Safety and OSHA News

Sure, bring your guns to work — but you’ll be fired if you do

Your state says it’s OK to bring guns to work. But as an employer, you think that’s a safety hazard that violates your rights and undermines your responsibilities. What now? 

Last week, when Indiana joined roughly a dozen other states in explicitly allowing employees to bring guns to their places of employment (provided they have permits and keep them locked in their cars), one huge Indiana employer reacted swiftly.

ArcellorMittal, a multinational steel giant, thumbed its nose at the new law. It told employees at its two Indiana plants they were to leave their guns at home. Period. Its rationale: Federal law trumps state law.

The company didn’t say which law it was referring to, but the Indiana Manufacturers Association, which fought the law for years, told the South Bend Tribune the issues are property rights and workplace safety laws:

“Property owners are guaranteed in the Constitution the right to control their own property,” said Ed Roberts, legal counsel for the organization. “And they’re required by the state to do what they can to keep employees safe.”

There are exceptions to the new law — including schools, prisons and child care facilities — but Bloomberg Businessweek says banks and airports aren’t among them. Those perceived oversights also have opponents up in arms.

More legal challenges are bound to come — from those who want the law repealed, and possibly from ArcellorMittal employees who are now hearing one thing from the state and another from their employer.

What’s your take? Feel free to comment below.

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest safety news and insights delivered to your inbox.
  • Bill Lord

    It’s a slippery slope for sure. I’m an active supporter of the second ammendment, an NRA member and active shooter, so I am in favor of being able to have your gun with you at all times. However, I also recognize and support the rights of property owners. Now, the law in Indiana says that you have to have a firearms license to have your gun locked in your car at work, and that’s a reasonable requirement. Statistics show that firearms license holders are not likely to be involved in a criminal event involving a firearm. But, should the employer, the one with property rights (ownership or leasehold) be able to disregard the law based upon those rights. When does one right trump another? I think that with the licensing and locked in car requuirements that the law is reasonable, as I stated before. In Georgia we have a similar law, but with one more provision. The employee parking lot has to be accessible by the public. This gives employers an opportunity to exercise their rights by limiting access to employees only. It may not be perfect, but it’s one way of dealing with the issue.

  • David C. Ruff

    My vehicle constitutes MY PROPERTY, and just the same as a US warship at sea is considered to be sovereign US soil, the contents of my vehicle are exempt from my employers’ control, as long as they are kept inside my locked car.

  • Dale

    The Constitution means what it says, the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed – by anyone. There are any number of laws restricting a property owners’ rights. Try building on your property without a permit. The lawyer’s claim is bogus. The constitutional guarantee trumps any other law and especially liberal backdoor attempts to undermine the constitution.

  • ed

    Hey Dave,

    For your safety and the safety of all that work around you, I hope your employer does away with employee parking. Maybe if you had to find your own public parking you would respect the rights of the property owner and abide by thier wishes while placing your “soveriegn property” on his soveriegn property. You have just enough attitude to clue me in on your mental state and I dont believ I would be to comfortable with allowing you access to firearms.

  • Jon Cox

    A car and a US warship at sea are not comparable.

    Where do you draw the line? Is it OK to keep a few 20 gallon propane tanks in your locked car on an employer’s parking lot? A cube van full of fireworks?

    Granted, we do not have a Constitutional right to bear propane tanks or fireworks. But what about a van with an advertisement for a competitive company, or an unpopular political campaign painted on the sides? Does the employer’s private property rights trump one’s free speech rights?

    What if you’re operating a small business out of your home? What about farmers? Do you loose the ability to decide if guns are allowed on your own property by your employees?

  • nomi

    Why would a person feel the need to bring a weapon to work? I really don’t care what you have in your locked car as long as it stays in your locked car. However, as a gun owner and as a property owner, I feel the property owner’s rights trump the gun owner’s rights. I should have the right to say that I do not want you to bring a gun onto my property whether you have a permit or not.

  • Austen Schwend

    These policies usually exist because businesses believe that they are LIABLE for damages if they DON’T restrict people in this manner. In other words, if Company X doesn’t specify that guns AREN’T allowed on the campus, in case of a shooting they can be sued because they didn’t prevent such a thing. And that is ridiculous. The justice system is working backwards in that case.

    IF the 2nd Amendment is considered to be an individual right that is in existence in part so US citizens can protect themselves, then the justice system should protect property owners from such a suit. It is not the property owner’s fault that they allowed basic rights of a US citizen to happen on their property.

    However, it should also not be the property owner’s fault if they deny that right and people are killed or injured because of it. The freedom in America is such that you can do what you want with your property. If an individual doesn’t like your policies as a business, they can choose whether or not they should find another place of employment.

    It is my opinion that if property owners were protected from lawsuits from both sides, we would see more companies allowing carry in parking lots, or even into the buildings themselves.

    As of right now, the political environment and public opinion seems to be making more and more corporations anti-gun because of fear of an impartial judicial system. And that scares me.

    Fix the judicial system and this would iron itself out, I think.

  • RuthS

    We are impacted by this new law in Indiana – as an HR/Safety professional my question is this – how do I KNOW that employee has the required valid firearms license and that it is ACTUALLY kept in their car and the car is actually LOCKED at all times while on company property!? Am I able and held responsible to have employees identify they have a firearm in their car? Can I check and validate their license? But I bet I can be sued when/if someone is shot or injured if that gun is not licensed correctly or is not properly locked up – that is where the problem comes in to play here!

  • Austen Schwend

    RuthS, IF this law were passed, I imagine you’d check it just like you would about people driving cars into your lot.

    Do you check for their license (a public record like CHLs are… at least here in VA), do you check that their vehicle is currently registered, inspected, insured, etc? If someone has a wreck on your company’s property (and I know that happens frequently), do you get sued if someone on your property isn’t properly licensed or insured? I’m curious to know the answer. Although in many ways, laws should treat cars and firearms the same, there is a huge double standard that exists between the two.

    Until we fix the legal system…

  • Bill Lord

    Nomi – just an example of why someone would feel the need to bring a firearm to work. The pistol range I frequent is very near where I work. If I can’t bring my firearm to work and keep it locked unloaded and out of sight in my car I will have to drive all the way home and back after work on days that I want to go shooting. I don’t carry it with me on any other days.

  • RuthS

    Austen – it HAS passed and is in effect now. You bring up some good points, I do not verify that cars are properly registered, licensed and insured. But I also bet I can be sued – I am for gun rights – but I do not as a business want to be held liable for an employee bringing a gun to our property and it not meeting the requirements and I have to pay – that is what I need to look into.
    Thanks for the perspective on vehicles – good point.

