Papa Johns should rethink.
Or maybe they should just think.
Here's a question for a couple of lawyer types - why do corporations have a no gun policy? My guess is that they're worried about marginal cases where employees shoot people they shouldn't have (non-criminals, bystanders or maybe criminals who can nonetheless make a good case they weren't doing anything wrong vis-a-vis the employee), and the corporation gets slapped with a multi-million dollar suit. Is it much more expensive, premium-wise, to take out the no gun clause from the insurance agreement? What about reputational costs?