I wasn’t relying on him - he was asking me. I stated what I found most astonishing was his lack of knowledge on firearm laws and firearms in general. My knowledge on laws and firearms did not come from my being an active member of rights groups, nor from any “classroom” training I have received, but from my need to know as a firearm owner. It was shocking to me that a retired LEO and firearm owner in his 60s knew so little about those things.
3 Likes
Not trying to beat a dead horse, but self education and “need to know” is a poor substitute for the legal education and formal research that lawyers bring to the table. That’s why they get paid the bucks they do. If people have questions about “is this legal?” that potentially affects their liability (both criminal and civil) or the liability of their employer, they should not be “winging it” and assume it’s all OK.
1 Like
You keep twisting and twisting. I never made such a claim.
2 Likes
I think we have an unwritten policy about that, in the office, where most of us seldom go but when I go in there I have it on my belt. On Site, it depends on the clients rules. For example, I’ll be in a gold mine all of next week, they have a strict No Firearms rule both on surface and underground. Out of respect for their rules I won’t be carrying on their property.
5 Likes
I’m sorry to hear you would fire a concealed carrier on the spot for not getting your express permission first.
This risk is why I personally choose not to disclose. Concealed means nobody knows or suspects it’s there. For years. They still never know, as far as I can tell.
Nothing is without some risk of something, of course.
Asking risks being told no and maybe dying later because you weren’t armed. It risks being told no and losing the job.
Not asking risks someone finding out and then losing the job.
With, as I see it, risks varying from losing the job up to death for being unprepared, I choose the one where the biggest risk is job loss.
You may of course choose totally differently.
I’m curious, when you were in the position where you would fire the employee for not getting your permission first, did you have a boss above you that gave you express permission to carry?
I’ll stop editing now. I probably should have done like four different posts lol
5 Likes
I’m curious (not a lawyer), if the business can be liable because you carried a gun (even with them not knowing), would they also be liable if you were injured/killed because you were unarmed and couldn’t adequately defend yourself due to a no gun policy/being told no?
What’s the difference?
I see it similar to the no guns signs for customers at a business. People say the business should be liable if you choose to go in there with a gun and then are harmed, which makes no sense to me…and if so, business should also be liable if you carry a gun and harm someone else.
This is just non-lawyer me, but I don’t see how the business has any liability in any of these scenarios.
And in a long time following guns/carry stuff, I have never seen or heard of a case where any such liability, in any of these cases, existed. No suit, no claim, no news or blog article about it, have found nothing
2 Likes
I was part of the Brownback administration in Kansas when it prohibited “no guns” policies in state workplaces and helped craft the rules. With the change, I scraped the “no guns” decals off the doors of the buildings I oversaw. I had more than 200 employees, and held contentious public hearings that could involve more than 400 attendees.
Several of my employees carried and I was glad they did as the alternative “security” at hearings was the uniformed capital police who were often retired, out-of-shape cops way past their prime. But I also had employees who were less than reliable, stable individuals who resented me and the Brownback administration. I absolutely wanted to know who had guns in my buildings and interacted with the public.
In Kansas, the workplace carry rules in public buildings required a CCW license (which is a cruel joke in most states, including Kansas, since getting the license involves little in the way of demonstrating competence) and that the firearm be kept on the person at all times. No guns in purses left behind at a desk, no guns left unattended in desk drawers. No displays of guns in a manner that could be interpreted as threatening or intimidating.
But, public employers differ from private employers as the former complies with a host of arcane civil service rules, and enjoys a high degree of sovereign immunity from tort liability.
When employees deal with the public, emotions can and do run high. An employee with a gun, especially when the only “training” is a CCW license, creates a very real possibility that the employee will settle things in an unpleasant manner. It’s in the interest of the employer that interacts with the public to ensure that employees with guns are stable, responsible people, and not merely some ‘cowboy’ whose ego is inflated by strapping on a gun.
I sat on the board of directors for a large charity that provides a variety of social services. The staff at that charity regularly deals with emotionally charged clients, and the insurance carrier absolutely prohibits firearms in that workplace. If an employee was found to have a firearm, it would subject the charity to all sorts of liability, not the least of which might include cancellation of the charity’s liability insurance or denial of liability coverage if the employee settled things with a client using a gun.