  • nomi

    Bill – Fair enough example.

    As long as you don’t work at a location that inspects the vehicles coming in and out of the lot, they would have no way of knowing you had a firearm with you unless you told people or started waving it around. Like I said, I really don’t care what you have in your car as long as it stays in your car. But if you don’t behave like a responsible gun owner, then I should have the right to forbid you bringing it onto my property. And if you won’t comply, then I should have just cause to terminate your employment.

  • Bill Lord

    Nomi – sounds like we are in agreement. I am a licensed, responsible gun owner, but if I acted as you describe I would expect to be dealt with switly and severely.

  • JR

    I was once taught that one’s rights end at the tip of their nose. An individual’s rights do not extend beyond that individual. That being said, one’s right to bear arms does not in any way affect a property owner’s duty to protect his employees. A car may be your property if you paid it off but you have to register that vehicle and have a license to drive that vehicle and the weapon must be license, all these are examples of a community’s right to control individual’s action for the good of the whole society. Those gun owners, who fight reasonable controls, do the cause no good. They only demonstrate that fanatics opinions make us all look bad. To use David’s example of US Warships; I was in the Navy and boarded American warships before they entered foreign ports as representatives of the foreign ports, to ensure we complied with that sovereign country controls. Were I to show favoritism to my country I would then, have made every American Ship open to boarding by other countries. Doing right sometimes me being tough to the pie-piper. The employer can make sure you do not park YOUR Property on their PROPERTY right David? Who could argue that a right to own a weapon means a property owner should give up their right, control (and responsibility) of the employees safety on their property to a gun owner wants to store a weapon where they want. Does owning, mean carrying and storing are the same? In case anybody missed it the foreign country would be OSHA in David’s example. The safety professional/employer has to be tough to keep OSHA from boarding our property to regulate us if we want to enjoy the fuits(profits) of this soverign land.

  • Austen Schwend

    JR, “reasonable controls” are a highly subjective thing. Some gun owners fight “reasonable controls” because they understand the history of gun control. Gun control is nothing but a slippery slope. One thing is regulated, only to find out that the particular regulation did nothing to stop crime, and then another regulation is done with the same result, etc, etc. It is extremely rare in the atmosphere of politics to repeal a bad gun law, but it isn’t always that hard to get them passed. What you end with is a spider web of law that makes it difficult for a good natured person to follow the laws of the land.

    Just wanted to nip that point that you tried to make. “Reasonable controls” is a pet phrase by many politicians in an attempt to try to convince you that everyone who opposes it is “unreasonable”. And that’s just dumb.

  • Joe Lovato

    I understand the balancing act that is necessary in this situation, but not the angst against it. Where I work, we have signs posted at all entrances that specify “No weapons allowed” according to state law. This means that you can’t carry into the building. But we also have the law saying that you can lock it up in your vehicle. As well as laws allowing unlicensed concealed carry, and open carry. We as a facility walk a fine line between all these laws. If the firearm is secured in the vehicle, out of sight, then there is no liability for the employer or employee. Laws like this are to allow people to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, but also balance the property owner’s rights. As usual, you can choose to get a job elsewhere, just as you can choose to eat, shop, buy, etc. at places that don’t post against carrying. Most licensed carriers try their best to NOT advertise that they are armed, so I don’t see what the problem would be. As for the need to carry to and from work, well, I have to drive 17 miles in to work, across a major metro area, and I sometimes have to come in for calls at night. Why should I have to give up my rights at that time? Do I give up my 1st Amendment rights to and from work if my employer restricts my internet access?

  • Bill Lord

    Austen is correct. It’s called incrementalism. You don’t go for a full ban right away; you take a small step (large capacity magazines), then another step (“assault weapons” ban), then another step (long gun registration) and before you know it a law abiding citizen can’t get a gun, but a criminal still can. This is a process by which many bad policies are implemented. I know, that’s not the topic, but I had to get on my soapbox for a moment.

  • Lee

    No law has ever prevented a criminal or “mentally disturbed” person from doing anything. A criminal by definition doesn’t obey the law and as far as the disturbed individual do you really think they’ll obey?

    When you put up your “No guns” signs it just tells the bad guy there is nobody in here able to defend themself.

  • Alicia

    Simple solution, if you want to carry a gun in your car and that’s your right and the owner of the property doesn’t allow guns on his property and that’s his/her right than park your car in a public parking lot that doesn’t have any rules one way or the other, problem solved. The ultimate reason behind the no guns on property is the employer doesn’t want someone having a bad day to have easy access to a gun, if you have to drive home to get your gun than you have more time to think before taking action verses having easy access to the gun in the parking lot, too many lives have been lost in the past to rampages on the jobsite, most companies are not as concerned with the lawsuits as much as the loss of lives.

  • Jon Cox

    Naomi said “But if you don’t behave like a responsible gun owner, then I should have the right to forbid you bringing it onto my property. And if you won’t comply, then I should have just cause to terminate your employment.”

    If I were an HR person, I think I’d be very careful in that situation.

  • nomi

    Jon, I’m just as vulnerable to a weapon as anyone else. I was talking about the law, not what I would do if I felt threatened by someone with a gun. I would run, hide, call 911, pass out, etc … not necessarily in that order.

  • Austen Schwend

    Alicia, it could also go the other way if you really want to think about it. If a mentally deranged person has “a bad day” and decides the solution to their bad day is to take another life, they might use the handgun they have on them if policy allowed it. If you make them go home because they followed because a “no guns” policy to begin with, sure they might say “nah, I guess it’s not everyone else’s fault my life sucks, it’s my own responsibility”. But that’s a rational conclusion that a person in an unrational mindset would have to make.

    Instead, the extra time might be spent PLANNING to make it more of a problem for the rest of us. And even worse, the person gets a rifle AND a couple handguns AND extra magazines while at home instead of just a handgun with one magazine.

    What I’m saying is that your logic “to save lives” isn’t exactly logical if you complete the thought.

    Furthermore, your solution would mean that the guy who has to go back home to get the weapon he chooses will bring it back to face people without any weapons. The freedom friendly solution might be that he tries to use the handgun in his truck or from his holster against people who also have handguns in their truck or on their person. Which one leads to better odds for the potential victims?

    Guns are not good. It sucks that they have to exist. I wish we could snap our fingers and have no weapons in the world. But we can’t, and because we can’t you have to be realistic in your reasoning about how to handle situations like this. How many more massacres do we need to see from immature, untrained, unskilled idiots before we realize that gun free zones don’t work in this country?

