Options for work banning CPL
Hey,
New member, sorry to drop in and drop drama.
My workplace just updated the employee handbook to include a new section on workplace violence. This new section bans the possession of firearms, weapons or other dangerous items while on the office campus. I asked the Human Resources department if it was possible to get a waiver or sign a hold-harmless agreement of some sort. The HR VP replied, in plain English, "No, we won't compromise on this and my lawyers tell me it's legal to ban firearms here."
I live in Washington State, have a concealed pistol license and carry a Glock 19. I walk to work and prefer to be armed when passing by the several dumpsters between my office and apartment as they are often raided by vagrants. Some of these vagrants have been arrested for murder, car theft etc and one pulled a knife on my father-in-law last year.
Is anyone familiar enough with Washington state law to give me some options around this ban? Thanks.
New member, sorry to drop in and drop drama.
My workplace just updated the employee handbook to include a new section on workplace violence. This new section bans the possession of firearms, weapons or other dangerous items while on the office campus. I asked the Human Resources department if it was possible to get a waiver or sign a hold-harmless agreement of some sort. The HR VP replied, in plain English, "No, we won't compromise on this and my lawyers tell me it's legal to ban firearms here."
I live in Washington State, have a concealed pistol license and carry a Glock 19. I walk to work and prefer to be armed when passing by the several dumpsters between my office and apartment as they are often raided by vagrants. Some of these vagrants have been arrested for murder, car theft etc and one pulled a knife on my father-in-law last year.
Is anyone familiar enough with Washington state law to give me some options around this ban? Thanks.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by melkor
U and some friends go down to the dumpster and beat the vagrants like seals, and inform them this is your turf, get lost ! For Gods sake be a man ! U don't need a GUN ! U need some balls and a pipe ! [B)] Christ we were beating the stuffing out of each other in Elementary school over turf. Put your sissy gun down and give and maybe take a beating. Watch FIGHT CLUB a few times and American X then go Pummel ! [:D]
I suggest U bring a baseball bat, with a glove and ball each day past that dumpster and thump anyone who even looks at U. [B)
If U have no balls at all, your local Skinheads [8D] will do it for a small donation, with glee [:)]
Your post has no merit and is a lashing out of a man with an Hosest situation only seeking answers to a situation.
Your assumptions do not consider this mans abilities or handicaps.
It is a Mindset that is Fundamentally flawed to assume a pipe be considered a weapon if a situation arises of a .357 Mag Pointed in his face.
Assuming all people who stand up to their right to defend themselves would associate them selves with skin heads, You really don't understand The second amendment or the ones who stand by it.
You say grow some balls! I say you need to stop thinking you have some.
BallPark Frank envoy at its finest display and immaturity. Grow beyond yourself because you really are not as great as you think you are, It shows.
I ask You This!
Do You support and defend the constitution of the United States of America?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Nightmare_Scenario
Hey,
New member, sorry to drop in and drop drama.
My workplace just updated the employee handbook to include a new section on workplace violence. This new section bans the possession of firearms, weapons or other dangerous items while on the office campus. I asked the Human Resources department if it was possible to get a waiver or sign a hold-harmless agreement of some sort. The HR VP replied, in plain English, "No, we won't compromise on this and my lawyers tell me it's legal to ban firearms here."
I live in Washington State, have a concealed pistol license and carry a Glock 19. I walk to work and prefer to be armed when passing by the several dumpsters between my office and apartment as they are often raided by vagrants. Some of these vagrants have been arrested for murder, car theft etc and one pulled a knife on my father-in-law last year.
Is anyone familiar enough with Washington state law to give me some options around this ban? Thanks.
I share your displeasure with the company rule. While I agree with private property rights (but not restricting legal guns safely stored in an employee's vehicle in the company parking lot) I find it interesting that so many anti-gun, anti-self defense people will go to great lengths to restrict the peaceful, lawful gun owners, yet those same anti-self defense people never seem to get around to hammering on the actual criminal elements.
If it were me, I would just buy a Ruger LCP in .380 and keep it hidden in my pocket and nobody will ever know. Or, make an arrangement (pay them?) with a co-worker to store your firearm in their car parked outside the building.0 -
tr fox you are big nra and you tell someone that??? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by txjackass
tr fox you are big nra and you tell someone that???
