Conceal Carry/Workplace dilemma

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
andrewg, I've done some minor digging and only a handful of states have an employee gun-at-work (or parking lot) law. Washington state, obviously isn't one of them, however.

Not that it hasn't been argued that local municipalities cannot enact harsher gun laws than the state, but rather it has been ruled that places of employment have rights to govern their own property as they see fit - in layman terms, if you will.

I've been an offender of drawing your thread off-topic and I apologize.

I sometimes wonder what could have happened if AA flight 11 and UA flight 175 had upright citizens with guns onboard. Even a pilot with one... but I digress. There's no convincing some people.

My advice is to forgo taking your weapon to work. If you feel threatened on their property, contact your HR or union rep (whoever necessary) and make it an issue in writing (fill out proper paperwork if needed). Explain to them with the words "this is a liability issue." Make some suggestions as well. For instance, ask questions about their security, cameras, workplace safety response, statistics, etc. Once you have made it known, now they have to accept responsibility of their eliminating your right to carry on their property.

I feel for you in this matter. I work for the state of Florida and I'm not allowed to carry nor able to store my weapon in my vehicle due to it being on public grounds. However, we have excellent security and they respond in around 20 seconds to my office.

Thanks bigmike. I've pretty much given up on the idea of carrying a weapon in my vehicle to work. The company states a zero tolerance policy for firearms on any and all company property and those violating this rule will be subject to termination. And trust me, the place I work is very sensitive about anything to do with workplace violence or threats. One time I was upset about another employee accusing me of not doing my job (I always work hard, obey rules, and don't waste company time). I was upset about this as they were a lead and perhaps had some influence. I had voiced my concern about the lies and said that if I here any more garbage like that, " I was going to go ballistic" and go to HR. Well, next thing I know the term 'ballistic' was taken out of context and used against me as the term pertains to firearms. I was suspended and had to go to anger classes and a shrink before they would allow me back into work as they considered me a possible threat (like some nutcase) It was horrible. So yes, they are VERY anti-gun on the property....or even the mention of one.
But I have considered parking on the street next to my work. As I've stated before vandals would possibly wreck my vehicle. On the company property it is safe however. We have several guards at the fenced entrance.
Thanks for the reply and info.
 
Originally Posted By: expat
Yes, I'm sorry if this got OFF TOPIC but as you see It was suggested that Firstly "not feeling threatened" was not deemed credible, and Second that "I must be unaware of my surroundings".

I'm sure you can understand I might want to respond to that.

I should also explain, to me 'Germany 1939' means, primarily; the invasion of Poland and the start of WWII. I surmise that YOU may referring to some decree that Hitler may have made denying German citizens firearms?
I have not been able to find much solid evidence of such a law made at that time!

But I found this;
Quote:
"The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government."

expat,
Obviously you don't feel a need for a firearm in your life and depend upon your wits, self confidence, and local law enforcement to see to your needs of self protection. That's fine and being that I don't live where you do, I have no idea what levels of violence occur and have no valid response to your particular situation. On the same token, you have no idea of my living environment and the daily dangers that I may encounter. To make judgment calls or statements about the need or not of a firearm in my particular situation is equally invalid. I appreciate your input however.....I just don't my post thread inundated with anti-carry rhetoric (especially when this is the firearm section of BITOG....a place where I would think questions about concealed carry would be completely welcomed).
As for Germany in 1939? I was merely supporting the correlation of gun rights vs. government oppression per the intended meaning of the previous poster. I'm not even going to go there in explaining gun rights in '39 Germany. I refer once again to the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Nothing else is really relevant. The Second Amendment is a right.
It's an American thing.
 
Quote:
The Second Amendment is a right.

The right is inalienable, given to you simply for existing. The Second Amendment is only the listing of it.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The Second Amendment is a right.

The right is inalienable, given to you simply for existing. The Second Amendment is only the listing of it.

Obviously. I didn't think a clarification was in order, but thank you anyway.
 
expat is from countries where the government grants it's citizens "rights", so he may not be fully aware of the inalienable concept.

It is the opposite take from what he is used to.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
expat is from countries where the government grants it's citizens "rights", so he may not be fully aware of the inalienable concept.

