Free Fire Zones

[Brother Bob]

Some of you put a bug in my ear about this(free fire zones) on the drug testing thread. My employer is AT&T and at my location, we have signs posted banning any firearms. Is it just me or do I feel like this is an open invitation for disaster???? I have a permit to carry, but I can't even bring a gun in my trunk, on company property. If the State of Tennessee trusts me, why wouldn't AT&T at least allow me to keep my pistol in the trunk? I'm not going to carry at work anyway. I hop in the company truck and am gone by 0730 anyway. A disgruntled employee could come in and kill 50 people with no fight what so ever. Since the company doesn't have any armed guards to protect us, would they be liable if the place got shot up and people died?

[Momoney567]

If it was me i would keep it in the trunk what are they gonna do call the gun dogs to come sniff it out?
You're permitted anyway so i would say to hell with the rules.Just don't get caught with it.

[TXplt]

Bob,

You have good reason for alarm. These feel-good solutions invite disasters, effectively saying to preditors that most people here will be unarmed. Virginia Tech was a tragic example of this. CCW holders prevent crimes, pure and simple. The company risk managers, I believe, don't understand the true consequences of their actions. They're not preventing crime or accidents in the workplace, they're stripping the workers of self-defense tools and telling bad guys where to hit. In time, employees will hold these folks liable for their actions in civil courts. Until then, if you have a firearm on company property you might get fired. Were I in your shoes, I might keep a pistol locked in the car but not carry at work (but this is ultimately your choice).

Best of luck !

[SwedeSteve]

You can always park off-site...

[Momoney567]

OMG
I didn't think about that.
Steve has a great idea

[270wsm]

Always better to be caught with it,than without it!

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by SwedeSteve

You can always park off-site...

We have considered that. The only problem is that if I don't carry, one day, and park on company property, it might end up in a car search. I don't believe they have the right to search my car without a warrant. I could be wrong. They will come back and say, it's parked on their property and they have the right, which opens up a whole new can of worms as far as I'm concerned. If they have that right then they should also be responsible for any damage done to my car while it's on their property.

[Windwalker]

I would think you would have a good lawsuit against the company for denying you the right to protect yourself and then not protecting you if you got shot or injured by someone on company property. It might also cover your vehicle damage, especially if it was damaged by a company allowed search.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob

We have considered that. The only problem is that if I don't carry, one day, and park on company property, it might end up in a car search. I don't believe they have the right to search my car without a warrant. I could be wrong. They will come back and say, it's parked on their property and they have the right, which opens up a whole new can of worms as far as I'm concerned. If they have that right then they should also be responsible for any damage done to my car while it's on their property.

Yeah, alot of this depends on your conditions of service. You don't ever have to consent to a search by them, but this might well be grounds for termination--I don't know of your company policy or contract in this regard.

Best of luck

[Brother Bob]

I try to look at the big picture. I look at things from the companies perspective, also. We had a supervisor that was a part-time Memphis cop. He almost got fired for bringing his uniform and pistol to work! He would change cloths at work(AT&T) and go straight to work for the Memphis Police force. If we were to have a situation where someone opened up and I ran to my car and got my pistol and took out the bad guy, I would end up an unemployed hero, even though I saved countless workers lives.

[Big Dog]

Being a State Worker, our employment regulations forbid bringing a gun into the building.
But, they said nothing about the parking garage . . .

I have been know to have some rifles in my trunk for an evening range session, or if I buy a gun on my lunch hour (the Gun&Pawn is minutes away . . . ) - but I make sure no one knows it/they are there!

If they wanted to search the cars - I'd take mine off-site. There is a parking area across the front street - but no security or protection. The State sold the lot, and the buyer (unknown at this time) has not developed it - so some employees park out there.

[Rave]

Sounds like those ATF wheels are kinda paranoid,perhaps with good reason.

[Nanders]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

I would think you would have a good lawsuit against the company for denying you the right to protect yourself and then not protecting you if you got shot or injured by someone on company property. It might also cover your vehicle damage, especially if it was damaged by a company allowed search.

I am not a guy that likes lawsuits. Of course there is a place for them, but that being said, when a person realizes that his company does not allow firearms on their property, yet continues to work there anyway, that is the individuals problem if something bad happens.