  • Bill Lord

    I always will come back to the same point: laws only work on the law-abiding. Laws give the justice system a way to punish the guilty after they have committed the crime. The police have no duty to defend you; the supreme court has made that clear. They will be glad to go look for the person(s) who shot you after you’re shot. You and I are responsible for our own safety and health. You can’t legislate it. Be prepared.

  • Ken

    I am a Hospital Safety Officer in New Mexico. New Mexico has always allowed open carry of firearms. This means that you can carry a firearm unconcealed in public as ling as you are not a felon or are otherwise legally prohibited from doing so, no license is required. You can not carry into alcohol sreving establishments ,banks, fedral buildings, cout houses, schools etc. We also have a “concealed carry law” where you must be trained and have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. New Mexico just passed a provision that allows the concealed permit owner to carry in restraunts and bars that serve alchohol. Probaly way more info than needed but just wanted to give the background. The “New Law” all of you are debating here is not new in NM as it has always been in effect. I wrote a “Weapons Policy” for our hospital and included definitions of weapons not limited to just firearms. Basicaly anything that can be used to do or threaten harm. In the firearms portion I listed as an exception for “weapons” that are secured in personal vehicles that meet all other legal criteria. No one is allowed to carry a weapon into any of my facilities except “law enforcement officials in performance of their offical duty”. This policy applies to all persons entering the permises. That way it is no more or less stringant on employees. Whats in their cars is theirs. Granted if someone is intent on harm there is not much you can do about it and no law can either. After all it is “illegal” to do harm. Of course Me and and some others may be able to get to our “legally secured weapons in our cars” and prevent further harm if some idiot does decide to go crazy.

  • hs

    Guns are neither bad nor good. They are inanimate objects, and have no personality of their own.

    I am a gun owner, and a concealed carry permit holder. Have been for over 25 years, and I carry every day.

    The law was written in that manner to allow employees to carry on their way to and from work. This situation is covered by the law, as it is no business of the employer what the employee legally stores in their personal automobile. Key word here is legal.

    Regarding some of the comments here about dangerous situations – If a madman comes into your office, waving a gun and threatening to shoot people – Would you be safer if I am there that day with my personal weapon, or if no one on the property has access to a firearm other than the criminal who didn’t read your sign?

    Ask the folks at the Discovery Channel, or at Virginia Tech. They know first hand that criminals don’t read signs, and don’t worry about the rules. The shame is that legal permit holders were following the rules, were unarmed, and the criminals were able to do much more damage, because there was no one equipped to oppose them. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    One more bit of trivia – CCW permit holders are the most law abiding people around. Statistics show that we are 15-20 times LESS likely to commit any type of crime than any other group. I had to pass both state and federal background checks to get my most recent permit, and was fingerprinted as well.

  • DH

    Wow. Lots of emotionalism here. I need to make a couple points. The law merely expressly made it *lawful* to store guns in employee’s cars. However, I know of nothing preventing an employer making it into a *personnel* issue–different rules apply. “Don’t like it? Get a job elsewhere!” My employer falls into that category. I, too, am “lawfully licensed” to carry a concealed handgun. When not at work, I *AM* armed, carrying everywhere it is lawful to do so (even places that would make some people ask “Why?!?!”–like church). Can’t do it at work–not and keep my job–but it wouldn’t be *unlawful* to do so. Now It could be argued that a “properly” concealed weapon would be unknown to the employer, but is it worth taking a chance of being discovered? Not to me.

  • AB

    The only thing I would like to chime in on is the fact that, for many professional workplaces, the employer does not necessarily own the parking lot. In the case of my workplace, they lease the office space from a developer, along with other tenants. In that case, I don’t see where the employer has any right to tell an employee that they can’t keep a gun in their vehicle. However, if the employeer owns the land that the parking is on, or individualy holds a lease for the entire property, they have every right to tell anyone coming on to their property, in a vehicle or not, that they can’t bring a gun – just like at my home, where I have the right to tell someone coming to my house that I don’t want them to bring thier gun (even though I wouldn’t search their vehicle when they showed up). What all the arguments I have been reading come down to, however, is that those opposed to gun ownership will generally be against employees possessing guns, and those who own guns will generally be for it. Hence, the “emotionalism”… It has always been that way, and one side is unlikely to convinve the other, no matter how rationally their arguments are made. Rationally, however, this issue is not related to employers rights, but only to property owner’s rights. To me, who the property owner is (an employer vs. a private citizen) is not relevant. If someone owns the property, they have the right to control what goes on there – if they dont’ own it (such as a common parking area for multiple tenants) then thay have no say. P.S. -I am a gun owner. I do somewhat agree with DH, though – employment is “at will”… If you don’t agree with your employer’s policies, you are free to quit. Life is often about priorities…

  • Jim Dowdell

    While I fundamentally support the rights of property owners, including businesses, the threshhold was crossed long ago by our ever expansive government. Businesses are required to provide handicap parking in accordance with various local, state and federal laws. OSHA conrols in one way or another a great deal of the private property of businesses. Federal laws grant union organizers access to employers private property under certain circumstances. If / when law enforcement officers enter business property on official business they do not check their guns at the gate. In short, business has for the most part accepted and complied with all of the aforementioned encroachments on their property rights with little or no resistance. Their compliance with state laws that require them to tolerate an employee lawfully possessing a secured firearm in their vehicle should be met with the same degree of acceptance as these other government mandates.

  • Robert

    I see the questions of why you would have a firearm on a employer’s property. It seems to me that the employers are worrying about the liability. Okay should the employer be liable for employee getting mugged while on his way to work because the employer denied the employee the right to defend himself ?
    I talked to our company’s regional safety manager and was told that we did terrible on our risk assessment we had done on our corporate office. We didn’t have armed guards, automated locking doors, or atleast 1 CWP holder with a gun in a lock box on the property. The evaluator said” the building was too far from the nearest police dept.” ” If someone came in and started shooting people he wouldn’t stop until he ran out of ammo or took his own life.” Now who would be liable for that?

  • Lee

    @ Robert – I’ve informed my employer that if I am not allowed to protect myself (I’m unarmed by their policy) and am injured or killed my family will file a law suit.