It is the opposite take from what he is used to.

Oh...I get it now "duh"! I thought that you were directing that at me.....sorry. You are correct....those from other nations don't typically grasp that. I guess that's another trait that makes us Americans.
 
This was my first comment on this suject, I hope it was not confused with a comment from another Canadian that suggested Americans are paranoid (I consider that comment to be inappropriate, especially here!)
Quote;"I respect American's rights and beliefs, But I have to say as someone who has been a Canadian, living mainly in western Canada for 30 years, I have NEVER felt threatened (in a meaningful way) nor do I know of any of my many acquaintances that have been a victim of a violent crime (to the extent that any significant injury was involved) nor have I heard any stories of friends of friends that have had a incident(I guess, worth repeating)
Yes we do have 'nasty' areas, and places where I might feel uncomfortable. But never where my life might be in jeopardy.

Just have to say this for what it's worth.

By the Please look into that report on Quesnel B.C. (Canada's most violent city)
There are lies, Dam lies, and statistics!" End Quote.

I enjoy coming here to experiance the was Americans 'Feel' about various subjects, and learn about your politics/constitutional rights. I may express MY feelings about MY counties, But I NEVER express thoughts on how you should manage yours!
If I got a little guarded, it was because I was accused of stating a non truth (about how I feel, no less!)

That being said, I find many aspects of your second amendment confusing. How can you be expected to give up your constitutional rights when you go to your place of work in your own country? How can you be expected to give up your constitutional right when you enter (of all places) a Federal building?
When did your constitutional right to Bare Arms start to have limits on Type Size, etc.

In view of your past, and what you say, I agree, if you wish to keep your job, I would not even dare suggest that the company's Gun policy be changed. A shame. I sounds (to me) very un-American??
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: expat
....your constitutional right to Bare Arms....


Pseudo-intellectuals are just so darned entertaining!
 
Originally Posted By: SWSportsman
Originally Posted By: expat
....your constitutional right to Bare Arms....


Pseudo-intellectuals are just so darned entertaining!

It's ok. Any discussion on firearms and the Second Amendment always draws responses from those that don't get it. It's fine.
 
Quote:
How can you be expected to give up your constitutional rights when you go to your place of work in your own country?

Your rights cannot trample others. If you decide and choose to go on someone else's property, then you have to abide by their wishes.
Quote:
How can you be expected to give up your constitutional right when you enter (of all places) a Federal building?

That is one that I don't agree with.

So as you can see, there is what the Founding Father's wanted, and then there is reality. They don't always mate.
Quote:
When did your constitutional right to Bare Arms start to have limits on Type Size, etc.

The 1930's at the Federal Level:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
 
Thank you Tempest for the answers to those questions. I am at work and just dont have much time on my breaks to answer them....you did great.
 
Originally Posted By: SWSportsman
Originally Posted By: expat
....your constitutional right to Bare Arms....


Pseudo-intellectuals are just so darned entertaining!


I never consider myself to be an intellectual, I have,no aspirations and the wrong education.
I also make to occasional spelling blunder, and I know I'm not alone there!
Pretty much, what I lean about these matters I learn here, and I THANK YOU for that!

When I draw a comparison between your rights and ours, I think; Our constitution will not allow discrimination. When I go to work, even though I may be on the employers property, He/She cannot discriminate There are of course exceptions*
But I guess ANY exceptions form a 'slippery slope"

* There would be exceptions, like; If I were to apply as a job as an Exotic dancer, they may discriminate on the grounds I'm the wrong sex, can't dance and Ugly!
 
Last edited:
Quote:
When I go to work, even though I may be on the employers property, He/She cannot discriminate

Then I guess you can't decide who has access to your house, either?
shocked.gif
These are the inconsistencies that come from government granting rights.

Or Founders believed in rights coming from your existence...because they can be proven.

Go outside and pick up a good sized rock or stick. You have now armed yourself. You didn't get that right from government, you were born with it, as are ALL men.

So as you can see, it is impossible for a government to grant you a right, it can only take them away.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So as you can see, it is impossible for a government to grant you a right, it can only take them away.