I see no conflict in that.0 -
Doug,You raise a very interesting point.I have asked a similar question on another post.Seems most people think the employer has a "right" to deny an employee the "right" to be able to defend themselves with a firearm should the need arise.I am not worried about people carrying firearms who have a legal permit to carry concealed I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE LAWBREAKERS CARRYING ILLEGAL FIREARMS!!! THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LET "COMPANY POLICY" DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO ENTER THE PREMISES ARMED. 0 -
Perhaps you could negotiate with your employer.
Explain you that you are licensed and that you have a legitimate reason for wanting to carry. Explain that you would like to find a way to both carry to work and be disarmed while at work.
One possible solution is a lock box in your HR office. You deposit your gun in the box when you arrive at work. They lock it and retain the key. They unlock it and deliver the firearm to you when you are leaving the campus. Or maybe, you retain the key but they keep the box.0 -
Nothing like a bunch of people proclaiming to be for rights discussing how to disregard the rights of a property owner.
Look at it how you may but you are on someone elses property you do not have the same rights you do on your own property, or public property. You are limited by what they deem acceptable behavior just as you have the right not to step foot on their property.
It amazes me with how heavy handed some wish to be in disregarding a pretty sacred right that is one of the very foundations of our country. Take responsibility for your own actions and quit trying to force others to bend to your will when they have no desire, or requirement to.
Carrying a firearm on private property is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT0 -
Then, Mr Friendly, I assume that you would have no problem in me suing you for your eye-teeth if I am shot or attacked while on your property disarmed ? OR while driving home to pick up a weapon ?
Naturally, given a jury of 12 informed, aware Constitutionally minded Americans, I should be able to collect, handily....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Then, Mr Friendly, I assume that you would have no problem in me suing you for your eye-teeth if I am shot or attacked while on your property disarmed ? OR while driving home to pick up a weapon ?
Naturally, given a jury of 12 informed, aware Constitutionally minded Americans, I should be able to collect, handily....
No sir, by accepting my terms, you have made the choice to enter at your own peril.
That is the beautiful thing about this country, you are given choices and you either accept, or decline, and move on your way.
If someone goes "haywire" and attacks you THEY, and THEY ALONE are responsible for the damage inflicted. I, by not allowing you to carry a firearm on my property are no more responsible for their act than YOU are for accepting the terms, and giving up what you deem to be your right to protect yourself.
You can weight the variables, and make the decision for yourself whether or not you desire to put your safety in anothers hands. If you choose not to do so, you move on to the next opportunity. Your life, your freedom, your liberty, your choice.
You, a self proclaimed constitutionalist, individualist and spokesman for individual freedom should acknowledge that anything less that what is written above is nothing more than thinly veiled collectivism.0 -
If my family is hungry, and you have the only job in town, then that makes you ruler.ehhh ?
I reckon I will continue to ensure MY OWN safety.and not depend upon you to do so.
I can go along with nearly ANY `personal property' argument.
EXCEPT THIS ONE.
I have come to believe that personal defense and `Shall Not Be Infringed' trumps hopolophobia.
If I am wrong..at least I will be alive to admit it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
If my family is hungry, and you have the only job in town, then that makes you ruler.ehhh ?
I reckon I will continue to ensure MY OWN safety.and not depend upon you to do so.
I can go along with nearly ANY `personal property' argument.
EXCEPT THIS ONE.
I have come to believe that personal defense and `Shall Not Be Infringed' trumps hopolophobia.
If I am wrong..at least I will be alive to admit it.
HB, a business is not there to supply jobs to potential employees, it is there to make money.
I honestly would never have expected you to fall on this side of the topic, but so be it.
One can come up with any scenario they desire to justify circumventing the rights of property owners, hell the government does it all the time with emminent domain. Just because you can present what is, at least to you, a legitimate scenario that justify's it to your satisfaction , it does not make it so.
What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?0 -
quote:Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?
Has nothing to do with government...this is between two citizens.
So business is about making money, and not jobs. Fine.
Keep your business small enough so you alone can run it. The instant you hire somebody, you do so to make more money. It then BECOMES about jobs..doesn't it.
Your drive to make money, nor my need to have a job, should circumvent my Right to self protection.
Your thinly veiled contempt for those needing jobs not-withstanding, not EVERYBODY can run a business here in America...nor any other culture I have heard about.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Stop, take a breath and think about what you are saying in this thread. You are actually condoning the government to step in and regulate private property. What is more unamerican, and unconstitutional than this?
Has nothing to do with government...this is between two citizens.
So business is about making money, and not jobs. Fine.
Keep your business small enough so you alone can run it. The instant you hire somebody, you do so to make more money. It then BECOMES about jobs..doesn't it.
Your drive to make money, nor my need to have a job, should circumvent my Right to self protection.
