Discussion of weapons now considered to be violence

[divemedic]

Here.

"Domestic Violence Affecting the Workplace" includes violent acts (whether occurring within or outside of the workplace) occurring between family or household members, and which the Firm, in its sole discretion and judgment, determines affects Mintz Levin's workplace. Such conduct includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

* Any act or threat of an act of physical aggression that causes physical harm to any other person (regardless of gender)
* Any statement or action that reasonably could be perceived as demonstrating an intent to cause physical or serious emotional harm to another (regardless of gender)
* Intimidation or verbal harassment
* Disorderly conduct
* Display or discussion of weapons
* Threats of suicide
* Homicide, assault and battery or rape
* Stalking
* Enlisting, coercing or asking others to do any of the above actions
* Aiding or abetting others in doing any of the above actions

[SKULLANDCROSSBONES65]

G'day. I wonder how they intend to define a weapon? After all a car can be used as a weapon. Have they not herd of people being attacked by somebody with a hammer or screwdriver? Ever had somebody throw a book at you? People who think up or support these type of rules are the ones who don't want to solve the underlying problems in our society. They think that they will be safe, but dont want to deal with the real issues. What ever happened to respect, certisy honor, manners, truth etc? Sorry I'll get of my horse.

[SKULLANDCROSSBONES65]

G'day again, just read the link. I don't know if I would use a law firm that would ban the 'Display or discussion of weapons'. they might as well have a big sign that says "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story".

[noyes]

Discussion of weapons now considered to be violence


Where i work that is not new......

You just have to have some sense about what you say . And if so & so is around .....sssssh ...stop talking. You would be surprize . If i can find a link on the outside world i will post it.

[nate45]

Context is everything, two friends, or co-workers talking about a newly acquired firearm, trip to the range, etc and someone who is obviously using the fact that they own a weapon in an intimidating manner are two different things.

Notice how it reads displaying or discussing weapons. That coupled with the rest of the points listed leads me to believe that they mean discussing weapons in an intimidating, or threatening manner.

[SKULLANDCROSSBONES65]

G'day. How about just putting up your targets? Or photo of tour successful hunt?

[IZinterrogator]

That coupled with the rest of the points listed leads me to believe that they mean discussing weapons in an intimidating, or threatening manner.

Yes, but these days we seem to have a problem with too many closed-minded individuals enforcing the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. It's everywhere, but especially in the schools. Get expelled for taking an aspirin? Possible in the context of the war on drugs due to the letter of the law. Get suspended for bringing a butter knife to school? Sure, gotta enforce those no-weapon policies. Common sense is no longer all that common when it comes to enforcement, and mandatory sentencing doesn't allow people to practice using good judgment, which leads to a complete lack of judgment due to atrophy.

[hoytinak]

Not a day goes by that I don't have some kinda firearms related discussion at work.

[noyes]

some info but not all of it.... http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=2&gl=us

[chemgirlie]

If I talk about buying a Louisville slugger baseball bat to improve my game (I'm really awful at baseball) get me into hot water too? Baseball bats are used in domestic violence crimes and robberies all the time. If you can't talk about guns, then talk of baseball bats, talking about roofies (date rape drug), and talking about Chicago Cutlery ought to be banned too.

[209]

I hate to sound like a paranoid person, but this thread shows exactly how the antis are going to win the day. They'll keep inserting anti-gun messages into every single thing until the overload of the "weapons are bad" message becomes second nature to people.

It's taught in a lot of the schools- the kids graduate and it's taught as part of their employee's handbook. They see and hear negative comments in the paper and on the news. It's all around us. I don't honestly know if they're winning yet but it's not for a lack of trying.

[divemedic]

Upon further investigation, it is because OSHA is defining workplace violence as "discussing or bringing weapons to work."

http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/ote/trng-ma.../wpvhealth.ppt

[amd6547]

I have had firearms, ammo, mags and other supplies shipped TO work...

[vito]

Once a rule is made it can easily be mis-used. Maybe the intention is to stop intimidating talk, but the rule merely says "discussion". As noted elsewhere in this thread, just look at the "zero tolerance" policies in schools. My 14 year old had a two inch pocket knife in his coat pocket that he had forgotten about. An anonymous called accused him of having marijuana with him, which led to his search in the principal's office. When they found the "weapon" he was suspended for two weeks and his "case" was sent to the school district board with a state-mandated recommendation for expulsion for a year. Only because one assistant principal went to bat for him did the school board show mercy and not expel him. This type thinking is also in the workplace, and rules such as the "discussion of firearms" will be used to fire workers that the supervisor doesn't like, etc. The end is here.

[Bud Helms]

I hate to sound like a paranoid person, but this thread shows exactly how the antis are going to win the day.

Not this thread. The linked source does. The source of the information is not an opinion stated here.

...
Notice how it reads displaying or discussing weapons. That coupled with the rest of the points listed leads me to believe that they mean discussing weapons in an intimidating, or threatening manner.

The problem with intentions (what they mean) is that policy makers miss their chance to clearly state what they mean in the wording of the policy. Intentions are not enforceable. The written version of the policy is enforceable.

[noyes]

had to edit some of it........




