what do you do if you cant carry at work?

[Bob Warden]

imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

kenshin wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Let's make a "worst case" scenario... you've been working for a company for 10 or 20 years and you will be unable to find a similar position somewhere else, and they institute a no-weapons policy after that amount of time. Let's add that you work in, or drive through, a dangerous area to get there...

Unfortunately in your worst case scenario, being on the job for 10 or even 20 years does not grant any extra job security or privileges. At that point you'd have to make a choice about how to proceed...

I never said nor implied that anything grants anyone extra security or privileges. My point was that, in my scenario, the decision becomes a real tough choice. Correct me if I am wrong, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. It seems that the simple solution for you is to quit and "make due" with the alternatives. ...even if that means being out of work for a very long time? ...even if you have to downsize your life? ...even if you have to take your children out of a good school and put them into a substandard public school in a bad neighborhood? ...maybe alter your diet, health, health care, etc.?

Or, you would stop carrying? Remember, if you support a family, you carry for them even when they are not around. If you are hurt/killed, it deeply impacts your family. ...and you are in a bad part of town every day for the job you have.

These are honest questions, and I'd like to hear your answer. Maybe you would make all those sacrifices. I won't call you crazy, just different than me.

I am pointing out a worst case scenario, but my example is not totally outrageous.

It's a classic example of having to make atough choice betweentwocrappy options, that's all. It's a personal choice based on personal circumstances.

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

kenshin wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Let's make a "worst case" scenario... you've been working for a company for 10 or 20 years and you will be unable to find a similar position somewhere else, and they institute a no-weapons policy after that amount of time.  Let's add that you work in, or drive through, a dangerous area to get there...

Unfortunately in your worst case scenario, being on the job for 10 or even 20 years does not grant any extra job security or privileges. At that point you'd have to make a choice about how to proceed...

I never said nor implied that anything grants anyone extra security or privileges.  My point was that, in my scenario, the decision becomes a real tough choice.  Correct me if I am wrong, because I don't want to put words in your mouth.  It seems that the simple solution for you is to quit and "make due" with the alternatives.   ...even if that means being out of work for a very long time?  ...even if you have to downsize your life?  ...even if you have to take your children out of a good school and put them into a substandard public school in a bad neighborhood?  ...maybe alter your diet, health, health care, etc.?

Or, you would stop carrying?  Remember, if you support a family, you carry for them even when they are not around.  If you are hurt/killed, it deeply impacts your family.  ...and you are in a bad part of town every day for the job you have.

These are honest questions, and I'd like to hear your answer.  Maybe you would make all those sacrifices.  I won't call you crazy, just different than me.

I am pointing out a worst case scenario, but my example is not totally outrageous.

w0rd.

I wouldn't call that scenario outrageous in the slightest, it's the choice most people would be faced with. A person should not have to choose between being able to defend themselves or being able to pay the rent because of some stupid legal-phobic company policy.

 

[kenshin]

imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

kenshin wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Let's make a "worst case" scenario... you've been working for a company for 10 or 20 years and you will be unable to find a similar position somewhere else, and they institute a no-weapons policy after that amount of time. Let's add that you work in, or drive through, a dangerous area to get there...

Unfortunately in your worst case scenario, being on the job for 10 or even 20 years does not grant any extra job security or privileges. At that point you'd have to make a choice about how to proceed...

I never said nor implied that anything grants anyone extra security or privileges. My point was that, in my scenario, the decision becomes a real tough choice. Correct me if I am wrong, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. It seems that the simple solution for you is to quit and "make due" with the alternatives. ...even if that means being out of work for a very long time? ...even if you have to downsize your life? ...even if you have to take your children out of a good school and put them into a substandard public school in a bad neighborhood? ...maybe alter your diet, health, health care, etc.?

Or, you would stop carrying? Remember, if you support a family, you carry for them even when they are not around. If you are hurt/killed, it deeply impacts your family. ...and you are in a bad part of town every day for the job you have.

These are honest questions, and I'd like to hear your answer. Maybe you would make all those sacrifices. I won't call you crazy, just different than me.

I am pointing out a worst case scenario, but my example is not totally outrageous.

Those are fair questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can.

I did not mean for it to sound like quitting was the only option, just one of them. I would much prefer to be able to talk things out with the employer, try to come to an understanding or a compromise. If they insist on no weapons, then I would make a choice between either quitting or going unarmed. I would not decide to go armed and attempt to conceal it.

I can't say exactly which choice I would make but it would indeed be a tough decision and would be in the best interest of my family. Whether it being the ability to provide for them or being certain of returning safely to them. Taking into consideration the amount in my savings to live on, my confidence in being able to find a new job quickly, how dangerous the area in which I currently worked, just to name a few.

In my current situation, I've made the decision to carry to and from work but not into the building and I do not park on company property. This provides me with what I feel is sufficient protection and yet still allows me to continue working.

My intent in bringing this up was not to say that quitting is the only option. It was to point out how hypocritical it is that we insist on others recognizing our right to bear arms, and yet so many people were posting that they would just ignore their employers rights to regulate who and what is on the employers property.

I hope that clarifies my position, and this is only my opinion, other people are entitled to their own.

 

[kenshin]

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

kenshin wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

Not in this economy, I'd call that a kind of economic despotism. And that's exactly the kind of corporate crap that expands the power & influence of unions, and that's the last thing we need. The whole "just find another job" argument is a red herring.

The current economy has nothing to do with it. Or are you saying that some rights only exist in a depression and then disappear when the economy bounces back?

