Taclead
Regular Member
imported post
While trying to edit my paper for MGT-301 class, Iasked myselfwhere could I find some of the most nit-picky guys around...so I am coming to you. I recognize that we have some of the most intelligent and gun savvy members right here at OCDO.
Below is my draft, please be kind and provide constructive criticism. I look forward to hearing about any "solutions" you may offer that I have not considered.
While you're free to criticize until the cows come home, only criticism submitted prior to Friday, 3 October will make it into my final draft...deadlines you know.
Thanks in advance, Tac
[align=center]Management and Gun Owners[/align]
A worsening problem facing managers today is that State and federal gun laws continue to conflict with management and business owners’ policies concerning firearms in the workplace. In July 2008, Florida and Georgia passed new laws regarding access to guns. The laws appropriately called “take-your-gun-to-work” laws don’t restrict access to firearms, rather they affirm a personal freedom by allowing those licensed to conceal a handgun to take their weapons to work and leave them in a locked vehicle against private business owners’ objections. Florida and Georgia join six other states with similar laws. Are laws in eight states enough to define a problem that managers and business owners must address? It certainly is an issue in those eight states. Additionally, since 1987 when Florida passed its “Shall Issue” law, requiring state officials to issue licenses to any non-felon over the age of 21 who clears a background check, many states followed. Now there are 39 “shall issue” states and an additional 8 states with some form of concealed weapon license. According to the NRA, as of February 2008, 48 states have some form of concealed carry. How long will it take before many more states pass similar “take-your-gun-to-work” laws? Because these gun laws may soon come to a state near you, management and business owners must act now to develop policies that protect their businesses, employees, and customers while balancing the rights of law abiding gun owners.
[align=center]Management Issues[/align]
Management and business owners, hereafter known as management, have a legitimate need to protect their business, employees, and customers. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “77% of workplace homicides are committed with firearms and 60% of major employers said in a 2005 survey that disgruntled employees had threatened to assault or kill senior managers in the last year.” From a management standpoint, gun violence has become a severe problem. In an effort to reduce workplace gun violence, abide by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safe workplace requirements and presumably to keep liability insurance premiums low, numerous businesses have developed a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to employees and weapons in the workplace.
Many employee handbooks clearly warn employees that a weapon found on business property, to include privately owned parking areas, is grounds for termination. Western Michigan University’s employee handbook states,
“No person shall possess on university property any firearms or other dangerous weapons with the exception of police officers, transfer agents licensed to carry weapons and persons using any such weapons for class instruction when authorized by the dean of the appropriate college. Any student, faculty member or other university employee violating this rule shall be subject to suspension or dismissal. Any person violating this rule will be subject to criminal prosecution.”
The Brady Campaign also points out that “[a] May 2005 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns are prohibited.” These statistics alone drive management, with the aid of human resource personnel, to review and put into action safety measures to ensure weapons are absent from the business place.
Reasononline argues, from a legal perspective management feels these new “take-your-gun-to-work” laws infringe upon their rights as private property owners. These laws turn managers into criminals if they bar employees with guns from their place of business and property. Further, this is not a place where government should substitute its judgment for that of management.
Management also has the right to post no gun signs, available from their local better business bureau, on the entrance(s) to their place of business to prevent customers from carrying a weapon while patronizing their establishment. Any customer violating this policy can be asked to leave or face criminal trespassing charges. Management does this in an effort to keep people safe. However, many businesses—mostly retailers—that post these signs have faced boycotts by gun advocacy groups. Management must account for potential backlash from law abiding gun owner customers when implementing such policies.
[align=center]Law Abiding Gun Owners Issues[/align]
As a law abiding gun owner who is licensed to conceal carry a weapon—and does, I am very familiar with the concerns of gun owners. The Supreme Court ruled in both Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v. Gonzales, among others, that the government and its agents have no duty to protect individual citizens from violent criminals and there is no negligence for failing to do so. The courts have essentially said it is the individual’s responsibility to protect him or herself. With that in mind, the law abiding gun owner carries a weapon for self defense and to protect the lives of family members, not to commit crimes.
