Posted on 03/29/2006 10:04:37 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Should you be able to take your gun to work?
08:17 AM CST on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 By Vicente Arenas / KHOU
There's a battle looming over your right to take a gun to work. The controversy centers on whether you should be able to leave a firearm in your car.
If Granger Durdin could take her gun everywhere, she said she would.
"With the crime rates the way they are and with being a young female, I sometimes feel a little bit more vulnerable and with a gun I have the protection that I need to be safe," said Durdin.
The 29-year-old manager is not alone.
"It's very important. You don't know when someone is going to come after you," said gun owner Brenda Lorisch.
In Texas, businesses have the right to keep concealed weapons out of buildings. Now there's a move to allow companies to prohibit them from parking lots, too and that has some concealed carriers upset.
"I believe that's an infringement on civil liberties," said gun owner Pat Warren.
There are no real statistics that will tell you how many people take their guns to work and leave them in their cars. But when it comes to firearms, people in the gun industry will tell you that most people who have licenses to carry them won't leave home without them.
"It takes away our right to protect ourselves going to and from work," said Cheryl Lamar, Hot Wells Firing Range.
Houston-based ConocoPhillips is challenging a law in Oklahoma that allows workers to leave guns in their cars parked on company property.
The company said it is simply trying to provide a "safe and secure working environment for its employees by keeping guns out of their worksites, specifically refineries, natural gas plants and distribution terminals."
11 News found a sign outside an area plant prohibiting weapons, but saw no such signs in the company's parking lot. Still it's clear guns aren't welcome there.
When asked if she thought that this could lead to workplace violence, "Yes, I've heard that. I don't agree," said Sue King, NRA board member.
King grew up around guns. She said ConocoPhillips' efforts are a waste of time.
"If you think back to the incidents of workplace violence that we occasionally, rarely have in this country and keeping the Oklahoma legislation in mind, you'll realize that those people who commit workplace violence are either outright criminals, they're mentally unbalanced or they are true psychopaths," King said.
"I feel that it's a problem," said Tomasita Garza, Texans for Gun Safety.
This group disagrees with King, saying there are other problems with leaving a gun in a car.
"The reason being no vehicle is safe. No matter what kind of deterrents you use to keep your car from being stolen, it can still be stolen," said Garza.
ConocoPhillips is one of several companies asking an Oklahoma judge to clear the way for employers to prevent workers from keeping pistols in the parking lot.
The company says it, "supports the second amendment and the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns".
It's that amendment that granger Durdin says it gives her a little more confidence and the right to protect herself wherever she may be.
Your employer has not removed your weapon from you. You have decided to follow his rules when becoming his employee. You are free to go work elsewhere if you find his restrictions too onerous.
I'm not sure that's the case. When my apartment complex back in the late 80s was forced to accept families with children, it was because of discrimination in housing against people of child-bearing age. Those are not the old. Regardless, let's use hair picks then. Much more liable to be in a black person's car than a white one's.
In Virginia, at least, a property owner is almost never liable for criminal actions performed on his property by someone who is not in the employer's control.
Actually - I am. If you have had any experience in supervising government employees who have over 20 years of experience and are unionized and can't be fired for hardly anything less than capital murder - you might have some clue of what I go through.
If you haven't - believe me, you have no idea what it is like.
My employees like me and respect me - we generally get along just fine. Lock yourself in a brick building with no windows with 8 men and 200 menopausal women for 8 hours and see what happens.
Most problems are between employees - not between me and an employee. Hardly a day goes by without one of my staff in my office in tears, crying, "Kathy called me a bitch!"
I always want to answer back, "You ARE a bitch! ---- NEXT!!"
Obviously I don't. I am as caring and nurturing as a male can be - but believe me - its no picnic.
Nobody is removing your weapon. You're free to keep it on you 100% of the time. You aren't free to work for Mr. Smidgely, though, because he chooses not to employ people who carry arms into the office. Nor Mr. Snodgrass, since he refuses to employ people who keep arms on their person or in their cars on company property.
Try Joe Belch's gun shop. He refuses to hire anyone who won't carry a pistol at all times, especially at work. Or Pinkertons. They like to employ armed people as guards. Or Lane's hardware store. I happen to know that Lane carries, and if you want to carry at all times, he's fine with that. Or start your own business, and hire exactly the sort of people you want to associate with, as pertains to their gun use.
If only they had put a sign in front of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City saying, "Absolutely no Ryder trucks filled with fertilizer bombs allowed"!
Then we're 100% agreed. Some employers just happen to have a rule that any car containing a gun is not allowed to park on their land. It's a silly rule, but it's their property.
You'd have to look at whether the rule had disparate impact, then look at the basis behind the rule. If a rule has a disparate impact on a basis covered by discrimination laws (say, race or gender), a court would look at the basis behind the rule. Now, if the rule was stupid (but had neutral effect), it probably wouldn't violate any laws. A rule banning all personal grooming items would be perfectly legal, for example.
That's an asinine standard. Banning drunkenness at work has a disparate impact on alcoholics in the office.
You can't park a moving van like a Ryder truck within a certain distance of Planned Parenthood in Boston.
That's just not true in all cases.
Dictating the contents of a vehicle is trying to enforce a property claim. It also deprives me of my RKBA while not on company property during my commute. You don't get that do you?
I agree with you 100% when the business is privately, rather than publically owned.
Well if he prevents visitors from taking steps to protect themselves, then the landlord SHOULD be responsible. After all, it IS within his power to allow visitors to bring their weapons.
Yes. It is. It is either that or you are saying an employers property right extends to property not legally theirs.
It's a two step process. In that case, the rule has a disparate impact on people who are protected by certain laws (the ADA), but the basis behind the rule isn't to discriminate against people who are protected by the ADA, it's meant to increase on-the-job safety as well as productivity.
I agree, though, that the rules have become somewhat byzantine. My wife represents employers in employment law issues, so I hear some great stories.
Other than nationalized industries, all businesses are privatley owned. GM is as much a private company as the local convenience store.
Well, if you work on a base, then you have nothing to worry about.
Nonsense. If I say, "red cars can park on lot A", I'm not dictating the color of your car. I'm saying who's allowed on lot A.
It also deprives me of my RKBA while not on company property during my commute.
No it doesn't: you're free, for example, to carry a weapon in the car, and store it in a gun locker next door to your employer's property while at work. In fact, that's one of the "infinite possibilities" I mentioned earlier but didn't think of until now. You can keep a gun locker in your van, and charge your gun-toting co-workers to store their guns in it while at work. You, meanwhile, will park your gun-van down the street. You'll have to pay to park there, but you'll still make a profit at the end of the day.
When you say, "That rule prevents me from having a gun en route to work," you're confusing inconvenience with actual force. You aren't forced to travel without a gun. It's merely very inconvenient. Itty boo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.