Dear spunkets,
I don't believe that a court would buy this particular legal argument.
Please cite for me some case law where this section of the US code was used to go after an employer who required that employees submit to vehicle searches if they wanted to park on company grounds.
I just finished a business and employment law a few weeks ago. The subject of worker safety came up in the course. The case law we examined actually was biased in the other direction. In other words, employers who did NOT implement anti-firearms policies were thought to be more liable in case of folks going "postal" than employers who did implement such policies. The course was taught by a sitting judge.
Whether that is rational, or just, or sensible, or not, it appears to be the prevailing legal environment in the United States right now.
sitetest
Criminals with guns are dangerous. Law abiding people with guns are only dangerous to criminals. Using the Law as justification for a law is a circular argument that should have no place in a free societies legal system.
That would be legislating from the bench. Criminal acts are not part of the scope of employment and barring that the criminal displayed evidence manifesting a propensity for criminal action, the employer is blameless. He has no duty to assume his workers are psychos ready to snap, as those courts and trial lawyers hold, and he has no justification to extend his jurisdiction into the relm of his employees rights and property. The employer is limited to control accidents on his parking lot and in his buildings and consider his own product, or services defect.