  • JR

    Yes, I agree with Robert and Lee. File a law suit. Liability is blown out of proportion baggie man, fear. We talk about laws and judges, but thank God we have juries of our neighbors. Real people like normal people. Not outliners fringe people. Law makers are politicians, who bow to loud groups. We don’t need no stinky CAPS. If the company weighed your safety less than the risk they should pay. Now if somebody files a lawsuit that our neighbors find lacking, then that lawyer and his greedy client should have to pay all the cost of all the people on the jury and all the lawyers and fees. If you are right go for it, if you know you’re full of hot air and not willing to put your money where your mouth is, save it.

  • Jon B

    I think the individuals rights should always take priority over the rights of a corporation.

    I also believe that if a company does not want their employees to be able to defend themselves from a mad man or gal that is not going to obey the rules anyway, then the company should be held accountable for your safety. How many people that create mass shootings go and ask their employer if it is okay before hand?

    On top of all that, how many people are mugged on the way to work, attacked by their crazy spouse or stocker, unknowingly attend a bank robbery during work hours or get car jacked on the way to or from work. They should be able to defend themselves too shouldn’t they?

    If you look at the FBI crime data, people who have weapons permits usually do not commit violent crimes at all and when a police officer is on average 8 plus minutes away, would it not be better to have someone on hand to put down the threat before he can empty his gun six times or more? I know that the only thing that stopped our mall shooting here in 07 was a man with a concealed weapon who kept the attention of the shooter until the police could put him down.

  • Jon B

    P.S. Have you noticed that mass shootings allways take place in a gun free zone? But you never hear on a mass shooting at a gun show (Lots of guns) or a shooting range (lots of guns). If guns are so dangerous in the hand of the average man…then why do cities with the most restrictive laws have the highest violent crime rates? Curious isn’t it?

  • Lee

    No law ever stopped a criminal or crazy from doing anything. @ Jon – Criminals are preditory animals. A loin will not attack an adult elephant because the lion knows he will be hurt or killed. However, a sick or baby elephant is lunch. If a criminal enters an “unarmed victim zone” he is reasonablity sure he is going to come out on top. 10 out of 10 criminals prefer unarmed victims.

  • George

    Any type of weapon should never be allowed on site!!!!

    Forget your stupid ignorant state laws or that constitution means what it says, the right to keep and bear arms. This isn’t 1776 or 1861!!!

    This mentality about criminals and so on is just hillbilly stupidity!

    I feel very safe in Massachusetts

  • Sully

    George

    We should all move to Massachusetts where it is safe! It’s not safe everywhere, we have armed bank robberies weekly, drug addicts have taken to armed robby of old folks in thier homes and after relieving them of thier pain meds they beat the old folks for fun, other thugs are watching women come home alone knowing thier husbands are at work and force thier way in as the door is unlocked. Mass shootings at work, at schools, random attack at other public places. Two things remain constant at these mass public shootings…#1 They happen where firearms are prohibited… and #2 They are not being commited by persons carrying concealed weapons permits. If concealed weapons were allowed in these areas these attacks might not have ever happened and if they did, they might have had better end results. It doesn’t take long to research the facts…take a look online and see how many attacks have already been thwarted by persons with concealed weapons permits and see how many violent act have been committed by persons with concealed carry permits.

    I am glad you feel safe where you live, and I hope you never have to be wittness to the evils out there today. As for myself, I don’t feel as safe as you do. I was against CCW for years saying the same thing you are saying but then I realized the autrocities I read about daily were not being committed by persons with CCW permits. I began talking to those who had CCW permits and found they were just wanting to protect themselves. I also found out that, like me, they went through an internal battle to come to grips with the moral issues involved and every person that I interviewed prayed that they would never have to use thier weapon.

    So feel safe my friend George, but as for me the only security I have is knowing that there are good people out there that are willing to risk thier freedom in our decaying legal system to protect themselves and others from the worst society has to offer.

  • Jon B

    Thank’s Sully

    When seconds count, the police are just minutes away

  • hs

    George –

    I’m not sure why anyone would feel “very safe” in Massachusetts.

    In 2005, Massachusetts was #8 nationwide in total crimes, and 32 states were rated safer, based on total violent crimes.

    There were 175 murders, 1732 forced rapes, 7615 robberies, 19715 aggravated assaults, 34624 burglaries, 97737 larceny and theft, and 18880 vehicle thefts reported in your state.

    There was one crime reported for every 35.45 people.

    You are absolutely correct when you say that this is not 1776 or 1861. Today’s world is much more dangerous, because of human predators instead of wild animals.

    I seriously hope that I never have to fire a gun at another human. However, if it comes down to a case of my family surviving, or a criminal attacker surviving, I know which I will choose.

    If you would, please explain to me how a victim of violent crime is morally superior to an individual, who through their “hillbilly stupidity”, chooses to defend themself rather than become yet another victim.

  • Sully

    George

    I am sorry, I forgot one other point. It’s not that I feel a need for a weapon at work, it’s simple the need to and from work. I work in a concrete precast facility and well I kinda have to go through a crack neighborhood to get to work. That also means I have to go through the same crack nieghborhood going home. Not to mention where else I might want to go after work prior to going home. Or should i have to go home to protect myself then go ehre I needed to go?

  • George

    Yes, there are places in Massachusetts that are not safe to walk through at night,
    just like another other state in our country. We do have murders, robbery and other violence.

    That doesn’t mean we all should arm ourselves and walk around paranoid!
    It’s that mentality of guns rights and the unrealistic perceived violence is going happen to me and everyone. It’s not a real life situation! Unless of course you live in Afghanistan or Iraq, then I would strongly suggest carrying a gun.

    I really have no problem with anyone owning guns, bows, or knives. I use to hunt
    and I had several guns and knives. BUT, they should not be allowed at any work site even if it’s in your car. That is not providing a safe work environment for the employees.

  • hs

    I think the point should be made again that CCW permit holders are some of the most law abiding citizens around, 15-20 times less likely to commit ANY crime than the general population.

    We have all passed a background check to get our permit, in most cases state and federal.

    My gun, legally stored in my car, does not constitute a safety hazard to anyone, and therefore does not interfere with my company providing a safe work environment.

    If we are really truthful here, the reason that so many criminals is that they have little to no fear of a victim being able to defend themselves. Statistics show that areas with high legal gun ownership have much lower violent crime rates.

    Kennesaw, GA has a law on the books that mandates gun ownership. Their viloent crime rate is about 13% of the national average, even though they are part of the Atlanta metro area. Atlanta itself carries a violent crime rate more than double the national average. Marietta, GA, which is just next door to Kennesaw, has a rate about equal to the national average. Neither Marietta nor Atlanta have the same gun ownership requirement that Kennesaw has.

