Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Possible carry at work policy change

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.

Author:	xd4572 [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am ]
Post subject:	Possible carry at work policy change
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.

Author:	DeanC [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:54 am ]
Post subject:
(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?

Author:	lance22 [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	Fyrwys [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:
DeanC wrote: killed a rapist with a stapler ...or... Quote: killed a rapist with a stapler ?? Can't help but wonder.

Author:	xd4572 [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:	A suggested policy
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.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Possible carry at work policy change http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11860	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Ronin069 [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: A suggested policy
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!"

Author:	JimC [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:
If you need a gun at work to feel/be safe, I'd work somewhere else!

Author:	bensdad [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:
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. You must have some real-deal, genuine spidey senses.

Author:	plblark [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:
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. 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?

Author:	kimberman [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: A suggested policy
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.

Author:	plblark [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:38 am ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	joelr [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: A suggested policy
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.

Author:	Carbide Insert [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:35 am ]
Post subject:
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...

Author:	Moby Clarke [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:
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!

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	xd4572 [ Wed May 27, 2009 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Here is what they came up with
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