• 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.

Why carry should be allowed in the work place

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
I just saw this on Q13 Fox. And of course they were quick to say he may be armed with an "assault rifle". I am tired of people over using this word and all for the sake of a scare tactic. I'm sure California will try to ban more weapons even though I'm pretty sure "assault rifles", AR-15's for example, are already illegal in that state. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way I love your signature. George Carlin was one of the best comedians of all time.
 
Last edited:

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
Just on the face of the issue, that being carry in the workplace, I believe that there should be a freedom of choice for employers to allow or restrict carry by their employees. If I, as a business owner, refuse to allow my employees to be armed, so be it. They have every right to work somewhere else.

In a perfect world (obviously not this one) every employee would have the choice to go to another employer that supported their Right to protect their own life by taking the responsibility to carry a firearm they are proficient with.

As a one time business owner and a realist, I see the dangers involved in letting employees carry at work. Not everyone who owns a firearm is a person I would want walking into a business while armed and representing me or my business. There is not enough liability insurance to cover the loss of a single life due to an unbalanced employee having a bad day.

I know folks who work in operations where daily carry is understood and accepted. I also know of businesses who would terminate any employee immediately for just bringing a firearm to their property. I have also seen completely mixed messages in other business where the "official" policy was no weapons but even the managers were carrying sometimes.

In the end, it will always come down to a personal choice at that point though, as the very basis of concealed carry is concealment... Either way, you take a chance.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I just saw this on Q13 Fox. And of course they were quick to say he may be armed with an "assault rifle". I am tired of people over using this word and all for the sake of a scare tactic. I'm sure California will try to ban more weapons even though I'm pretty sure "assault rifles", AR-15's for example, are already illegal in that state. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way I love your signature. George Carlin was one of the best comedians of all time.

It's the only "term" the News Media uses to describe all rifles. Remember the Issaquah shooting where the gunman's bolt action rifle was described as an "Assault Rifle". Just remember that these people are reporting the News because they're too stupid to hold a real job. Never wonder why they are called "Talking Heads".

Some TV news outlets realize their people are stupid so they're hiring gal's that have the means to distract from their stupidity;);)
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Just on the face of the issue, that being carry in the workplace, I believe that there should be a freedom of choice for employers to allow or restrict carry by their employees. If I, as a business owner, refuse to allow my employees to be armed, so be it. They have every right to work somewhere else.

Yeah, and free speech too. None of that at the work place. And no freedom of religion, that old pesky thing isn't needed at a workplace. Might as well toss out the 4th and 5th too, but only at a workplace.

Yes, Rights should exist at the pleasure of employers.

Geesh.
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
21 years in the Army, and I've met a lot of people that shouldn't handle a firearm. When I went to apply for my CPL I was in uniform. There was a guy behind me that was all happy he was 21, and could now apply. He saw my uniform and said he tried to get in the Army, but "failed" the entry test. The thought of this guy carrying a gun is scary.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
21 years in the Army, and I've met a lot of people that shouldn't handle a firearm. When I went to apply for my CPL I was in uniform. There was a guy behind me that was all happy he was 21, and could now apply. He saw my uniform and said he tried to get in the Army, but "failed" the entry test. The thought of this guy carrying a gun is scary.

Welcome back to America.

I've meet a lot of police officers and military personnel that hardly know which end of the gun to hold.

Last time I was at the range, there were several cops 'training' in adjacent bays. I made them look so bad they actually packed up their stuff and left. Yes, their skills were that much of a joke. Draw, fire, miss. Draw, fire, miss. LOL.

So what is your point? Out of any large group of people, a minority will be idiots. That's life.
 
Last edited:

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
Yeah, and free speech too. None of that at the work place. And no freedom of religion, that old pesky thing isn't needed at a workplace. Might as well toss out the 4th and 5th too, but only at a workplace.

Yes, Rights should exist at the pleasure of employers.

Geesh.

Well, your employment agreement with your employer includes, generally, behavior standards and other restrictions to your Rights. These restrictions are very different from those that a government might attempt to compel via the force of law. The employment agreement includes assumed things like wearing clothes to work, bathing once in a while, not screaming at the customers, etc.. Also, some companies choose to restrict the behavior of their employees more than others. That's Freedom.

The key is that no one MAKES you work there. You CHOOSE to work there, under the restrictions placed upon employees by the owners of the business. If you were a slave then you would be correct in your assertion, but since that probably isn't the case, you chose your place of employment.