  • Mr. Miracle

    George, I am sorry, but I must disagree with you. I have carried a gun for over a decade. I have always had one in my vehicle, since I was of age and where legal to do so. I don’t walk around paranoid, nor do I look for trouble. But to me, a firearm is just a tool, to be used in an emergency situation like any other life saving device. Just because my employer bans firearms in their building should not mean that I can’t have it to and from work. Taking it just a bit further, should I take the fire extinguisher out of my car, since my employer has a fire sprinkler system? Since I have a phone at work, should I not carry a cell phone? Should I not keep a first aid kit, water, spare light bulbs, blanket, tire iron, or flashlight out of my vehicle? Any of these items are 1) duplicated at my job, 2) can be used in an emergency, and 3) can be used in an incorrect manner to injure or kill someone. Further, since I have “911” on speed dial at my home, does that meant I should not have a fire extinguisher or alarms system?
    What you don’t understand is that most CCW holders look at their weapon as a tool, not some sort of phallic symbol or paranoid security blanket. If you look at the stats, there is something akin to .01% of CCW holders around the country that have committed crimes, and most of those have been minor things that had nothing to do with firearms.

    As for providing a safe work environment, how exactly was there a safe work environment at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, or in the Tucson Safeway parking lot? The rules and laws that exist, and any brought into existence, will ONLY stop law-abiding citizens. Criminals have not, nor ever will, follow the laws. That is why they are criminals. If there ever was something here at work that would cause me to run to my car for a fire extinguisher, tourniquet, or firearm, I can guarantee that it would not be something started by a law abiding citizen.

  • Austen

    George, the problem I have with your logic is that I feel like it is incomplete.

    You have the fear that guns at work presents an environment that is not safe. The only way to believe that is to believe that there is somebody who will snap and USE that gun in a manner that is a threat to life and limb of yourself, coworkers, and possibly customers. The only way that you can have THAT fear is to identify an “unrealistic perceived violence”, as you put it.

    You’ve identified the problem in your head, but have somehow written it off that it isn’t solvable or that somehow it’s not your responsibility to solve it. This is where we disagree. I also have identified an “unrealistic perceived violence”, but the difference between the two of us is that I have realized that there is only one realistic and effective solution to the problem. And that is for ME to train MYSELF and carry the tools to try to solve the problem.

    You and people like you call it paranoia, you call it ignorant, hillbilly-like, the insults thrown around are plenty. But this “hillbilly paranoia” is no different than me having a spare tire in my truck in case of a flat, it is no different than having a fire extinguisher in my kitchen in case of a fire, etc, etc. I have identified a possible risk, and have chosen certain steps to negate that risk if someday it should prove to actually be a problem.

    Next time you put on a seatbelt in your car, ask yourself if you EXPECT to get in a crash that day. Of course, your answer is “no”. Statistically, it’s just not a probability. Yet you still put that seatbelt on. Does that make you paranoid?

  • Lee

    @George “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

  • JR

    We get off subject. Should an employer be allowed to prevent fire arms on their property? It’s seems from a Safety management point of view, Safety professionals have an obligation to recommend to their employers, that they control all hazards. Work place violence is an area that must be managed. Not doing all you can to minimize this risk, incurs a liability to the employer. As professionals, we must put personal beliefs aside.

  • hs

    JR –

    State law in numerous states has upheld that legally possessed items (including weapons) in an employee’s vehicle are not subject to employer rules.

    Firearms in particular have been addressed by the courts in Georgia and in Oklahoma in recent times, and the rights of the employees to store legally possessed firearms in their personal vehicles was uphelp.

    Again – rules do not stop crimes. The criminal has already decided to break the law and risk jail time. Disciplinary action for violating company policy is not likely to discourage that behavior.

    More to the point, a few trusted employees who are armed, trained, and proficient, could possibly negate such an issue, or at least lessen the severity.

  • George

    JR – I agree with you – Weapons of any kind don’t belong at work!

  • Sully

    Jr.

    How is making it company policy that bans hand guns in the parking lot, in locked vehicles, a step toward providing a safer work place for your employees? If the weapon remains in the locked vehicle it is niether a help or hinderance to anyone. If you are concerned with work place violence installing metal detectors makes more sense to me!

    Say your policy is no weapons on site including locked vehicles, do you have the authority to search vehicles without reasonable cause? If not this policy is almost useless, if you do not advertise the fact that you have a weapon in your vehicle (most concealed carry permited persons are very discreet…hence concealed carry Duh!) what right does the employer have to search your vehicle?
    Now, say I wanted to shoot someone or everyone at my work place, do you think I am going to care if it is against company policy?

    I will agree with banning weapons from being brought actually into a work place, but see nothing wrong with leaving them in the car.

    If you are truely concerned with gun violence in the work place you need to be more aggressive. Policies prohibiting the possesion of a weapon will not stop a single person from commiting an act of violence if that is what they want to do. I would suggest metal detectors and possibly hireing a security company.

    Last but not least let me ask you this…If an organization takes an individuals rights away while on the organizations property in the name of safety, does not this make the organization fully responsible to protect that individual. In other word, if a crazed man man comes off the streets and shoots up you work place (the one you made safe by eliminating weapons from locked vehicles in the parking lot) are you not liable for each and every injury?

  • Jon B

    In our state an employer cannot be held liable for letting the gun onsite. This is good…

    But I do think that an employer should to be held accountable for the consequences of not allowing someone to defend themselves if the employer is not willing to provide adequate protection for their employees when there is an attack at the work place.

    If you cannot trust an employee with a properly licensed firearm, how can you trust them with your tractor and 53’ trailer, your $50,000 dollar piece of machinery, your thirty million dollar facility or even the bank deposit? Let’s face it if you cannot trust them with any of these tools, you hired the wrong guy.

  • http://SafetyNews Ken

    JR- Your cooment and point gives me a new perspective to consider. As a Safety professional I wrote our policy prohibiting weapons including firearms inside the work place. In that policy I also allowed weapons to be secured in individual vehichels if they meet other estblished law. JR’s comment sheds light on the fact that we are responsible to MANAGE violence in the work place. I think I may want to re-look my policy. The risk can not be eleminated either by allowing or dis-allowing responsible carrying of firearms. The point is how is the risk best managed? I think this is a discussion every one of us should have with our employers and then try to MANAGE the risk as best we can for our indiviaul situatioins.
    George- JR’s comment does NOT say weapons do not belong in the work place as you claim to agree with him. You just read in what you want it to say. I will not comment further on you since it is obvios that is what you want.