Your thinly veiled contempt for those needing jobs not-withstanding, not EVERYBODY can run a business here in America...nor any other culture I have heard about.
Just because a business grows does not mean that you give up control. You hire someone who is willing to work within the confines of the rules you set forth, within reason.
A man from the outside cannot come on your property and force thier ideals and rules down your throat, citizen to citizen, but you can set the rules for them.
I personally have no contempt for those needing work HB, it shows that you do not know me at all. Nor have I ever, nor would I ever tell anyone who works for me that they could not carry a firearm. None of this changes the fact that a person who owns the property another comes to work for them cannot. I find the practice wrong, and degrading, but they are still within their rights, constitutionally, and legally.
For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.0 -
quote:For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.
Certainly. No disagreement at all, here.
quote:What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
As stated, I do not know you at all. All I can do is read, as I did the above post by you. There are many reasons to work for another man...and merely doing so does not negate the most important Right we have.
This is going to be an interesting fight, in the war councils after the Beast is yet again vanquished into its dank, dark cave some fine day.
I have indeed argued your side of the issue for many years.
I no longer am quite so assured that I was right to do so. I just am nor so sure an empty belly is justification for the renouncing of ones' Rights so easily...and the power of another to force that renouncing.
ANY other 'personal property' issue I will agree upon..the Right and DUTY of self-defense...I just don't know.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:For the government to pass a law telling private entities that they MUST allow their employees to carry on their property is a complete violation of a companies rights, and should never occur. it is as bad as them telling them how many minorities (qualified or not) that they must hire.
Certainly. No disagreement at all, here.
quote:What ever happened to a person being responsible for their own well being, security, safety, and choices. Your hard luck, and reliance on another to put food on the table does not result in a crisis on my end, nor should it mean I have to cave to your wishes.
As stated, I do not know you at all. All I can do is read, as I did the above post by you. There are many reasons to work for another man...and merely doing so does not negate the most important Right we have.
This is going to be an interesting fight, in the war councils after the Beast is yet again vanquished into its dank, dark cave some fine day.
I have indeed argued your side of the issue for many years.
I no longer am quite so assured that I was right to do so. I just am nor so sure an empty belly is justification for the renouncing of ones' Rights so easily...and the power of another to force that renouncing.
ANY other 'personal property' issue I will agree upon..the Right and DUTY of self-defense...I just don't know.
aye, but I think you would know me better than to think I would deny another man the right to their defense. I changed my name, this is Todesengel.
I must play devils advocate on some things, even if I do not agree with the principle. I am in all or nothing for our constitution, and that means I have to support the document, even in parts I do not agree with0 -
Collectivists would have us believe that we are under the power or control of government or of our employers. In fact, employment contracts in America today are contracts between equals. Each individual is in a position to accept the conditions imposed by the other, and is likewise in a position to reject those conditions. Employment occurs when a mutually acceptable arrangement is agreed.
In this country we still have the option to vote with our feet. If there is not a job available locally that meets with one's requirements, one still has the option to move. The suggestion that petitioning government (through the courts) to impose one citizen's standards upon another is, IMO, an anathema to the Constitutional Rights of property and to those Constitutional Rights of the individual.
As we progress down the path to total Governmental control of the private sector, there may be a day when employees will be able to dictate the conditions of their employment. Other than a fairly small percentage of jobs controlled by labor unions, we are not yet there. With any luck, and with the dedication of those that insist upon the value of the individual, we will never reach that point.
I have been both an employee and an employer. As an employer today, I have no policy regarding carrying firearms, and I never will. As a supplier to industrial customers, I respect the condition imposed by most, and do not carry firearms on their property. I have, after all, the choice to not be a supplier.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Collectivists would have us believe that we are under the power or control of government or of our employers. In fact, employment contracts in America today are contracts between equals. Each individual is in a position to accept the conditions imposed by the other, and is likewise in a position to reject those conditions. Employment occurs when a mutually acceptable arrangement is agreed.
In this country we still have the option to vote with our feet. If there is not a job available locally that meets with one's requirements, one still has the option to move. The suggestion that petitioning government (through the courts) to impose one citizen's standards upon another is, IMO, an anathema to the Constitutional Rights of property and to those Constitutional Rights of the individual.
As we progress down the path to total Governmental control of the private sector, there may be a day when employees will be able to dictate the conditions of their employment. Other than a fairly small percentage of jobs controlled by labor unions, we are not yet there. With any luck, and with the dedication of those that insist upon the value of the individual, we will never reach that point.