Good point!
But can your employer take away your rights?
It's a little different when someone steps into my house, but at a place of work surely, you do not give up all your rights?
----------------

"
National Firearms Act
Brought about by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like machine guns from America's streets. Other firearms such as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as well as other "gadget-type" firearms hidden in canes and such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. approval.


Wow! that was a BIG Blow against the Right to Bear Arms! How come that did not require an amendment to your constitution?
 
Last edited:
Quote:
How come that did not require an amendment to your constitution?

Because the courts have let them get away with it and "declared" it to be Constitutional via redefining the original meanings. Happens all the time since the 1930's.

It's obvious even to a Canadian that these laws violate the Constitution but not to our "expert" Judges...
08.gif
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Tempest
expat is from countries where the government grants it's citizens "rights", so he may not be fully aware of the inalienable concept.

It is the opposite take from what he is used to.

Oh...I get it now "duh"! I thought that you were directing that at me.....sorry. You are correct....those from other nations don't typically grasp that. I guess that's another trait that makes us Americans.


Clarification on that...

When Aussies were pushing for a Bill of Rights, the argument that the (Conservatives) used was that a Bill of Rights is limiting to those enumerated, while "our" system, the rights are always there, through not being limited.

I know it's a joke of an argument in the way that it's applied.

To reinforce their stance, it is now legal to defend yourself with a gun. It's not a valid reason to get/own one, and if you use it, you have to be able to prove a) that it was stored safely, and b) that there was genuinely a reason for self defence that allowed you to get all of the stuff together, and use it rather than run away or call the cops.

Like I said, it's a joke.

andrewg, if I was in your situation, and felt the way you seem to, it would be in a locked safe in the car when you got onto the carpark, and would adopt a strict policy of silence on the issue.

If you've got angry workmates reading this thread, you're hosed.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Tempest
expat is from countries where the government grants it's citizens "rights", so he may not be fully aware of the inalienable concept.

It is the opposite take from what he is used to.

Oh...I get it now "duh"! I thought that you were directing that at me.....sorry. You are correct....those from other nations don't typically grasp that. I guess that's another trait that makes us Americans.


Clarification on that...

When Aussies were pushing for a Bill of Rights, the argument that the (Conservatives) used was that a Bill of Rights is limiting to those enumerated, while "our" system, the rights are always there, through not being limited.

I know it's a joke of an argument in the way that it's applied.

To reinforce their stance, it is now legal to defend yourself with a gun. It's not a valid reason to get/own one, and if you use it, you have to be able to prove a) that it was stored safely, and b) that there was genuinely a reason for self defence that allowed you to get all of the stuff together, and use it rather than run away or call the cops.

Like I said, it's a joke.

andrewg, if I was in your situation, and felt the way you seem to, it would be in a locked safe in the car when you got onto the carpark, and would adopt a strict policy of silence on the issue.

If you've got angry workmates reading this thread, you're hosed.

If I thought that anybody at my work knew who I was from reading this website, I wouldn't even think about locking it in my vehicle. (My name has been changed to protect the innocent....lol). My worry about locking it in my car has several scenarios that could end up getting me fired. But.....if I do use a lockbox....and never allow anybody to open it or know the contents under any circumstance....I don't see how it could cause me problems. Even if security was to search my car and find the box (not likely, but you never know), I could always say that the box contains private valuables and I will not open it. What are they going to do? Confiscate my private property? I don't think legally they can do that.
 
I carry my Inferno Pepper Spray while at work and either keep the firearm in the car or at home, i find that it gets in the way of my work when carrying anyway.
 
While I appreciate that some may have a need for CCW, I cannot think of a dumber thing than to think it is OK to put a firearm in a car, just because it is in a glovebox - and think it is safe. The chances of a car getting stolen may be low, but they still exist. And for such a sensitive piece of equipment being secured under a seat or in a glove box is absurd. Especially since the places where one would be least safe and need the ccw are also the places where theft of your car would be highest.

Not saying it is wrong/bad to ccw. I am saying it is stupid and unsafe given all the fancy storage containers and means of securing firearms at home, to think that hidden in a car of all places is OK. If states will grant cc, and employers will choose to not allow on premesis, it seems to me that it would be better to have a central or required lock-in location.

Maybe Im wrong, but I figure there is no less secure spot than a vehicle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom