years worked alone in a cubicle. I used to carry back then. However, the situation has changed and I’m now in a network center working with other people. The risk of being discovers is too great, so the gun stays in the truck.

[cschwanz]

we are not supposed to carry guns on work property. good thing im in sales and out of the office for 7-8 hours a day

[luvsasmith]

In Ohio you can't carry at work if the company policy doesn't allow it. That is written into the CCW laws.

[threegun]

I wouldn't carry at work if I could loose more than my job. Thankfully we carry openly on the job.

[alloy]

my boss is a SOB, he makes me carry.

[wayneinFL]

"Why would you even take the job in the first place if you knew you were not going to follow the rules that the job said for you to follow?"

Because in my line of work, no employer is going to allow that. If you're attacked, you're expected to die to save the company from any sort of embarrassment. Yet, as a father of four, I feel the duty to provide for my children while staying alive to continue to be a father to them.

Not every employee follows company policy to the letter; most don't. Some employees lie about being sick, or take off work early without telling the boss. Others steal office supplies.

I take measures to protect mine and my coworkers' lives despite the conflict with company policy.

[David Armstrong]

Because in my line of work, no employer is going to allow that. If you're attacked, you're expected to die to save the company from any sort of embarrassment. Yet, as a father of four, I feel the duty to provide for my children while staying alive to continue to be a father to them.

Sorry, but I've always found "I want to make more money" to be a poor excuse for dishonesty.

Not every employee follows company policy to the letter; most don't. Some employees lie about being sick, or take off work early without telling the boss. Others steal office supplies.

And do you think those actions are OK or dishonest?

Not meaning to be insulting to anybody in particular, but my philosophy has been and is that employment is a deal between company and employee. And the deal is that if you do what the company has told you (generic you, not personal) the company will give you a certain amount of money and benefits. If the shoe was on the other foot, if the company decided they didn't have to live up to their end of the bargain, you would think it wrong and dishonest. "Yes, I know we agreed to pay you $15 an hour for your work, and you've certainly lived up to your end of the arrangement, but we are only going to give you $9 an hour." Most would holler about how dishonest and wrong that was, and many would even sue.
My $.02: We talk a lot about gun folks being honest and law-abiding. We should expect both even when it is inconvenient. Using the old adage of "never go anywhere with a gun you would not be willing to go without a gun", if you feel that your workplace is so dangerous that you need to carry a gun even when it is expressly prohibited, you might want to look for another place to work.

[threegun]

Sorry, but I've always found "I want to make more money" to be a poor excuse for dishonesty.

We here in America have the constitutional right to self defense. Business owners who wish to deprive us of this right are then obligated to pay for our protection. If they refuse us both the right to carry and the protection we are entitled to, then it is not dishonest to break the unconstitutional rule. The only dishonesty is the belief that one has the right to violate the rights of another citizen.

BTW, I have yet to see a company in Corporate America that allows its employees to carry. To say that most could or should find employment which allows carry is a fantasy.

[HuntAndFish]

I picked "risk getting caught", even though that's not completely accurate.

I (implicitly) agreed to abide by the rules in the employee handbook when I accepted the job. I won't intentionally break those rules even though it would be legal to carry at work.

[Sparks2112]

In Ohio you can't carry at work if the company policy doesn't allow it. That is written into the CCW laws.

The business still has to post the applicable "no carry" signage. Otherwise the company policy isn't enforceable by law. This from several different police officers from several different departments.

So since I've posted this thread I've talked to most of the officers who come in to my job during the night shift. All of them A) Think that everybody who can carry should carry (made me happy with our local PD's) and B) Agree with my interpretation that while I could be legally fired from the job, there would be no criminal penalties because it's legal for everyone else to carry where I work (I.E. the business isn't posted). So, there you go.