Concealed weapons permit holders have been through state and federal background checks to ensure they are not fugitives, have not committed a crime punishable by one or more years of prison, are not addicted to a controlled substance, have not been adjudicated as mentally defective, are a lawful U.S. citizen, have not been dishonorably discharged from the military, are not subject to a restraining order, have never been convicted of domestic violence, nor ever committed a felony. Permit holders are also subject to finger printing and are required to have passed an NRA approved safety course. Additionally, less than .001 percent of crimes have ever been committed by concealed weapons permit holders.
Policies intended to keep the work place safe restrict a gun owner’s ability to self protection. If a gun owners cannot lock the weapon in their vehicles while at work, they cannot defend themselves to and from work, or while making convenience stops enroute. Emergence Disaster Management, Inc., a company that provides services to numerous state and federal agencies, details over 30 workplace shootings in the last 22 years, many involving multiple deaths. How many deaths could have been prevented if the law abiding gun owner employee was permitted to carry in the workplace? Without full time security and metal detectors at each entrance, policies will not prevent employees with a grudge and the capacity to commit senseless violence from committing these acts. Additionally, it’s not only fellow employees that cause gun violence, but customers as well.
As a customer, I will not patronize any business that posts no gun signs on their entrances. In gun owner lingo, these are Criminal Protection Zones (CPZs). When a business posts the signs, only the criminals, who by definition already break the law, will have guns. Some examples of terrible violence within these CPZs are: Virginia Tech; Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas; mall shootings in Utah, Chicago, Omaha, and Illinois. What each of these have in common is that law abiding citizens were forbidden by management policy from carrying a weapon to protect themselves. Additionally, there are laws being proposed today that will make those establishments that have prevented law abiding gun owners from carrying their weapons for protection in the event violence occurs in which the individual was harmed. According to Georgia State Representative Tim Beardon, a former police officer, “criminals benefited from restrictions on citizens carrying weapons.”
[align=center]Government Issues[/align]
The recent Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller upheld an individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The Heller decision specifically states that individuals have the right to own a gun for self defense in the home. So how can the government mandate the actions of managers when it comes to private land?
State and federal agencies have levied various requirements on business managers for decades. OSHA oversees workplace safety, state building codes ensure structural safety, and various state and federal laws require handicapped access and parking spaces. Parking spaces must be a certain size and lighting must be provided in parking lots. Government intervention into private property is not new to managers. Representative Beardon also said, “[p]roperty's great, but nothing's better than your life.
What solutions are there that balance management’s responsibilities and law abiding gun owner’s rights?
[align=center]Solutions[/align]
Aside from state-by-state court battles pitting business against gun owners, there are other solutions that allow managers the flexibility to protect their business, employees, and customers.
To avoid future litigation, managers should consider full-time armed security personnel in establishments that cater to large numbers of patrons such as malls and large department stores. While this may not prevent someone bent on violence, it should minimize the destruction.
Managers should acknowledge that a posted gun ban sign will not prevent criminals from entering the premises. Only law abiding gun owners will obey these signs.
Managers should also recognize that they cannot prevent a would-be criminal intent on robbery or set on violence to perpetrate their crime. What remains is mitigating the harm.
Managers can install approved individual gun lockers within close proximity to the entrance and under the supervision of security personnel. This would effectively end the practice of guns in parking lots while managers could maintain a gun free work environment. Pennsylvania law requires court houses, which controlled entry with metal detectors, to provide lockers for handgun owners. There a no known cases of violence resulting from this policy.
Short of carelessness involving weapon safety or due to other physical work-safety issues that prevent the concealed weapons on company property, management policies involving employee weapons should be revised.
[align=center]Conclusion[/align]
Because gun laws are being revised nationwide that make private business weapons policies illegal, management must act now to develop policies that protect their businesses, employees, and customers while balancing the rights of law abiding gun owners.
From 1978 until June 2008 the District of Columbia had a strict ban on all handguns, yet city managers routinely found their city atop the list of handgun related murders year after year. In fact, handgun violence increased after the law was established. When laws are passed by city managers and policies are implemented by business managers that ban guns, only criminals will have guns.
Allowing concealed weapons permit holders to carry their weapons will not suddenly send the country back through time to the “wild, wild west”. Nor will there be “blood running in the streets” as many journalist and gun rights opponents predicted as state after state passes concealed carry permit laws. A business known to be frequented by law abiding gun owners may actually reduce the chances of gun violence in that workplace. How often are police departments, military installations and gun shops the target of a criminal venture?