The following error has occurred: policy_denied:
Your system policy has denied access to the requested URL.
Page requested: www.thefiringline.com

Try these steps to fix the error
Try another URL - The web site that you have attempted to visit: www.thefiringline.com is categorized as Weapons
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

THIS SITE CONTAINS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx WARNING: YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ACCESS A xxxxxx COMPUTER SYSTEM. ACCESS TO THIS SYSTEM IS RESTRICTED xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THIS SYSTEM MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS UNLAWFUL OR DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[44 AMP]

And the open ended phrase "hostile work environment". US law states workers have a right to be safe at work. Safe from physical hazards (like chemical exposure), and safe from a "hostile work environment". Interpretation of the policy is the realm of your firm's HR people. Doesn't matter if the subject is weapons, threats, or sexual material, the law says that companies must have a policy (without stating explicitly what the poilicy can or cannot be), and it is up to company beancounters to come up with one that will not cost them money (as in being sued).

Your "rights" of free speech and association apply only in the context of government regulation. Your employer can set nearly any rules they wish. Don't like them? Quit. Or fight against them, and maybe get fired. Or maybe get them changed. It all depends on the particulars of the policy, and the employer.

[divemedic]

Except that this policy is being pushed by OSHA in pretty explicit terms. Go to my last post and look at the power point there. It specifically lists "fascination with weapons" as an example of workplace violence.

This is not a free market policy, this is a policy that is being sponsored by OSHA. There is no excuse for this. If it is constitutional for a government agency gets a company to violate your constitutional rights through regulation by using that company as a proxy, then no right is safe. The government can get proxies to search our homes, limit our speech, and fire us for practicing religion.

If OSHA is telling employers that "fascination" or discussion of weapons is workplace violence, and that ownership of weapons is violence, and then makes the statement that all businesses must have a policy against violence, then it makes it hard to "go somewhere else to work," because all companies will have such a policy.

This dangerous precedent must be stopped, but I do not see how to stop it in this political environment.

[mdshooter]

My company's in big trouble, then.

You see, we develop weapons (amongst other things). Which is kind of hard to do if you can't talk about them. To say nothing about the guy down the hall from me who passes my door once or twice a week carrying a light machine gun (in a case, of course)

[AZ Med18]

This is kinda ridiculous. I dont work in a safe environment. I work on the streets good luck securing all of that OSHA.

We discuss weapons at work, like why can't we carry them....

[TEDDY]

and people wonder why companies go over seas,its alot easier to import products,than to go thru the hoops to make the product.all you have to have is an office staff.

[nate45]

Originally Posted by IZinterrogator

Yes, but these days we seem to have a problem with too many closed-minded individuals enforcing the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law

Originally Posted by vito

Maybe the intention is to stop intimidating talk, but the rule merely says "discussion". As noted elsewhere in this thread, just look at the "zero tolerance" policies in schools.

Originally Posted by Bud Helms

The problem with intentions (what they mean) is that policy makers miss their chance to clearly state what they mean in the wording of the policy. Intentions are not enforceable. The written version of the policy is enforceable.

Those points are all well taken and I agree, the PC, left leaning, zero tolerance, zero common sense crowd could possibly consider any mention of any weapon a violation of the rule. There are cases all the time to prove it.

What do we do about though? It is really no surprise that anti-gun, left leaning, scared of their own shadow, lawyers would craft an ambiguously written and inane policy, that could end up hurting the innocent. A good question though is, what if anything can be done about it? Demand clarification, challenge it in court, etc. What?

[EricReynolds]

I would think a person just needs to use some common sense and know who they're talking to. A hunting buddy who I work with, I'd think is safe to talk guns with. Showing a picture of a new pistol I just bought to someone I don't know very well...I wouldn't. I'm probably just making conversation but how do I know that person isn't someone who's very uncomfortable with guns and is now intimidated by me? What's unreasonable is if I'm talking to my hunting buddy and that other guys overhears our conversation and now he has a problem with us. What's next? I guess don't talk to anyone at work about anything not work related. Ever. No jokes, no anecdotes, no stories, nothing. Between this and sexual harassment lawsuits, we're all going to be fired next week.

[ComradeBurg]

It's rather ironic that we have a first amendment right to openly talk about what we want (with exception of inciting violence). We also have a second amendment right to bear arms. Yet both rights are stifled time and time again.

I'm fortunate that my place of work has no rules against talking about "dangerous weapons." But I know several people who work at places that would fire them if they talked about guns around the wrong person. And thanks for the loose laws about "safe work environments" they can get away with this.

My question is how did we ever get to a point where simply talking about any form of weapon is considered hazardous?

[JasonG]

Uh oh!
Were an electrical company, very covered by OSHA.
Friday 4:30 in thee office started as "look at my girls first deer" went into a discussion of "does a skeletonized 1911 hammer improve accuracy".
That led to a discussion of carrying SA vs DA/SA. I lost that one, (still say 1st rnd SA is better. What do they know. Hmmph)
This was followed by some clothes pulling and "my trigger is smoother than yours". Pull my trigger session followed.
God I love my job.
Funny, looking back, we were arguing and had 'scarry' guns in our hands and no one got killed........
That OSHA law could be serious. That's where the "no guns at work" started. There was a regulation (think it got corrected) making it illegal to have a firearm where blackpowder is stored so, all you gunshops are gonna have to sell one or the other.