[Bogie]

I would never carry at work. Just seems pointless, with the Winchester Trapper leaning in the corner and all...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting issue - first, I personally believe legislation should be passed that does not allow businesses to ban carry unless there is a technical reason for such (the MRI ban for instance).

However, it was stated

If they refuse us both the right to carry and the protection we are entitled to, then it is not dishonest to break the unconstitutional rule.

This is a legal question. Does the employer have the right to control some kind of BOR 'right' on the job? Not at home or in your private life but while on the job. An employer certainly could stop you from prostelytizing your religion as you self a whopper to the schmuck on line at Burger King - is that a 1st Amend. issue?

The employer is prohibited from discriminating against you in hiring because of your religion but if you start to spout it to customers, I would think that could be stopped.

The Constitutional provision doesn't apply to behavior on the job. You can paint pictures of naked people. Can you wear a naked person t-shirt on the job - if wearing t-shirts are ok?

I think the term unconstitutional in this case is being applied loosely. However, I would support legislation (under the commerce clause) that would forbid such bans.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn and David,
You both pose interesting discussion.

Let me frame it this way, does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense? That is without offering you protection thru some security measures? If no then I see this differs a bit from stealing company supplies and/or proselytizing your religion both are "intrusive" and cause damage to the company or it's employees rather than "unobtrusively" carrying a weapon which harms no one. That may be a poor sentence but I think you know what I mean.

If I am murdered at work can my wife then sue the company for my death in that the company did not protect me? If not, then it might be argued that the company cannot keep me from carrying. If the company is responsible for my safety and takes reasonable means to protect me then that's one thing. But if they say we are not responsible for your safety but you cannot carry either then the ethics of that is tough. This sort of falls under a type of civil disobedience. I know you must suffer the consequences if caught but it might be ethical to "disobey" your boss on this one. Kind of like the Pizza Hut Deliveryman.

Wondered what you thought?

[P35]

at my job we have a don't ask, don't tell policy
no one ever said I couldn't carry, I for sure won't tell them that I do

[Glenn E. Meyer]

does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense?

I don't think they do but the issue is the constitutional protection and I don't think that applies here unless someone decides (SCOTUS) that gun carriers are a protected class.

As far as suing for not being allowed to carry - I don't think that has been done yet. Folks have sued for not being protected at work and for firms not taking actions against known threats. Like VT being sued for not taking stronger action against the erratic behavior of Cho or other folks who have threatened employees. But no one has pulled off a suit on not carrying.

There is a legal liability literature on this subject and most come down to the risk of being sued because an employee misusing a legally carried gun seems worse to the risk managers than the payoff of an employee or their family suing for because they couldn't carry. The payoff for an employees who kills an innocent while trying to stop a rampage or a legal carrying employee who becomes a rampager is predicted to cost more than the victim of the Cho type shooter.

Remember corporate entities only care about the survival of the corporate entity - they have absolutely no interest in YOUR survival if it impacts their bottom line.

I have sat through talks on this. You will never convince most major corporate or other large organizations to allow carry for employees in our current milieu. Some small organizations in gun culture areas might. Like that little school board in TX. Or you can get state legislatures in gun friendly states to override educational or business rules.

Remember that the 'socalled' conservative business community will raise Holy Hell to stop such. Happened in TX - tough old business right wing nut businessmen came out of the woodwork to block a law allowed guns in parking lots. 'Conservative' to them only meant low taxes, hire illegals and more money for my trophy wife.

They will blather about property rights but that's just duplicitous right wing horse**** to cover their worship at the alter of Mammon.

[wildturkey76209]

First if your holster is doing its job nobody should ever find out that you are carrying at work. Second, Dishonesty does not equal breaking "company policy". Third, "no carry" at work policies don't address one's commute now does it. Finally prohibiting otherwise lawful persons from legally carrying on one's property should get you sued if anything ever happened.

[Kreyzhorse]

It is against policy to carry at work and I obey those rules.

[David Armstrong]

does any employer have the right to deprive you of the God-given right of self defense?