While trying to edit my paper for MGT-301 class, Iasked myselfwhere could I find some of the most nit-picky guys around...so I am coming to you. I recognize that we have some of the most intelligent and gun savvy members right here at OCDO.
Below is my draft, please be kind and provide constructive criticism. I look forward to hearing about any "solutions" you may offer that I have not considered.
While you're free to criticize until the cows come home, only criticism submitted prior to Friday, 3 October will make it into my final draft...deadlines you know.
Thanks in advance, Tac
[align=center]Management and Gun Owners[/align]
A worsening problem facing managers today is that State and federal gun laws continue to conflict with management and business owners’ policies concerning firearms in the workplace. In July 2008, Florida and Georgia passed new laws regarding access to guns. The laws appropriately called “take-your-gun-to-work” laws don’t restrict access to firearms, rather they affirm a personal freedom by allowing those licensed to conceal a handgun to take their weapons to work and leave them in a locked vehicle against private business owners’ objections. Florida and Georgia join six other states with similar laws. Are laws in eight states enough to define a problem that managers and business owners must address? It certainly is an issue in those eight states. Additionally, since 1987 when Florida passed its “Shall Issue” law, requiring state officials to issue licenses to any non-felon over the age of 21 who clears a background check, many states followed. Now there are 39 “shall issue” states and an additional 8 states with some form of concealed weapon license. According to the NRA, as of February 2008, 48 states have some form of concealed carry. How long will it take before many more states pass similar “take-your-gun-to-work” laws? Because these gun laws may soon come to a state near you, management and business owners must act now to develop policies that protect their businesses, employees, and customers while balancing the rights of law abiding gun owners.
[align=center]Management Issues[/align]
Management and business owners, hereafter known as management, have a legitimate need to protect their business, employees, and customers. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “77% of workplace homicides are committed with firearms and 60% of major employers said in a 2005 survey that disgruntled employees had threatened to assault or kill senior managers in the last year.” From a management standpoint, gun violence has become a severe problem. In an effort to reduce workplace gun violence, abide by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safe workplace requirements and presumably to keep liability insurance premiums low, numerous businesses have developed a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to employees and weapons in the workplace.
Many employee handbooks clearly warn employees that a weapon found on business property, to include privately owned parking areas, is grounds for termination. Western Michigan University’s employee handbook states,
“No person shall possess on university property any firearms or other dangerous weapons with the exception of police officers, transfer agents licensed to carry weapons and persons using any such weapons for class instruction when authorized by the dean of the appropriate college. Any student, faculty member or other university employee violating this rule shall be subject to suspension or dismissal. Any person violating this rule will be subject to criminal prosecution.”
The Brady Campaign also points out that “[a] May 2005 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns are prohibited.” These statistics alone drive management, with the aid of human resource personnel, to review and put into action safety measures to ensure weapons are absent from the business place.
Reasononline argues, from a legal perspective management feels these new “take-your-gun-to-work” laws infringe upon their rights as private property owners. These laws turn managers into criminals if they bar employees with guns from their place of business and property. Further, this is not a place where government should substitute its judgment for that of management.
Management also has the right to post no gun signs, available from their local better business bureau, on the entrance(s) to their place of business to prevent customers from carrying a weapon while patronizing their establishment. Any customer violating this policy can be asked to leave or face criminal trespassing charges. Management does this in an effort to keep people safe. However, many businesses—mostly retailers—that post these signs have faced boycotts by gun advocacy groups. Management must account for potential backlash from law abiding gun owner customers when implementing such policies.
[align=center]Law Abiding Gun Owners Issues[/align]
As a law abiding gun owner who is licensed to conceal carry a weapon—and does, I am very familiar with the concerns of gun owners. The Supreme Court ruled in both Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v. Gonzales, among others, that the government and its agents have no duty to protect individual citizens from violent criminals and there is no negligence for failing to do so. The courts have essentially said it is the individual’s responsibility to protect him or herself. With that in mind, the law abiding gun owner carries a weapon for self defense and to protect the lives of family members, not to commit crimes.
