Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:29 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Possible carry at work policy change 
Author Message
 Post subject: Possible carry at work policy change
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:34 pm
Posts: 4
I am looking for information/opinions on an employer allowing its employees to carry. This private company currently has a no carry policy. From what I hear some people are trying to get the policy changed to “in accordance with state law” or something similar. If changed it would be done quietly. The company has asked, what happens if they didn’t ban guns and someone had to use their weapon in self defense? I am not involved with this but was wondering if anyone had any information I could pass along.

I’m guessing what brought on this discussion is that the company employs police officers in a non enforcement role. Some feel that it is not a good idea to ban an off duty cop from carrying his weapon while working for the company. I would hope that if changed permit holders could also benefit from it and not just LEO.

My guess is that there is no good case law on this, and that the company’s lawyer will tell the company you have nothing to gain and everything to lose if you don’t ban people from carrying.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:54 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
(Rhetorical question to help you find an answer)
What if an employee killed a rapist with a stapler in the act of raping the receptionist on company property?

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:07 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:02 am
Posts: 817
Location: Eagan, MN
I'd point out that the signs and policies are 100% effective. That's why there are never any shootings at schools, colleges, or post offices; rather, it seems that every week we read about somebody breaking into a gun range and shooting down all those defenseless people.

If they have an incident at work, there is going to be a lawsuit. End of story. The amount of money that Columbine had to pay in legal fees, penalties, payouts, and loss of reputation is truly staggering. Yet, they had a policy forbidding weapons.

I recall a church that had armed members, one of which shot a perp who came in for a killing spree and ended the attack. How much did they have to pay out? If the bottom line is about "coin", then stopping the attack is less expensive than letting the attack go to it's end.

They will try to argue that a company can be found 'negligent' if they don't specifically ban people from entering with weapons. You should ask them for even one example of a company being sued because they did not have a "no dangerous items" clause in their employee contracts.

Finally, how much of a problem do companies have with weapons when they don't have such a policy? Or how much of a problem did they have before they had such a policy?

"Carrying of dangerous items only permitted within the confines of state and local regulations" would probably be more than sufficient to satisfy their professional worriers, while at the same time leaving room to those who carry such.

_________________
Clinging to guns and religion.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:03 am
Posts: 118
Location: South Metro
DeanC wrote:
killed a rapist with a stapler


...or...

Quote:
killed a rapist with a stapler


?? Can't help but wonder.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A suggested policy
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:56 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:34 pm
Posts: 4
5.6 Weapons Policy for Employees XYZ is committed to a "weapons free" zone on the premises in order to promote a workplace free from violence employees, and guests of XYZ. This policy extends to:

• Any XYZ property (the XYZ property and company-owned or rented vehicles)

• Employees who are acting in any official capacity that represents XYZ (on the clock)

Employees' personal vehicles are excluded from this provision, as long as the employee follows all applicable state & federal laws pertaining to storage of the weapon.

Dangerous weapons include any item that is used to harm or threaten another individual.

Violations of this policy should be reported to the Security Office or the Human Resources Department. Failure by employees to adhere to this policy may lead to discipline and/or dismissal from employment at XYZ.

It will not be a violation of this policy if an employee falls under Minnesota Statutes, Section 624.714 otherwise referred to as the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003.

I would think that a quiet change to the policy would be good, no big public announcement is needed.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A suggested policy
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:02 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:16 pm
Posts: 340
Location: Brooklyn Park
xd4572 wrote:
I would think that a quiet change to the policy would be good, no big public announcement is needed.


To quote Suchie-Boy on KSTP..."Good luck!"

_________________
"The gun chooses you, you don't choose the gun"
- my wife


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:13 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
If you need a gun at work to feel/be safe, I'd work somewhere else!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:38 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
JimC wrote:
If you need a gun at work to feel/be safe, I'd work somewhere else!


Yeah, cuz you always know when/if you're going to need a gun at work. :roll:

You must have some real-deal, genuine spidey senses.

_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:47 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
bensdad wrote:
JimC wrote:
If you need a gun at work to feel/be safe, I'd work somewhere else!


Yeah, cuz you always know when/if you're going to need a gun at work. :roll:

You must have some real-deal, genuine spidey senses.