  • http://SafetyNews Ken

    Just want to clarify that when I said I want to rethink my policy, I meant to at least consider allowing conceald carry within the work place. IO would never consider telling a nemployee they can’t have a firearm in their own personal car.

  • George

    I think this is just a foolish idea about allowing employees to have weapons in their vehicles.

    All the scenarios that people keep coming up with about criminals attacking the work place are just unrealistic. Yes, there has been violence in the work place but compared to the millions of companies in the US and the world, the chance of that happening is such a small percentage.
    People are just exaggerating the violence in the world and their perceived loss of rights to justify their desire to carry guns. It’s not the reality of the world.

  • Austen

    George,

    READ WHAT YOU ARE WRITING. You are being completely hypocritical. On one hand, you insult us for having the audacity to think that something terrible MIGHT happen at a workplace. On the other, you say it is so possible that someone will snap that no guns should be allowed at the workplace.

    Which is it? Is it a reasonable “paranoia” or isn’t it?

  • Jon B

    George, How many people wear a seatbelt normally and forget it just once, and get into an accident? I have seen three sides of this equation personally…

    I have carried a gun many times and not needed it.

    I have not carried it and have needed it.

    I have also carried it and been quite thankful it was there when someone pointed a rifle at me.

    You say that the chances of needing it are slim to none, and they are. For me I’d rather have it with me just in case. The consequences are just too severe not to.

  • sully

    George,
    You may be 100% correct, the worries about violence at work might just be unrealistic. The odds are awful small not even worth worrying about. It’s the first thing you have said that has made perfect sense to me. As a matter of fact the odds are so unrealistic why would you even be concerned whether or not there are weapons locked in cars in the parking lot? I mean, really if we don’t have to worry about the criminals why would anyone be concerned with the law abiding citizens?

  • JR

    John B; You said
    “But I do think that an employer should to be held accountable for the consequences of not allowing someone to defend themselves if the employer is not willing to provide adequate protection for their employees when there is an attack at the work place.”
    I don’t understand. You say the employer should be held accountable. Yet, you seem to suggest that not allowing somebody to protect themselves is a problem. Now when you say protect them self do you suggest they have guns. Two guys arguing vs. two guys shooting at each other. I vote for arguing. But you said we should trust two guys mad at each other to not use the guns, because they operate equipment. I am sorry your reasoning eludes me.

  • JR

    Wow, John B. Where do you work? Why would somebody point a rifle at you? Its a good thing you had a gun. Who let that guy have rifle.

  • George

    Well, obviously we come from different social and political backgrounds because of the areas of the county we live in. Though there are many people like your selves living here in Massachusetts.
    My conservative friends get very frustrated with me because of my liberal/left leaning philosophy about life and government. Well that’s life and amazingly we are all still friends. LOL

    Law abiding citizens – doesn’t mean they will always act appropriately in a stressful
    situation.

    Leave your guns or what ever other weapons you own at home.

  • Ken

    George,
    Please don’t tell my employer that risks of something happening in the work place is so small. I mean with the systems we have in place the risk is small that that we will have a catastrophic fire. The chances are small that we will have a bomb put in our building. The chances are small that we would have infant abducted. Chances are very very small that we would have a tornado or other natural disaster requiring evacuation of my building. The chances are small that we will have an active shooter in our facility. In fact all of those chances are so small that we have not had any of these things happen in the 60 years we have been a hospital. But I conduct full exercises for every one of these situations at least once a year, except fire drills that are ran 12 times per year. Please don’t tell my boss the stats are so small he need not worry about them. I need my job :-) I conduct the above drills because these things DO happen and there is a chance, however small, that it COULD happen in my facility. Of course one reason these risks are so small maybe because of me doing my job to reduce the risk. Just like the chances of some one attacking a law abiding citizen decreases when they know that citizen may be armed.

  • Jon C

    Some seem to be making the point that a weapon safely locked in a car in an employer’s parking lot is somehow going to be a safeguard against workplace violence?

    Lets say you’re as fast as Usain Bolt (you’re not). How long is it going to take you to:

    a) Determine what is going on
    b) Determine where the perceived threat is coming from
    c) Determine alternate egress to your car (in case threat is between your position and normal route)
    d) Get to your car, unlock car / trunk and retrieve gun
    e) Determine safest return route, both for yourself and innocent bystanders who may be caught in crossfire
    f) Confront assailant

    30 seconds? 60 seconds? 2 minutes? For an armed person intent on doing damage, that’s an eternity.

    I thought this website was for safety professionals, not Clint Eastwood wannabes. What do you tell your people in fire safety training? Get out of the building, account for your co-workers, and do not re-enter a burning building – let the professionals fight the fire.

  • Austen

    Jon C, it DOES take a long time to go back to a vehicle, which is why most people want to be able to carry on their person. However, your argument misses the point. Yes, it takes 30, 60, 2 minutes to go back to the vehicle, but how long will it take the police to get there? For those of us who were at VT, we understand first hand that the police show up and contain the threat, then formulate a plan, then enter the building. Remember, a police officer was waiting outside Columbine for a long period of time waiting for backup.

    Having a concealed carry holder inside the building doesn’t mean that there will be no response from authorities. To use your analogy, yes, when there is a fire the fire professionals are called, but you can bet that the business still has fire extinguishers inside just in case the fire can be contained with the “amateur” equipment indoors. The moment that you believe that police contain some sort of power that “citzens” don’t have, you give them more credibility than they sometimes deserve.

    It just so happens that in the case of guns, the PROBLEM is also the SOLUTION. It’s unfortunate. But it’s the reality of our current situation.

  • Sully

    George,
    You have not given one single reason why a weapon should not be allowed in a locked vehicle. You just keep repeating “Leave them at home.”. I seem to be wasting my time discusing anything with you. I have conceded my personal safety to my employer by way of leaving my weapon in the car, but why should I relinquish my safety to and from work or anywhere I might go before and after work? Of course I am only, as you say, being paraniod. Well the odds may be slim but it is better to be prepared, and if the odds are that small for gun violence in the work place then why do you continue to be paraniod about lock up weapons in the parking lot. As Jon C just pionted out if an employee gets that upset it would take him far to long to go to the parking lot and get it, and even if he did get there and back my employer has already vowed to protect me.