If you worked for me and brought a gun into the workplace without my knowledge and permission, you’d be looking for a new job.
1 Like
Did you carry and if so whom did you have to get permission from?
2 Likes
So, what your saying is, you worked in an “emotionally charged” environment. And you decided to enforce the disarmament of your employees? Make no sense to me. I worked in an engineering office that designed and constructed coal mine, coal loadout and transfer system, not little ones, the 800-1,200 tons per hour ones. We had environmentalist showing up all of the time. Believe me, There WERE guns in the building.
7 Likes
That’s not what I said or did. I wanted to know who was and was not carrying in my buildings. In a population of more than 200 employees, a percentage should not carry, unless you believe that by carrying firearms people are magically transformed into rational individuals.
If the environmentalists showed up at your coal mine with rifles and loud claims that your firm was killing the planet, would you let them on to the property? I suspect not. So, you would be enforcing a disarmament of the public. Hmmmm.
I’d say that is not in any way the same as firing a concealed carrier because they did not ask you for permission first.
In fact, remove the guns entirely from the scenario…if protesters show up at your business with loud claims about the business killing the planet, would you let them on the property just because they aren’t carrying guns? I would think not.
Did you carry and if so from whom did you receive permission?
2 Likes
Nope at the office or at hearings. Yes, when I went home or was not working. A public figure who carries or hides behind guards and metal detectors conveys a message that they are afraid of the public they profess to serve.
I can see that perspective.
I’d say the public figure who carries a gun or has guards is pragmatic and prepared and I wouldn’t hold it against them at all…as long as they are not trying to tell me I can’t carry a gun, anyway
The Public is a lot of people, and it only takes that one apple
2 Likes
So, if a public hearing was held at meeting offices owned by the coal mine, and a bunch of loud protestors showed up with guns, is your position that the mine owners would not have the right to deny entry to openly armed, hostile individuals?
Different scenario. I was responding to your sentence of
“If the environmentalists showed up at your coal mine with rifles and loud claims that your firm was killing the planet”
“Showed up at your coal mine” is not what I got from that
If you choose to have a public hearing at your coal mine, then you better let the public in
If that was intending to refer to a public hearing when they showed up and I missed it, I retract my statement about not letting the protesters in. I didn’t put it together that the private property at the mine itself is where the public was invited
4 Likes
Oh I didn’t say I don’t carry. I’m just say what he said. I’m quite certain that he carries as well. We have to go into some pretty seedy, high crime areas at times and it is kinda comforting to know if things went to sh*t …
2 Likes
B-ll sh-t.
You appear to me - and likely everyone else that has read your post - to be the one to be concerned about.
Feed us more BS, sure we believe you. /sarc
I would gladly be looking for a new job, far before you “fired me”.
3 Likes
True enough, and I’ve lived through my share of threats and intimidation. Packing guns doesn’t make those nut jobs go away. It only creates an illusion of security.
In one hearing, a member of the public wore a tee-shirt emblazoned with “In Guns we Trust” and when asked to give his address, he gave an address next door to my personal residence (and he was not my neighbor). He railed against me for 20 minutes or so. An opponent in a divorce case once threatened my wife with hiring Navy Seals from Pueblo to come to our house and kill her. It’s now a running joke “Watch out or the Navy Seals will come getcha!”
I’m not willing to live in fear or dress like a ninja with body armor “just in case.”
But I would still insist on knowing who’s packing among my employees and reserve the right to say “no”. My building, my hearing room, my place of employment, my rules. Don’t like it? Work someplace else.
When I went to the judicial school in Reno, the security presentation was that judges are most likely to be shot by firearms brought into the courtroom by their own employees, often disgruntled over some case before the judge or some personnel matter.
I don’t see carrying a concealed firearm just in case as living in fear. But, if that would be living in fear for you, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to carry a gun, for yourself.
Choosing for others is where it gets…controversial
4 Likes
Yet bailiffs still carry firearms. I call you on your BS, yet, again. Present data, not your opinion.
2 Likes