Concealed weapons permit holders have been through state and federal background checks to ensure they are not fugitives, have not committed a crime punishable by one or more years of prison, are not addicted to a controlled substance, have not been adjudicated as mentally defective, are a lawful U.S. citizen, have not been dishonorably discharged from the military, are not subject to a restraining order, have never been convicted of domestic violence, nor ever committed a felony. Permit holders are also subject to finger printing and are required to have passed an NRA approved safety course. Additionally, less than .001 percent of crimes have ever been committed by concealed weapons permit holders.
Policies intended to keep the work place safe restrict a gun owner’s ability to self protection. If a gun owners cannot lock the weapon in their vehicles while at work, they cannot defend themselves to and from work, or while making convenience stops enroute. Emergence Disaster Management, Inc., a company that provides services to numerous state and federal agencies, details over 30 workplace shootings in the last 22 years, many involving multiple deaths. How many deaths could have been prevented if the law abiding gun owner employee was permitted to carry in the workplace? Without full time security and metal detectors at each entrance, policies will not prevent employees with a grudge and the capacity to commit senseless violence from committing these acts. Additionally, it’s not only fellow employees that cause gun violence, but customers as well.
As a customer, I will not patronize any business that posts no gun signs on their entrances. In gun owner lingo, these are Criminal Protection Zones (CPZs). When a business posts the signs, only the criminals, who by definition already break the law, will have guns. Some examples of terrible violence within these CPZs are: Virginia Tech; Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas; mall shootings in Utah, Chicago, Omaha, and Illinois. What each of these have in common is that law abiding citizens were forbidden by management policy from carrying a weapon to protect themselves. Additionally, there are laws being proposed today that will make those establishments that have prevented law abiding gun owners from carrying their weapons for protection in the event violence occurs in which the individual was harmed. According to Georgia State Representative Tim Beardon, a former police officer, “criminals benefited from restrictions on citizens carrying weapons.”
[align=center]Government Issues[/align]
The recent Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller upheld an individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The Heller decision specifically states that individuals have the right to own a gun for self defense in the home. So how can the government mandate the actions of managers when it comes to private land?
State and federal agencies have levied various requirements on business managers for decades. OSHA oversees workplace safety, state building codes ensure structural safety, and various state and federal laws require handicapped access and parking spaces. Parking spaces must be a certain size and lighting must be provided in parking lots. Government intervention into private property is not new to managers. Representative Beardon also said, “[p]roperty's great, but nothing's better than your life.
What solutions are there that balance management’s responsibilities and law abiding gun owner’s rights?
[align=center]Solutions[/align]
Aside from state-by-state court battles pitting business against gun owners, there are other solutions that allow managers the flexibility to protect their business, employees, and customers.
To avoid future litigation, managers should consider full-time armed security personnel in establishments that cater to large numbers of patrons such as malls and large department stores. While this may not prevent someone bent on violence, it should minimize the destruction.
Managers should acknowledge that a posted gun ban sign will not prevent criminals from entering the premises. Only law abiding gun owners will obey these signs.
Managers should also recognize that they cannot prevent a would-be criminal intent on robbery or set on violence to perpetrate their crime. What remains is mitigating the harm.
Managers can install approved individual gun lockers within close proximity to the entrance and under the supervision of security personnel. This would effectively end the practice of guns in parking lots while managers could maintain a gun free work environment. Pennsylvania law requires court houses, which controlled entry with metal detectors, to provide lockers for handgun owners. There a no known cases of violence resulting from this policy.
Short of carelessness involving weapon safety or due to other physical work-safety issues that prevent the concealed weapons on company property, management policies involving employee weapons should be revised.
[align=center]Conclusion[/align]
Because gun laws are being revised nationwide that make private business weapons policies illegal, management must act now to develop policies that protect their businesses, employees, and customers while balancing the rights of law abiding gun owners.
From 1978 until June 2008 the District of Columbia had a strict ban on all handguns, yet city managers routinely found their city atop the list of handgun related murders year after year. In fact, handgun violence increased after the law was established. When laws are passed by city managers and policies are implemented by business managers that ban guns, only criminals will have guns.
Allowing concealed weapons permit holders to carry their weapons will not suddenly send the country back through time to the “wild, wild west”. Nor will there be “blood running in the streets” as many journalist and gun rights opponents predicted as state after state passes concealed carry permit laws. A business known to be frequented by law abiding gun owners may actually reduce the chances of gun violence in that workplace. How often are police departments, military installations and gun shops the target of a criminal venture?