I don't personally see the conflict here. Let's go to McDonalds. See the drooler behind the counter? Want him to be packing a weapon under that stupid uniform? He look like someone you would trust with your safety? As a business owner who is forced to employ these dorks, would you feel safe allowing them to have a handgun while flipping burgers? Come on.

Now, if my local government decides to outlaw firearms at the workplace, then I would bark. That would remove my ability to choose and would be tyranny.
 

boatswain

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
36
Location
WA
@Dave_pro2a - the Constitution does not require a business to respect your Constitutional rights. It's actually the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's which prohibits businesses from discriminating against employees on religion etc.

I'm in two minds about guns in the workplace. I have the freedom to carry in my office due to my position, and I'm generally comfortable with other people exercising that right too.

However, I've been in work situations where people have absolutely gone off the deep end and become irrational and violent when laid off or terminated for poor performance. I remember a mild mannered guy in marketing who went nuts and had to be physically escorted off the premises by an (unarmed) security guard. I knew he had a CCW but for whatever reason wasn't carrying that day. I suspect if he was carrying it would have gotten ugly real fast, so I can see why some companies are against it.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Well, your employment agreement with your employer includes, generally, behavior standards and other restrictions to your Rights. These restrictions are very different from those that a government might attempt to compel via the force of law. The employment agreement includes assumed things like wearing clothes to work, bathing once in a while, not screaming at the customers, etc.. Also, some companies choose to restrict the behavior of their employees more than others. That's Freedom.

The key is that no one MAKES you work there. You CHOOSE to work there, under the restrictions placed upon employees by the owners of the business. If you were a slave then you would be correct in your assertion, but since that probably isn't the case, you chose your place of employment.

I don't personally see the conflict here. Let's go to McDonalds. See the drooler behind the counter? Want him to be packing a weapon under that stupid uniform? He look like someone you would trust with your safety? As a business owner who is forced to employ these dorks, would you feel safe allowing them to have a handgun while flipping burgers? Come on.

Now, if my local government decides to outlaw firearms at the workplace, then I would bark. That would remove my ability to choose and would be tyranny.

Don't you think you're kinda contradicting yourself going on about business-owners' freedom to run their business as they choose, then say they're "forced" to employ "dorks?" If the owner has a choice whether or not to permit firearms, why not just make the choice NOT to hire "dorks" in the first place? If you think a potential, or current, employee doesn't have the wherewithal to use a firearm, it's probably not the safest thing for them to be manning an industrial deep fryer either (which have, on occasion, been used and defensive tools even).

I worked fast food and other retail, all my managers were (generally) good folks who gave a rat's pa-toot about their job, and did their best to hire good people. IF a business won't allow it's employees to carry firearms because they're dorks, why'd they hire them in the first place?

To touch on something else you said, yes in a "perfect" or even just ideal world your assertion might be valid, because there actually would be choice in the work place. Right now, in this world, and especially this are, there ain't none. In another thread a while back, I challenged ANYONE to come back with an employer who affirms the rights of their employees to lawfully carry for self defense, as a matter of official policy, other than employers in the firearms industry. Never did get a response. It's SOP at my employer that merely bringing a weapon onto the property can get you canned, and that's at a union job mind you (despite all their talk about fighting for worker's rights, unions tend to be pretty quiet about their right to self defense. Go figure, but I digress...). And I know for a fact every other transit agency in the region has a similar policy. Talking to one fellow driver, I guess back in the day KC Metro actually DID allow their drivers to carry. Now they can't, and their drivers & passengers routinely get assaulted. Go figure.

My wife's employer, in a completely different industry and work environment, also forbids the mere presence of a weapon on property, even locked in thee different safes in the employee's armored car. Any employer who does not have an official set policy, if ever asked about one, suddenly comes back with the negative, as some folks on here have found out.

So no, there IS no choice in the work place. Anyone who won't work for an employer who forbids carry is going to be looking for a job for an awfully long time, ESPECIALLY in this depression.

Since the chances of all of us one day waking up to find America has become a grand libertarian utopia overnight are, shall we say, slim, I think laws like the ones in Arizona & Oklahoma that prohibit employers from prohibiting employees from storing their lawfully possessed firearms in personal vehicles on company property, while also exempting that employer from any legal liability, are a step in the right direction. Personally I'd like to see laws prohibiting employers from prohibiting carry its self, while also exempting that employer from any legal liability. An employer should never be responsible for an employee's criminal actions.