  • Sully

    Hey Jon C
    Like I told George I am not asking for a weapon at work I am only looking after myself to and from work along with any where else I might travel before going home. I have a question for you and this is pretty important if you ask me. Does your employer have a plan in place for emergencies such a a weapon in the work place? Is this plan documented, comunicated and understood by you entire staff including the hourly employees? Has this plan been implimented, training held and dry runs completed? If the answer id no to any of these questions, then you and your employer fall whoooafully short of any attempt to ensure the level of safety you claim you are attempting by dissallowing weapons in the parking lot. The logic then follows that the reason you do not want weapons in the parking lot is because “You dont want weapons in the parking lot.”. I dont believe that is a sound enough reason to interfere with your empoyees personal freedom to protect themselves in the event they are place in a needful situation on the way to or from work. Note: nothing was said about at work or during work, because as you said the employer has that covered.

  • Jon C

    Austen, the argument was in regards to state laws that allow workers to bring guns to work, as long as they kept them locked in their cars. My point, that you seemed to have missed, was that some may have valid reasons for needing (or wanting) a weapon on the way to or from work, but while at work, a weapon locked in a car has very little deterence factor or utility in a workplace violence scenario.

    Something I didn’t bring up is the fact that a gun locked in a car in an employer’s parking lot is available in that same period of time to a disgruntled employee who has just been terminated or involved in an altercation. We’ve all seen how out of control people can be in the immediate aftermath of such an event – 5 minutes isn’t sufficient time for some to “cool down”.

    Its a bit of a stretch to go from a weapon locked in your car to concealed carry (or open carry) on their person while at work. If an employer can’t control who’s packing on their premises (either to allow or disallow as they require or see fit), then we might as well declare Wayne LaPierre as our supreme leader.

    Note that that Indiana HB1065 doesn’t require anyone to be a CCW permit holder – it “applies only to possession of a firearm by an individual who may possess the firearm legally.” Legal possession and carry requirements are vastly different, even in a shall issue state like Indiana.

  • George

    Austen: Wrong…wrong…wrong!!!!

    Leave the job to the professionals…Police, Fire and Rescue!!!

    It seems that the inmates are trying to run the asylum

  • Jon B

    -Jon C,

    In the area I live, you can expect a 8+ minute response time and then you still will need to wait for the law enforcement folks to figure out just what the heck is going on respond to it. I’ll take my chances with my coworkers. At my work at least 10 percent of our employees keep a firearm in their vehicle, hopefully at least one of the fifty or so employees can stop a madman before the cops reach him fifteen minutes after the carnage begins.

    I have watched crime stats for years and one thing has always stood out… violent crime is always higher in areas with severe gun control and violent crime is always lower in areas that guns are excepted. Law enforcement will never beat the victim to the crime scene, they just come to clean up.

  • George

    The police are trained in all scenarios and do not run into situations with guns blazing
    because innocent people maybe killed. This isn’t the movies or TV.

  • Jon C

    There is NO correlation between violent crime statistics and gun control laws. The top five most violent states per capita, as well as seven of of the top ten most violent states, have lax gun laws. However, the five least violent states have weak gun laws as well.

    California, which Brady ranks as #1 for gun control laws, was ranked #13 in 2009 for violent crime, and other states with strong gun laws such as Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois are at numbers 6, 9, 10, and 11 for violent crime, respectively. At the same time, several other states with strong gun laws such as Hawaii, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are quite low on violent crime, clocking in at numbers 39, 41, and 45, respectively.

    So that “violent crime is always higher in areas with severe gun control and violent crime is always lower in areas that guns are excepted” dog don’t hunt, one way or the other.

    What if a gunman hasn’t commenced with the “carnage” – but is holding several of your co-workers at gunpoint? Would you want Joe from Accounts Recievables to retrieve his gun from the parking lot and point it at him?

    It is rarely a black and white situation, and using a weapon isn’t as easy as punching holes in a target.

  • Joe Lovato

    Well, this has changed into a lot of what ifs, and maybes…..but I still disagree with “George” on a lot of things.
    First “Leave the job to the professionals…Police, Fire and Rescue!!!” In our facility, the first responders are Security and Facilities, as well as the Safety Officer. These individuals would be the first on scene in any situation. Leave it to the professionals? We ARE professionals. We would be the one’s pulling people out of the fire, line of fire, or whatever else. There is no way that most people in a healthcare setting would wait for someone to arrive to rescue a patient in a burning room, or put out a fire in a hospital. In an active shooter situation, we would still be the ones trying to clear patients out, or hopefully trying to stop the bad guy, or at least slow him down. Most of us couldn’t live with ourselves if we didn’t at least try. But if we did, we would be at a disadvantage from the start.
    Second, “The police are trained in all scenarios and do not run into situations with guns blazing
    because innocent people maybe killed”. Nice idea, but not reality. Police don’t train for every scenario. If they did, they would have the floor plan for every building in their precinct memorized. The police wouldn’t “run” into anything. Most are trained to wait for back up or an entry team. They would also not enter until the surrounding areas or floors are evacuated.
    In the case of someone taking hostages, yes, I would agree that the police would need to take care of the situation, but I would damn sure want a way to protect myself before the hostage taker has me in his grip. Of course, I wouldn’t run out to my car, grab a gun, and run back in. That would be foolish. But I would like to have the tool to defend myself without running out. And to defend myself to and from work.
    All of this is a moot point, since most places have those very powerful signs that instantly stop any firearm from crossing the…

  • Jon B

    Jon C,

    I don’t know where the Brady bunch is getting their info but go and check out the FBI’s crime stats table 4 for 2009. Washington DC still has the highest violent crime rate with almost no guns allowed and Utah and Idaho where everyone owns a machine gun are among the lowest. California high, Wyoming low, Delaware high Virginia, Low. Chicago is among the most strict on gun control yet has almost the highest homicide rate and again Oregon is low.

    As to your comment about Joe from Accounts Payable, I trust that he will keep a level head just as I have done in similar situations. Let’s be honest, our friend Joe is a accountant, not a mercenary. He will likely think things through pretty well before deciding to put himself and his career in danger or to pull that trigger. At least if he is ready there is someone on hand that can stop the blood bath.

    I have drawn my weapon on someone who thought it wise to point a rifle at me and a relative, I know what goes through your head at the time and I know the value of being able to defend yourself if needs be.

  • Jon B

    Joe,

    You make an excellent point. Usually we are the first responders and even when we are not, sometimes we are still called to help. For example one night around 6:30 pm I got a call from our local police dispatch center because of a man that had decided medication was not the answer was held up room with a knife. The police had tried to open the door for a half hour with a battering ram with no luck. They beat the heck out of the door and jamb but in the end they needed someone to get them in the room and I got the call. My knowledge of the facility was necessary to bring a peaceful end to the situation and a call a little sooner would have saved thousands of dollars in damage to the facility.