Let me clarify a little more. The company I work for, does not allow firearms on site. I have a choice to make: Either continue working there knowing full well that nobody is supposed to have a gun on them (leaving me open for a disaster) Or don't work for that company. In my case I choose to continue working for my company, because the benefits and pay are good. Therefore the risk of not carrying on site is one that I have implicitly taken. If something bad should happen, I would not file suit because, I knew ahead of time that this is a risk I am taking. It is no different than if you were to go to somebody's house and they say to you "aint gonna be no guns in my house, you need to remove your peacemaker". Its their house, their rules, if you don't like it, you have a choice to make.... So in the end, I do not believe that (for example) the victims of the Westroads shootings here in Omaha, should have the right to sue because of the no gun policy. My position is, if it is really that important to you, shop somewhere else. If there is no other mall to shop at, start your own. This is America, those are the choices we have. I do not like the suggestion that we ought to sue if somthing bad happens while at work, because we chose to take the risk to be unarmed in the first place. Instead of thinking about lawsuits, the first thing that should come to our minds is, "the buck stops with me".

It sucks that so many people are so afraid of guns, I wish people were invited to carry in more places. The last thing I want to do, is cause anyone to think that I like anti gun policies or that I like the fact that employers don't allow guns on their property. All I am really saying is we need to be consistent with how we approach things. If we conservatives really believe in personal responsiblity, then we have to keep that mindset, even when our employers want to be stupid.

[knightRider]

shoot my boss knows i buy and trade cand carry on the property , but this is GA and everyone i work with except 2 people in the whole company have guns at home. and the other 2 , ones a female old hippe , the other is an old baseball/PETA member /<nice guy except for the peta thing>/

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Nanders

I am not a guy that likes lawsuits. Of course there is a place for them, but that being said, when a person realizes that his company does not allow firearms on their property, yet continues to work there anyway, that is the individuals problem if something bad happens.

Let me clarify a little more. The company I work for, does not allow firearms on site. I have a choice to make: Either continue working there knowing full well that nobody is supposed to have a gun on them (leaving me open for a disaster) Or don't work for that company. In my case I choose to continue working for my company, because the benefits and pay are good. Therefore the risk of not carrying on site is one that I have implicitly taken. If something bad should happen, I would not file suit because, I knew ahead of time that this is a risk I am taking. It is no different than if you were to go to somebody's house and they say to you "aint gonna be no guns in my house, you need to remove your peacemaker". Its their house, their rules, if you don't like it, you have a choice to make.... So in the end, I do not believe that (for example) the victims of the Westroads shootings here in Omaha, should have the right to sue because of the no gun policy. My position is, if it is really that important to you, shop somewhere else. If there is no other mall to shop at, start your own. This is America, those are the choices we have. I do not like the suggestion that we ought to sue if somthing bad happens while at work, because we chose to take the risk to be unarmed in the first place. Instead of thinking about lawsuits, the first thing that should come to our minds is, "the buck stops with me".

It sucks that so many people are so afraid of guns, I wish people were invited to carry in more places. The last thing I want to do, is cause anyone to think that I like anti gun policies or that I like the fact that employers don't allow guns on their property. All I am really saying is we need to be consistent with how we approach things. If we conservatives really believe in personal responsiblity, then we have to keep that mindset, even when our employers want to be stupid.

I don't like lawsuits either. However, if a plant neglects to install safety equipment on factory equipment or leaves unmarked wires hanging out of a socket and someone gets hurt the company has some accountability in this process. It's been clearly demonstrated that CCW holders don't run afoul of the law, hurt few if any individuals through accidents or negligent discharges (so to speak !) and provide a positive value in deterring crime. Statistics do bear this out. What some companies do, with free-fire policies, is equivalent to asking a friend to ride on your motorcycle and leave his helmet (which he wants to wear) at home. I think corporations which don't allow weapons on property (even in cars) need to realize this. Unfortunately, the only way for this to happen might be for them to have to bear the cost when someone gets hurt due to their inane policies.

And I do agree--you have the choice where to work. You don't have to work for someone who restricts firearms. It's just that your employer should allow you to wear your seatbelt.

My 2cents.

[Brother Bob]

What do you do when you're two years from retiring with a company? This is a new rule, last couple of years. Guess I'll put up with they're B.S. a couple more years and pray no one wigs out and starts shooting while I'm there.

[roadie]

Brother Bob, I agree with you, but in AT&T's defence...it is I imagine, private property and they have the right to make the rules. And I'm sure there are a lot of liability issues with employees having firearms, even if they are only in the vehicle. On the other hand, if you kept a glock under the seat...how would they know? I work in several casinos here in Vegas, and in know way whatsoever is any employee allowed to carry even with a ccw on property, although I do know folks that keep them in their cars.