Dave_pro2a, I'm a little surprised at your comments actually. I kinda figured you for the laissez-faire type as well.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
@Dave_pro2a - the Constitution does not require a business to respect your Constitutional rights. It's actually the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's which prohibits businesses from discriminating against employees on religion etc.

I'm in two minds about guns in the workplace. I have the freedom to carry in my office due to my position, and I'm generally comfortable with other people exercising that right too.

However, I've been in work situations where people have absolutely gone off the deep end and become irrational and violent when laid off or terminated for poor performance. I remember a mild mannered guy in marketing who went nuts and had to be physically escorted off the premises by an (unarmed) security guard. I knew he had a CCW but for whatever reason wasn't carrying that day. I suspect if he was carrying it would have gotten ugly real fast, so I can see why some companies are against it.

Red herring. What's to prevent that up-until-then law abiding employee from simply coming back after the fact, much better armed, and shooting up the place? I do believe there's a precedent for that...
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Dave_pro2a, I'm a little surprised at your comments actually. I kinda figured you for the laissez-faire type as well.

My rights don't get suspended because I walk through a door at work, imho.

A corporation is not a person, it is a company operating in an arguably public space. As such, it ought not enjoy exactly the same rights as a person. That is laissez-faire. I just don't buy into legal fictions.

You can't sell yourself into slavery. You can't give up your second amendment rights through an employment rule book.

Yeah I admit I have a bit of conflict over this, but I'll land squarely on the side of the individual's Rights before any 'rights' of a Corporation. When in doubt, when in conflict, you can't really go wrong siding with the "inalienable" Rights of being a human.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Welcome back to America.

I've meet a lot of police officers and military personnel that hardly know which end of the gun to hold.

Last time I was at the range, there were several cops 'training' in adjacent bays. I made them look so bad they actually packed up their stuff and left. Yes, their skills were that much of a joke. Draw, fire, miss. Draw, fire, miss. LOL.

So what is your point? Out of any large group of people, a minority will be idiots. That's life.

Like this officer in Bellingham....

Bellinghamsfinest.jpg


A bit over the top they had there armored vehicles two choppers and militarized police take over an apartment complex all because one suspect was hiding out there.
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Don't you think you're kinda contradicting yourself going on about business-owners' freedom to run their business as they choose, then say they're "forced" to employ "dorks?" If the owner has a choice whether or not to permit firearms, why not just make the choice NOT to hire "dorks" in the first place? If you think a potential, or current, employee doesn't have the wherewithal to use a firearm, it's probably not the safest thing for them to be manning an industrial deep fryer either (which have, on occasion, been used and defensive tools even).

I worked fast food and other retail, all my managers were (generally) good folks who gave a rat's pa-toot about their job, and did their best to hire good people. IF a business won't allow it's employees to carry firearms because they're dorks, why'd they hire them in the first place?

:):) I've always said that if the Fast Food industry was to add $1 to the starting wage the IQ of the applicant pool would go up immensely. As it is these "operators" are pretty much stuck with the "dorks". They don't HAVE to hire them but the alternative is to have no employees or so few they'd have to rename the industry "Slow Food". People want a cheaper hamburger so they buy crappier beef and hire cheaper employees. "You get's what you pay's for".

As for allowing people to carry firearms at work, it truly boils down to private property rights. Good, bad, or somewhere in between, that's the way it is. I can only imagine what the average Business Liability Insurance policy would cost if the employees were all allowed to carry. In those industries where it's a necessary part of the job there's training and certification processes in place. Could you imagine the cost of your "Big Mac" or "Whopper" if that cost was now added to their operating statements.

Here's a question for GoGoDawgs:

Now that you are the GM of an establishment where your employees are carrying firearms, what policies are in place to insure they're qualified?

Not just qualified to handle the firearm properly but knowing when the use of force is appropriate?

That they are qualified to use deadly force in a manner that doesn't jeopardize the safety of "innocents"?

What training do you require?

If "in house training", what qualifications does the Instructor have?
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Like this officer in Bellingham....

Bellinghamsfinest.jpg


A bit over the top they had there armored vehicles two choppers and militarized police take over an apartment complex all because one suspect was hiding out there.