    Sometimes the professionals should call a professional to get the job done right. Sometimes that call may be to you.

  • ken

    We all including myself have elevated the discussion to weapons in the workplace and what we feel is the right answer. The topic orignally was the COURT DECISION allowing for firearms secured in personal vehicles. Whether we support or oppose gun ownership rights is not the question. The questions is do we feel employees should be able to keep their LEGAL property inside their vehicle. Whether it be a gun thats is LEGAL in my state or my tool box in which I have items that could be used as lethal weapon if I so choose. No difference they are both my property and both are LEGAL as long as I do not CHOOSE to use them illegally. So the question is do we agree or disagree with the COURT DECISION that I have the RIGHT to keep MY LEGAL PROPERTY secured inside my LEGAL VEHICLE? George, you care to answer the plain and simple question?

  • George

    I have a lot of experience in responding to hazardous waste spills/emergencies.
    The first thing they teach people to do is to not go into a dangerous situations if some one is down (Passed out or Dead). WHY, because you may also die! OK, you may want to help your co-worker or friend but you don’t want to rush in to it. You call for help and then using appropriate equipment and procedures you enter the scene for rescue or recovery.

    In a gun/hostage/shooter situation the police and swat team are the best trained professionals to handle this type of problem.

    (I have drawn my weapon on someone who thought it wise to point a rifle at me and a relative) What this the Hatfield–McCoy feud?

    If you want to own a gun that’s fine but it doesn’t belong at work.

  • Jon C

    Comparing a city (DC) to a state is a bit of a stretch, statistically speaking. If you take DC proper, and compare it to a similar sized city, you might find there are other places in the US with more violence (today – during the crack epidemic of the 1980′s I wouldn’t argue with you). DC has its problems, but comparing crime stats of city vs. states is not really apples to apples. Especially states like Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming – relatively sparse populations and homogenous demographics.

    Texans love their guns, but they have high crime rates. South Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee – for every state you want to mention that has high crime / strict gun laws, I could make a counter-claim of a state with high crime rates and lax gun laws. Gun laws (or lack thereof) don’t explain the rate of violent crime (they may be one piece of the formula, but its not as simple as the NRA attempts to make it).

    Joe Lavato mentions Security officers on-site. I don’t think anyone has argued that they should be disarmed. I think a company should have the right to arm (or allow) their security personnel to carry weapons. In fact, I think a company should be able to let Joe in Accounting to carry a weapon, if the company so desires. But on the other hand, I think that company should have the right to say no to guns on their property, if that is what they think is best.

  • Jon B

    George,

    No Hatfield and McCoy’s here. This stemmed from us confronting two hunters that thought it to be just dandy to go hunting in a heavily populated cabin area. The Sheriff was 30 minutes away and they were discharging their firearms around occupied structures. We simply told them that they could not hunt in that area and one of them decided to raise his rifle at us. We returned the kind gesture by drawing our weapons and we all went home without anyone getting hurt… Just what would you have done in this situation if your children were in our cabin with bullets flying by? Just as in over ninety percent of the times a firearm is used for self defense, no shots were nor ever needed to be fired to defuse the situation.

    Jon C,

    You obviously did not read the FBI crime statistics that I recommended. In there it states the rates per thousand people. By doing this you get a good comparison of the rate of crimes in a large jurisdiction versus the rate of crimes in a small jurisdiction. Washington D.C. therefore can be used as a fair example.

    Another face to the whole Washington D.C. perspective, look back at the homicide rate before the gun ban… it was almost the same as the national average… Now look at the homicide rate since the gun ban and it skyrocketed until the supreme court ruled that this ban was unconstitutional, then guess what happened. Yep it began to drop, funny coincidence huh. Canada has gone through this same cycle and after seeing the great results with the shall issue gun permits in the U.S. is now looking at loosening their gun bans.

    Evil people are never going to obey the rules of a company or even laws for that matter. Why not let people have the right to defend themselves from such evils.

  • Jon C

    Jon B,

    Normalizing the rate does not take into consideration the differences in population density, crime control, demographics, economics, drugs, gangs, political, and social norms of large cities compared to small towns and rural areas. What is the point of comparing crime rates in a large urban area (i.e. DC) with the state of North Dakota? Even if you break it down to a rate per thousand, the comparison is still relatively meaningless.

    If you compare DC with large urban areas like New York (city), Chicago, Philly, LA, Houston, San Francisco, etc. – then you’d have a valid correlation. You’ll also find that strict gun laws (or the lack thereof) do not directly relate to the violent crime rate. How do you explain Philadelphia’s crime rate (highest among 10 largest cities) and relatively lax gun laws? How do you explain New York City’s crime rate (third lowest among 10 largest cities) and very strict gun control laws? Chicago is right behind Philly, but has strict gun laws. Houston is next in line, but has relatively lax gun control. As does Dallas, which has a much lower rate compared to Houston.

    Yes, DC’s violent crime rate (12.65/100,000) is higher than Philly’s (12.38/100,000), but what does that prove? By the way, DC’s homicide rate started dropping long before the handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional.

    One could use statistics to argue either way on this point, but it has nothing to do with the topic of whether companies should be allowed to control who possesses weapons on their property.

  • Jon B

    Jon C,

    You are right in the fact that these statistics have little to do with the topic of whether companies should be allowed to control who possesses weapons on their property. This would probably lean more towards a personal rights issue.

    Just like the company should have little to do with my ability to defend myself on the way to or from work.

    As long as I do not carry the weapon on my person or display my weapon on company property, this comes down to who’s rights trump who’s when the weapon is store in one persons vehicle on someone else’s property. Should we not have the right to self defense just because we are on someone else’s land? Should a corporations rights trump those of a individual?

    I personally feel that a company should be held accountable if they deny us the right to defend ourselves on their property and do little to guarantee our safety themselves. At a government office if they require a permit holder to give up their weapon, they provide adequate security. Why should this not be the standard for a business? Example; security for 500+ employees = 1) 55 year old female at the front desk armed with breath mints & 1) anti gun ex police officer over safety that was encouraged to leave the job with the city and is usually offsite at other locations. The local police department is averaging a 8 minute response time after they receive the call and the dispatch center is placing calls on hold up to ten minutes due to staffing and equipment issues. Oh by the way, we tend to employ ex-cons and known gang members for the night shift. Do you see any problems here? I am really comforted to know that in our state Michael over at the fleet maintenance, Rachel in distribution, Wesley in refurb or Christian in sales along with many others have the option to help out when all the cards are down.