And nothing EVER happens on the way too or from work!

Which side are you on again, Jim?

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A suggested policy
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:59 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
xd4572 wrote:
5.6 Weapons Policy * * *
otherwise referred to as the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003.


Leave this out. Those who "need" to know will understand the statutory citation. No one else will (or needs to). Don't wave it in their faces.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:38 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
Good point, Kimberman. The specific statute citation will make sure it's specifically allowed but leaving off the common name will keep it under the radar.

I wish my company would make that change.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A suggested policy
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:14 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
kimberman wrote:
xd4572 wrote:
5.6 Weapons Policy * * *
otherwise referred to as the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003.


Leave this out. Those who "need" to know will understand the statutory citation. No one else will (or needs to). Don't wave it in their faces.
Yup. Plain sight is sometimes the perfect place for hiding stuff, as a law professor I know demonstrated -- repeatedly -- when writing a law some years ago.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:35 am 
Poet Laureate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:36 am
Posts: 760
Location: Hutchinson, MN
DeanC wrote:
What if an employee killed a rapist with a stapler in the act of raping the receptionist on company property?


Very odd.
That comment brought to mind a picture of some guy on parole lying dead on the floor outside a receptionist's cubicle with two rounds in his chest, whilst the stapler he was with was inside raping the receptionist...

I wouldn't even know where to search on google to find an image of that...

:!:

_________________
It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which is the Evil Party...
But it remains true that from time to time they collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship. -Thomas E. Woods Jr.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:09 pm
Posts: 965
Location: North Minneapolis
Carbide Insert wrote:

I wouldn't even know where to search on google to find an image of that...

:!:


All in all, that is a good thing!

_________________
It is about Liberty!

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Chris


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Here is what they came up with
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 3:41 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:34 pm
Posts: 4
I know that some of you are not lawyers, but I also know that some are and might give some unofficial guidance on whether I am just fishing or I might have a chance. I believe that the HR person pull this out of somewhere where the sun does not shine and I would love to see that there is a loophole. :)
Is there a loophole if I am an employee?

Quote:
Weapons Policy

XYZ University is committed to maintaining a workplace that is free of violence. This obligation includes eliminating recognized hazards from campus communities that contribute to violence or serious harm.
Weapons and ammunition are potential safety hazards. Possession, use or display of weapons or ammunition are inappropriate in an academic community for any reason other than protection of University employees, faculty, students and members of the public invited on campus as allowed by law, and policies of XYZ University.

Definitions of Weapons and Ammunition:
A weapon is defined as: an instrument of offensive or defensive combat, something to fight with, and is generally any device capable of projecting a ball, pellet, arrow, bullet, missile, shell or other material. This shall include, but not limited to, firearms, bows, rockets and sling shots. Ammunition is any material capable of being projected by a weapon and makes the weapon operational.
This policy does not apply to the possession and/or use of disabling chemical sprays when used for self defense. (Training in the use of defensive sprays is strongly encouraged. Vendors should be able to provide this training and Material Safety Data Sheets.)
Weapons and Ammunition Prohibition:

Prohibition.
Employees are prohibited from possessing or carrying a firearm while acting in the course and scope of their employment, either on or off university property, regardless of whether the employee has a permit to carry a firearm, except as otherwise provided in this policy.
Employee reporting responsibility. An employee with a reasonable basis for believing an employee is in possession of or carrying a firearm in violation of this policy has a responsibility to report the suspected act in a timely manner, unless doing so would subject the employee or others to physical harm. Reports should be made to the Human Resources Office or the Security Office. This policy shall not prohibit prompt notification to appropriate law enforcement authorities when an immediate threat to personal safety exists. Employees shall not make reports of a suspected violation knowing they are false or in reckless disregard of the truth.

Violation:
Any employee, faculty, student or other representative of the University who violates this policy shall be notified of the violation and subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination.

Exemption:
All currently licensed law enforcement officers are exempt from this policy.

Possession or carry of a pistol by a visitor who has a lawful permit to carry a pistol pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 624.714, subd. 1a. No weapon or ammunition shall be displayed on campus.



My emphasis added


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group