[Nanders]

Originally Posted by TXplt

I don't like lawsuits either. However, if a plant neglects to install safety equipment on factory equipment or leaves unmarked wires hanging out of a socket and someone gets hurt the company has some accountability in this process.

A company should be considered negligent when they willingly allow a violation of Osha code (whether one agrees or disagrees that in a capitalist society the gov. should make these demands to private business owners is another topic) However, when the company makes it clear that "anti-gun is our policy", that is quite a different issue than deciding behind closed doors that "it is going to cost to much to bring our MCC rooms up to code, so lets not do it, and make everybody still think our MCC rooms are still perfectly safe. Do you see the difference? In one scenerio people are put at risk with no knowledge of it, in the other, they are put at risk by their own consent. I believe in freedom. I also believe that we must take responsibility for the choices that we make born out of that freedom. If that means less saftey because we choose to comply with a clear and out in the open policy, so be it.

It's been clearly demonstrated that CCW holders don't run afoul of the law, hurt few if any individuals through accidents or negligent discharges (so to speak !) and provide a positive value in deterring crime. Statistics do bear this out.

I agree, but that is not germane to the issue of taking responsiblity for the choice we make with the freedom we have been given. (What I mean is that holding someone else accountable for your free-will choice, is irresponsible, i.e. suing a company for not protecting you, while you willingly put your gun down. This is where I take more of a "buck stops with me attitude")

What some companies do, with free-fire policies, is equivalent to asking a friend to ride on your motorcycle and leave his helmet (which he wants to wear) at home.

That is a good analogy, and I agree. However, if you don't want to risk cracking your grape, then you need to choose not to ride that motorcycle, or buy your own motorcycle. Should you willingly choose to keep your helmet off, you have implicitly choosen to bear the risk of that decision. If something bad happens, don't get mad at your friend for your choice.

I think corporations which don't allow weapons on property (even in cars) need to realize this. Unfortunately, the only way for this to happen might be for them to have to bear the cost when someone gets hurt due to their inane policies.

I believe that you are correct, that a lawsuit could work in our favor. However, I do not think that it would be a just lawsuit. (I am not saying it wouldnt be a legal one, only that it wouldnt be a just one) At heart, I am not a pragamatist. In other words, just because something might "work" does not make it "right".

And I do agree--you have the choice where to work. You don't have to work for someone who restricts firearms. It's just that your employer should allow you to wear your seatbelt.

This is another good analogy. But on private grounds, they have the right to say "you cannot use your seatbelt on our property". That being the case, we have another choice to make....

My 2cents.

Thats cool, you offer good thoughts. Its been my experience that when I interject quotes followed by rebuttles, people get offended. Please don't take offense, I feel that it makes it easier for me to parse the subject down to the essentials, and helps to illustrate the crux's of the differing opinions.

[TXplt]

Thanks for your thoughts, they are well thought out and I appreciate them. I will wind up disagreeing -- OSHA equipment doesn't necessarily make something safe or unsafe, and if a hazard is identified and the company doesn't do something to fix it they can well be held responsible. An anti-gun policy shows a degree of negligence in not abating a known hazard. In the case of CCW, crime and workplace shootings are a known hazard. CCW holders are extremely low risk in the workplace. The benefits outweigh the risk. A blanket "no weapons" policy increases the overall risk to the workers. As such, corporations who have this policy, I believe, can justly be held liable.

Granted, it is private property and we can certainly choose to work or not work there. Ultimately, this is the choice we'll make (and I'm not allowed to carry guns when I'm working yet choose to continue to work there--although the to and from is a non-issue). And we are responsible for our own destiny and for making our own choices. The buck does stop with us as individuals. However, I do very much believe that corporations with "no firearms" policies are consciously making their workplaces more dangerous (i.e. "known or should have known" about the hazard) and can and should be held accountable for their actions.

Thanks again !

And happy to hear the good thoughts.

[Windwalker]

Nanders, I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that its my free choice not to carry if the company forces me not to carry under threat of termination. In that case the company becomes liable for my safety by forcing me to follow their rules. The same applies to gun free zones such as malls. When they refuse to let you legally protect yourself on their premises then they become legally liable for your safety while on their premises. I also don't like lawsuits either but the companies will probably have to lose a few before they will change their policies.