I'm saying some rights trump others. In our constitutions, and in the natural law, the right to self defense is supreme.
An employer should no more be able to prevent you from keeping a gun in your vehicle while on the lot than they could prevent you from fighting back against a physical assailant.

I will 100% agree with you that right to self defense is absolute.

However, no where does it say or imply that you have the right to have a job. No one has to give you one, it is earned. Part of earning it is agreeing to the conditions of employment.

I do also agree with you though, that being able to secure your firearm in your vehicle while on the job should be a suitable compromise. Talk with the owner of the company and explain your situation. Most people are quite amenable when approached with courtesy and politeness.

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

kenshin wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

kenshin wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

Not in this economy, I'd call that a kind of economic despotism.  And that's exactly the kind of corporate crap that expands the power & influence of unions, and that's the last thing we need.  The whole "just find another job" argument is a red herring.

The current economy has nothing to do with it. Or are you saying that some rights only exist in a depression and then disappear when the economy bounces back?

I'm saying some rights trump others. In our constitutions, and in the natural law, the right to self defense is supreme.
An employer should no more be able to prevent you from keeping a gun in your vehicle while on the lot than they could prevent you from fighting back against a physical assailant.

I will 100% agree with you that right to self defense is absolute.

However, no where does it say or imply that you have the right to have a job. No one has to give you one, it is earned. Part of earning it is agreeing to the conditions of employment.

I do also agree with you though, that being able to secure your firearm in your vehicle while on the job should be a suitable compromise. Talk with the owner of the company and explain your situation. Most people are quite amenable when approached with courtesy and politeness.

That only works with small businesses or those run by reasonable people, not multinational corporations or mindless litigophobe bureaucracies. To give you an example of the "reasonableness" of my employer, merely sitting in the driver seat of a company vehicle while using a mobile device (cellphone), even one that is completely secured, immobile, and not running, is a severe infraction and terminable offense. You think the people who create such policies are open to logical discussion? And that, unfortunately, is the position most people are in.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

imported post

kenshin wrote:

Those are fair questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can.

I did not mean for it to sound like quitting was the only option, just one of them. I would much prefer to be able to talk things out with the employer, try to come to an understanding or a compromise. If they insist on no weapons, then I would make a choice between either quitting or going unarmed. I would not decide to go armed and attempt to conceal it.

I can't say exactly which choice I would make but it would indeed be a tough decision and would be in the best interest of my family. Whether it being the ability to provide for them or being certain of returning safely to them. Taking into consideration the amount in my savings to live on, my confidence in being able to find a new job quickly, how dangerous the area in which I currently worked, just to name a few.

In my current situation, I've made the decision to carry to and from work but not into the building and I do not park on company property. This provides me with what I feel is sufficient protection and yet still allows me to continue working.

My intent in bringing this up was not to say that quitting is the only option. It was to point out how hypocritical it is that we insist on others recognizing our right to bear arms, and yet so many people were posting that they would just ignore their employers rights to regulate who and what is on the employers property.

I hope that clarifies my position, and this is only my opinion, other people are entitled to their own.

Do you think the leaders of a medium or large size company, in this area (let's say, west of the Cascades), would make an exception for one employee to get around the weapons policy? I'm not trying to be rhetorical or sarcastic. It's just my opinion here, but I think you have a better chance of being mugged than of changing your employer's mind to let you carry against the policy.

RE the part I bolded above: In my scenario, the choice would be 1) sacrifice your children's futures (education, health, safety, and happiness) or 2) put yourself at a greater risk in the dangerous parts of town where you must travel. I think that in choice 2, there is much less risk of disaster, but the consequences are just as bad and further reaching. Parking off of company policy works for you, but it wouldn't work for everyones' situations.

RE the employer's right to regulate who and what is on their property: They are not regulating. Regulating would be setting up a perimeter and forcing all who enter/exit to pass through metal detectors. In our talk, the employer is only setting up some guidelines that they hope all will follow.

BTW, I appreciate the civil and thoughtful discussion here. The answer is a difficult one and may be different for different people.

RE most people being amenable when approached: When dealing with issues involving firearms, that has not been my experience. I would confidently say that, if I had even mentioned my firearms ownership to most of my employers, they would forever look at me with a crooked eye and wonder if they should renew my contract. I would expect responses such as "are you crazy? why does anyone need a gun? absolutely not!".

 

[WinchesterModel12]

imported post

I carry to and from work. My company has a policy that says no weapons on company property, including secured in my vehicle.

The parking lot at my work is not secured, meaning anybody can drive their vehicle into the parking lot(public access). Until they get a secured access parking lot, they don't have the right to tell me i can't have this or that in my vehicle, when joe blow just driving by can have the same things that i can't have. They do have the right to restrict access to the building.

Let's go back to the spider........... I can't restrict your right to carry a spider(or any thing else) into my parking lot at my house, but i can restrict what you bring into my house.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

imported post

Of course, you mean if the spider is open carry, right?

If it's a CCS (Concealed Carry Spider), you wouldn't be aware that anyone was violating your wishes.

 

[devildoc5]

imported post

Make sure it is in an approved holster though...other wise that would be brandishing...:lol:

 

[devildoc5]

imported post

 

[WinchesterModel12]

imported post

:lol:ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Of course, you mean if the spider is open carry, right?

If it's a CCS (Concealed Carry Spider), you wouldn't be aware that anyone was violating your wishes.

lol

 

[tumbleweed]

imported post

nofoa wrote:

concealed is concealed.

thats how i do it!out of sight out of mind,i can allways get another job.