The armored vehicles had the coffee pot and boxes of donuts. The choppers were probably from the Seattle TV stations.:);)

Besides, they can probably use the "video" from this operation to update their Recruiting Ad that's been running on TV lately.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
:):) I've always said that if the Fast Food industry was to add $1 to the starting wage the IQ of the applicant pool would go up immensely. As it is these "operators" are pretty much stuck with the "dorks". They don't HAVE to hire them but the alternative is to have no employees or so few they'd have to rename the industry "Slow Food". People want a cheaper hamburger so they buy crappier beef and hire cheaper employees. "You get's what you pay's for".

As for allowing people to carry firearms at work, it truly boils down to private property rights. Good, bad, or somewhere in between, that's the way it is. I can only imagine what the average Business Liability Insurance policy would cost if the employees were all allowed to carry. In those industries where it's a necessary part of the job there's training and certification processes in place. Could you imagine the cost of your "Big Mac" or "Whopper" if that cost was now added to their operating statements.

You conveniently ignored the part of my post that said businesses should be insulated from their employee's criminal actions. A business should no more be liable for an employee shooting someone than punching someone.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
You conveniently ignored the part of my post that said businesses should be insulated from their employee's criminal actions. A business should no more be liable for an employee shooting someone than punching someone.

Didn't overlook it, just don't know how it could be done. Somewhere along the line anyone suing would point out some way that the Employer was negligent and that trumps other indemnities.
 

Sparky508

Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
347
Location
Graham, , USA
Just on the face of the issue, that being carry in the workplace, I believe that there should be a freedom of choice for employers to allow or restrict carry by their employees. If I, as a business owner, refuse to allow my employees to be armed, so be it. They have every right to work somewhere else.

In a perfect world (obviously not this one) every employee would have the choice to go to another employer that supported their Right to protect their own life by taking the responsibility to carry a firearm they are proficient with.

As a one time business owner and a realist, I see the dangers involved in letting employees carry at work. Not everyone who owns a firearm is a person I would want walking into a business while armed and representing me or my business. There is not enough liability insurance to cover the loss of a single life due to an unbalanced employee having a bad day.

I know folks who work in operations where daily carry is understood and accepted. I also know of businesses who would terminate any employee immediately for just bringing a firearm to their property. I have also seen completely mixed messages in other business where the "official" policy was no weapons but even the managers were carrying sometimes.

In the end, it will always come down to a personal choice at that point though, as the very basis of concealed carry is concealment... Either way, you take a chance.





Than don't hire them. How much damage can anyone do at your place of work with anything available to them?
Email, customer phone number, company truck, or equipment?

Half of our sparkys carry at work/on the job and a fair number of our customers do too. I m more afraid of what they can do with a screw driver than a firearm.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
My rights don't get suspended because I walk through a door at work, imho.

A corporation is not a person, it is a company operating in an arguably public space. As such, it ought not enjoy exactly the same rights as a person. That is laissez-faire. I just don't buy into legal fictions.

You can't sell yourself into slavery. You can't give up your second amendment rights through an employment rule book.

Yeah I admit I have a bit of conflict over this, but I'll land squarely on the side of the individual's Rights before any 'rights' of a Corporation. When in doubt, when in conflict, you can't really go wrong siding with the "inalienable" Rights of being a human.



According to the SCOTUS a corporation is a person. What is "arguably public space"? Would you consider your home "aruably public space"? If I own a business I have a right to refuse you service because you are carrying a gun, I wouldn't do it but it MY right. You have a bigger beef with a governement that trumps the Constitution than with a private business that you dont work for...
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
According to the SCOTUS a corporation is a person. What is "arguably public space"? Would you consider your home "aruably public space"? If I own a business I have a right to refuse you service because you are carrying a gun, I wouldn't do it but it MY right. You have a bigger beef with a governement that trumps the Constitution than with a private business that you dont work for...

SCOTUS is often wrong. They often make un-Constitutional rulings to push forward an overt political agenda. If the commerce clause doesn't prove that to you, then nothing will. I trust SCOTUS to make lawful decisions as far as I can throw them -- and despite being full of hot air they are collectively very heavy.

If a company provides a place of employment, then by default it is providing a public space. They are inviting members if the public to become employees, working on a public/commercial property, in order to actually make a product or sell a service that enriches the corporation. Yeah, that seems like a public activity to me.

The possible exception to this is a person who is self employed, operating a truly private business (no EIN, no shareholders, no partner, etc). Of course, a truly private business isn't exactly legal, unless you enter the gray market economy.

Repeat after me: "SCOTUS can be, and is often, WRONG." That's an important principle to understand and believe, and it ought to shake your faith in pretty much any and all governmental actions.
 
Last edited:
Top