I am sure people look at this with the wary eye of what preditory law has done to our legal system.
If an employer can get sued, or is responsible for, an employee or other person getting injured on their property (parking lot, sidewalks, premises, buildings), then, according to the logical thinking, they would also be liable if an employee had a gun in his vehicle and decided to get the gun & go "postal". The employer rediculously sees a policy banning all weapons on any property owned by them as a way of avoiding liability.
However, it is MY contention, that - given the sue happy world we live in - the employer would be sued anyway if anyone went "postal" on their premesis, for failing to provide proper security.
I complain all the time about our legal system and lawyers, but if an employer has a written policy banning all weapons from the premesis and the parking lots (vehicles), that employer is then legally obligated to protect the flock of "sheep" it just created. If the employer fails to do so, he should be liable.
And I would be the FIRST one to sue over that issue.
It's a catch 22 for the employers, but when they come down on the side of prohibiting self-defense, I really think they will lose in the long run.