I have been both an employee and an employer. As an employer today, I have no policy regarding carrying firearms, and I never will. As a supplier to industrial customers, I respect the condition imposed by most, and do not carry firearms on their property. I have, after all, the choice to not be a supplier.
Thank you. I wish I had the ability to break it down as organized, and clearly as you do0 -
I could agree with you gentlemen.IF the culture were sane. IF the truly insane were few and far between.
IF the businesses that prohibited were driven speedily OUT of business for their anti-social behavior by decent citizens depriving them of the support of their dollars.
At that point.people wishing to work for or patronize them do so at their own chosen peril.PLUS facing the contempt and scorn and derision of more balanced individuals of society.
Perhaps I will break this down further ;
Pre-Apocalypse ; (right now)
An insane society, driven by madmen and compliant citizenry, with no tools available to the remnants save civil disobedience ;
Post-Apocalypse ;
A society that has re-gained freedom, and anxious to keep it.
Just as I speak of the Second Amendment in its pure form, yet realize that that ideal will never happen without a tremendous upheaval, in this case I speak of carrying where prohibited UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
One citizen violating another's `Rights' is between THEM, versus a government seeking to enslave ALL men.
I will personally endeavor to maintain my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, over the personally prejudices of another.
I place the individual seeking to disarm me in EXACTLY the same camp as the government ; Enemies of the people.
Now, you all may draw and quarter me, accuse me of doing the exact same thing as the government seeks to do ; Impose MY values on another.
When it comes to THIS ONE AMENDMENT.you damn betcha I do.
THAT is the importance I place on THIS AMENDMENT.
I am prepared to defend my position in the Councils...AFTER the war.
You gentlemen come prepared to defend YOUR positions.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Just as I speak of the Second Amendment in its pure form, yet realize that that ideal will never happen without a tremendous upheaval, in this case I speak of carrying where prohibited UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
One citizen violating another's `Rights' is between THEM, versus a government seeking to enslave ALL men.
I will personally endeavor to maintain my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, over the personally prejudices of another.
I place the individual seeking to disarm me in EXACTLY the same camp as the government ; Enemies of the people.
Exactly, HB, on all counts.
The only distinction that I make is that there are, and should be, consequences to actions. Carrying where prohibited, if discovered, will result in one being asked to leave. If one does not leave, he is trespassing, and then (and only then) does it move from being between them alone.
While I agree with you that individuals who seek to disarm their employees and customers are enemies to those people's freedom and safety, I cannot see a way in which they do not have the right to be that enemy.
Don0 -
quote:The only distinction that I make is that there are, and should be, consequences to actions. Carrying where prohibited, if discovered, will result in one being asked to leave. If one does not leave, he is trespassing, and then (and only then) does it move from being between them alone.
Absolutely.
I cannot disagree with this a bit...not one bit.
As gentlemen of character do..we find areas of agreement and work from there.0 -
My boss (With whom I've been shooting) bans firearms at work. Says it's to appease the insurance people.
Whatever, man. He pays well and I can lock it in my truck.
It used to irk me, but I love my job.0 -
Something I am missing here or just didn't catch. When one opens a business as a private individual with himself as the sole employee, that individual retains his rights. When it/they become a business, they are surrendered. A business is not an entity that retains rights of any kind. Rights can only be retained by an individual. Powers and priviledges are retained by businesses and government.
That said, I had a letter placed on file that the company was responsible for my safety and would be held liable in the event that some thing to occur to me. It was on my lawyers letterhead and was sent to the company's general counsel. That's about the best you can do. I personally ignore the rule and would not permit a search by any company officer-only law enforcement with reasonable suspicion.0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
Something I am missing here or just didn't catch. When one opens a business as a private individual with himself as the sole employee, that individual retains his rights. When it/they become a business, they are surrendered. A business is not an entity that retains rights of any kind. Rights can only be retained by an individual. Powers and priviledges are retained by businesses and government.
That said, I had a letter placed on file that the company was responsible for my safety and would be held liable in the event that some thing to occur to me. It was on my lawyers letterhead and was sent to the company's general counsel. That's about the best you can do. I personally ignore the rule and would not permit a search by any company officer-only law enforcement with reasonable suspicion.
If that was true there would be no such thing as insubordination.
There would be no such thing as a dress code
There would be no such thing as required id
There would be no such thing as restricted smoke areas
There would be no such thing as conduct codes
You are incorrect sir, sorry. The owners of a property make th rules, not those on said property who are under employment of the owners0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
53 comments