Can companies require employees to disarm on 'company business'?

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 15 September, 2010 | David Codrea

[Oatka]

laws have developed to criminalize all conduct.

My dad emigrated from Germany in the '20s. When I was in my teens he told me, "The difference between Europe and America is that in Europe, anything that is not expressly allowed, is forbidden; in America, everything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed,"

Seems like we're getting closer to Europe each year.

[Cyber Liberty]

Where in the files Iron Mountain compiled when they developed their policy do they have empirical evidence to justify the assertion that an employee having a secured firearm in their personal vehicle endangers anyone, and have they had their risk management department assess that data compared to protective benefits of having the means of self-defense on hand?

Irrelevant. A look at the Policy Manuals of most companies will reveal many illogical policies that have no basis in scientific fact. It doesn't matter when it comes time to enforce them.

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable if a law were passed to force the company in question here to allow her to carry in the car, whether in the parking lot or on company business with a coworker.

[rickb308]

This is Texas. (smaller town) The cops here don’t freak out over guns. And I only said it loud enough for the asst. manager & clerk to hear. And I only said it to make a point.

[SaraJohnson]

You couldn’t have said it better.

---

You too, when you spoke of those who cooperate with the elite's disarming of society receiving what oppression they deserve for obeying.

I am a natural born subversive of totalarism as an American. Many other Americans are naturally subversives as well. We are not of the Euro peon breed that is born of the faddish rationalizations, self interests and rule of elitists. We are ruled by inherent rights given to us at birth as human beings and no human authority is above that w/o our agreement. American-Americans don't go there.

[OneWingedShark]

Interestingly, attempted forced disarmament *is* grounds for a military-man to use [or threaten] lethal force; just such a point was used to illustrate the importance of weapons retention in basic training and went something like this:
There was a soldier who just arrived overseas [the mid-east, IIRC] and there was a crowd of people who demanded his M16; to these demands he replied by charging the weapon, flicking the selector to ‘semi’ and saying “No.”

It is somewhat the modern “Come and take them/it*” story. {*The phrase “Molon Labe” is greek for “come and take” which was the alleged response of the Spartans to the Persians when the Persians demanded they surrender their weapons.}

[TigersEye]

As distasteful as litigation to settle problems is to most conservatives there are some issues that warrant using it. This is one. This company and companies like it need to be slammed with lawsuits at every opportunity until they straighten up and get an American attitude.

I wondered what business Iron Mountain Inc. was in to see if they could be effectively boycotted but it seems they are in records management so it wouldn't really be easy to do.

[TigersEye]

Second, allegedly the “zero tolerance policy on any action that could endanger employees or customers”, specifies an *action*.

That ridiculous policy should be used against them. Oscar the janitor set up a ladder in a hallway and left it unattended for a few minutes. Fire him. Betsy the file clerk left a file drawer open in an aisle and left it to anwer the phone. Fire her. The VP parked his car outside an emergency exit. Adios, Mr. VP.

Get someone to go in undercover and document as many incidents like that as possible, targeting the highest ranking employees, and bring it to court demanding they all be terminated immediately or rehire Ms. Lunsford immediately with compensation for lost wages and, of course, pain and suffering.

[zeugma]

I’m waiting for the first lawsuit from someone with a carry permit who is a victim or witness of a mass shooting because they were not permitted to carry.

Every establish that requires patrons to be disarmed on their premises should be held strictly liable for the personal safety of both their employees and their customers.

I'm quite sure insurance carriers would take note and charge appropriately.