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate teh law. If you voluntarily go to work for that employer, he is not depriving you of a right, you are voluntarily agreeing to waive that right in exchange for compensation.

If I am murdered at work can my wife then sue the company for my death in that the company did not protect me?

Sure. Whether she would have much chance of success would hinge mostly on if there was a recognized specific threat or danger the company knew of and had failed to take any action.

This sort of falls under a type of civil disobedience.

I don't buy that. Civil disobedience that nobody is aware of is really not civil disobedience, IMO.

Wondered what you thought?

I tend to agree with Glenn. I wish we had and would support legislation prohibiting a ban. But until such legislation is passed I point out that if you voluntarily enter into a relationship with an employer which is based on following rules as a condition of employment, then failing to follow those rules is dishonest. You would feel it dishonest if it were reversed, and your employer had agreed to do something (salary, retirement, etc.) and didn't follow through. Let's put it in simple terms. You have agree to follow the rules, but carried in violation of your agreement for 20 years, is it OK if your employer has been saying he was putting away money in your retirement pension for 20 years and wasn't?

[David Armstrong]

Second, Dishonesty does not equal breaking "company policy".

So if the company breaks policy regarding pay and benefits and does not pay you what they agreed to pay you after yo have already done the work, they are not being dishonest?

[MauiDoc]

....which is essentially never, in this state. At the range 1 or 2x a month is it. Would if I could, and am becoming more active in the political end of things to try and get the laws here straightened out a bit.

MauiDoc

[MauiDoc]

Hey, Sparks, my retired skinny ol' dad worked the overnight shift at an off-ramp gas station on I-80 between Sacramento and Reno, and he carried against policy. One night a guy busts in with a bandana over his face pointing a gun at my dad, and demanding money. Dad jumped behind the Coke machine, cross-drew his .45 from under his jacket (shoulder hoslter), pointed it at the guy and shouted, 'Get on outta here!' BG turned and ran.

Dad called cops, sherrif's deputy came out, recognized my dad's unusual last name, asked him if he knew me (we went to 4th thru 12th grades together), when he found out that was my dad, wrote his report to state the BG ran off when confronted. No mention of my dad's gun.

Found out later the guy held up another station a ways up the road, then pulled off in the desert and shot himself dead. Sad for him, but better him than my dad. Or you.

Weigh the benefits against the hazards, and make your own decision.

My 11.3 cents (inflation)

[Nnobby45]

I tend to agree with Glenn. I wish we had and would support legislation prohibiting a ban. But until such legislation is passed I point out that if you voluntarily enter into a relationship with an employer which is based on following rules as a condition of employment, then failing to follow those rules is dishonest.

I'm aware of number of people who violate the company's policy with re: to carrying on the job who are FAR MORE HONEST than the company which prohibits carry in the interest of their own MONETARY liability, while the "dishonest" employee referred to by David, carries in defense of his own life so that he/she might go home to his family at the end of the shift.

If you have much time invested in a company and stand to lose your job and pension, then you have a call to make.

If you work in a high risk, low wage job, you owe it to yourself to find another job, or carry the means to protect yourself.

An employer has the right to establish the rules he thinks are best for his workplace provided he does not violate teh law. If you voluntarily go to work for that employer, he is not depriving you of a right, you are voluntarily agreeing to waive that right in exchange for compensation.

That's BUNK, David. I agreed to no such policy when I hired on. The company changed the rules after I had 25 years service. Guess I should have quit and found another job and lost my retirement. Right?

My violation of the rules amounted to having a weapon in my car on company property (no choice).
I didn't carry on the job, but was able to arm myself after work and carry on with my life, which I valued enough to protect in defiance of the companys' personal liability concerns.

LASTLY: Personally, I have no quarell with those, like Mr. Armstrong, who consider the company's policy more important than their life and wish to comply. Or even those who only comply out of fear.