• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun-Free Zones Liability Act

G

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

I love the note:

Code: 
Notes:

(1) Less than 10% of workplace shootings are committed by employees [US DoL
2004]. This means that more than 90% of workplace shootings are committed
by non-employees, persons who are not restricted by workplace employment
policies. Prohibitions of employees' ability to defend themselves using
lawfully possessed firearms exacerbate greater than 90% of the problem in
an attempt to reduce less than 10% of the problem.
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

John,

Your employee-car-carry amendment is good, but what do you think about adding a reference to RCW 9.41.040, such that employers are free to discipline, terminate, etc if it turns out the employee doing the possessing was a prohibited person?

Just a thought...
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
John,

Your employee-car-carry amendment is good, but what do you think about adding a reference to RCW 9.41.040, such that employers are free to discipline, terminate, etc if it turns out the employee doing the possessing was a prohibited person?

Just a thought...
Click to expand...
In Washington State an employer may fire you at any time for any reason or no reason at all. So that change is totally unnecessary.
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

In Washington State an employer may fire you at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is indeed the default. But the proposed changes to RCW 9.41 are a limitation on that right. Otherwise there is no reason to have the amendment.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
what do you think about adding a reference to RCW 9.41.040, such that employers are free to discipline, terminate, etc if it turns out the employee doing the possessing was a prohibited person?
Click to expand...
Unnecessary. If the employee is a prohibited person, the employer can just turn them over to the cops.
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

If the employee is a prohibited person, the employer can just turn them over to the cops.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but what about when the person gets out on bond? Do they have to let them continue as an employee? It would just remove any doubt.
 
John Hardin

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
If the employee is a prohibited person, the employer can just turn them over to the cops.
Click to expand...
Certainly, but what about when the person gets out on bond? Do they have to let them continue as an employee? It would just remove any doubt.
Click to expand...
How would that situation turn out for any other crime?

The employer wouldn't be able to punish them for having a firearm stored lawfully in their car. If it's not stored lawfully, this offers no protection.
 
F

fixerbard

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
2
Location
, ,
imported post

OMG soo gotta get that started here in Washington State. That idea is brilliant!
 
S

scarlett1125

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
51
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Wish I had seen this before, but I'm glad that I'm seeing it now. You've got my vote. I know that I'm taking a risk carrying to work now (concealed on campus grounds, of course), but I'd rather be safe than sorry. I'm a tough teacher, so I have to be careful! LOL
 
F

fixerbard

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
2
Location
, ,
imported post

scarlett1125 wrote:
Wish I had seen this before, but I'm glad that I'm seeing it now. You've got my vote. I know that I'm taking a risk carrying to work now (concealed on campus grounds, of course), but I'd rather be safe than sorry. I'm a tough teacher, so I have to be careful! LOL
Click to expand...

we need more teachers like you :)
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

John Hardin wrote:
heresolong wrote:
Admitting to unlawful behavior on a public forum probably isn't the greatest idea in the world.
Click to expand...
"on campus" sounds like a university or college to me, which wouldn't be in violation of the law, right?
Click to expand...
Generally if you are teaching on a college campus you are a professor. The word campus refers to any school property. We use it at my high school when we talk to the kids about the "closed campus" rule and other things.

However if it is a u or c then all they could do is fire him for violation of their regulations. It wouldn't technically be unlawful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top