Survey results: OK to keep guns in cars at workplace parking lots?
August 15, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Communication, Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, policies
In light of new laws in Florida and other states, we asked, “Should employees be allowed to store guns in their cars while parked on company property, even if the employer objects?” Here’s how readers responded, accompanied by their comments.
A total of 221 people responded. The breakdown of answers:
- 31% — Yes, employees should be able to store guns in their cars on employers’ property. It’s a Second Amendment right.
- 16% — Yes, but the employer’s permission should be required.
- 53% — No. Second Amendment rights don’t extend to others’ property.
Click here (then scroll down) to read their comments.
Tags: Florida, guns, Second Amendment, survey
August 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
If you have to ask PEMISSION, it is not a RIGHT.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I understand our constitutional rights, including the 2nd Amendment. And as a U.S. citizen, I am dismayed at how many of our civil rights and liberties have been lost since 9/11 under the guise of “fighting terrorism.” However, as an HR professional who has had to deal with violence in the workplace, including an employee carrying a small arsenal in the trunk of his car, I am astonished that allowing employees to bring guns to the workplace is cosidered a rational practice. Most violence in the workplace deaths are caused by guns — why make it easier for an employee to run out and grab his/her gun in the heat of a work conflict? Or a student finding it easy to take the gun of an armed teacher when angy at a classmate? If I had a child attending school in Texas, I believe I would finally be compelled to home school rather than send my child to such an unsafe and unstable “wild west” environment.
No and No and No — unless you are in a profession that involves firearms, leave them at home!
August 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Isn’t the law directed to those with Conceal and Carry licenses? If that is the case, anyone who has sought this priviledge has gone through extensive background checks (far more extensice than to purchase a gun), and they also had to take training to ensure they know when and where they can use them.
Criminals and people with viloent tendencies don’t care about the law or company policies, they will bring guns in their cars even if they are told they cannot. The people that honestly seek the proper channels to gain these priveledges and purchase firearms legally, are the people who I’m least worried about.
What about the average “Joe hunter” that goes out deer/turkey hunting before coming into work or who wants to get a jump on the woods after work?
August 19th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
There’s another way for HR Professionals to view this issue. Most people would agree that the world in which we live is a dangerous place. The danger is compounded when you consider that police resources are strained due to budget shortfalls across the nation. Today, it is not unusual to find one police officer for every 10,000 citizens.
Knowing this to be true, if an employee legally exercises their Second Amendment right to protect themselves while they travel to and from work, shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? Who are we as employers to say to law bidding citizens, “If you want to work here you need to leave your weapons home and take your chances out there like everyone else” – especially when our Constitution gives citizens the right to do otherwise?
I believe the problem may be that those who choose not to carry or are unfamiliar with firearms laws do not understand the right to self defense and the mechanisms that our government put in place to ensure that it is done safely. For instance, did you know that a concealed carry permit requires an extensive background check, criminal check, a check for psychiatric treatment or conditions, formal classroom training on gun laws, safety, and proper use of force, and safety and proficiency training on a firing range? The mandated checks and training are similar to the type police officers receive. In my state, state statute also indicates that citizens holding a concealed weapon permit can be “deputized” by a police officer to assist in an emergency situation.
Rather than rebuffing the notion that employees have the right to possess the means protect life and property, HR Professionals should seek to understand the concealed carry process and embrace what could very well be a resource if we are ever faced with the type of emergency that we all dread.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I am so sick and tired of the smug and condescending attitude of people with concealed weapons permits. It doesn’t matter how much training a person goes through when they have a bad day at work and snap. Gary mentioned that these people go through the same training that a police officer goes through. Please Gary, tell me, how many police officers have shot the wrong person or been involved in a conflict while off-duty? Just because someone goes through a background check and training course does not mean that I am going to trust them to be around me with a weapon.
People say that they need guns to defend themselves. In my opinion, that just exacerbates the problem. What we really need is less guns and less of a militant attitude.
Yes, people have the right to own a weapon. But I also have a right not to have that weapon near me. This is the same sort of situation that you see with smokers. They always talk about their right to smoke. Well guess what, I have a right for you not to kill me with your second hand smoke. I also have a right to feel safe in the work place and I will not feel safe if I know that an employee has a gun in their car. All the training and background checks in the world will do no good when they “go postal”.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Much of what is happening here is absurd. So, someone with a conceal and carry permit can keep a weapon in their car. Now there is an altercation at the worksite. In a worksite the size of Disney ( a lot of what is happening in the test of the new legislation is at Disney Florida) how long will it take the employee to get to his vehicle which is probably in a parking lot a mile away and get back to the site of the problem? The SWAT team will be there before the employee can get halfway to his vehicle. Now, tell me how all the potential victims will be benefitted by this employee. The shoot out at the OK Corral will be ancient history by the time he gets on the tram to the parking lot. I don’t think he’s going to be the hero in this drama.
The next legislation will likely result in permission to carry the weapon into the workplace because these guys won’t be able to get to their vehicles and back fast enough to make a difference.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
What about the rights of the hunter, who hits the field before going home from work? How about the sport shooter? How about outlawing baseballs and hockey pucks, people have been hit and killed with those. Do you really think that if someone intends to commit a violent act with a gun, that a law prohibiting guns in a trunk in a parking lot at the workplace is going to change anything? Let’s use some common sense here, its not the gun, the gun is just an inanimate object. The most agravating situation is when some one is trying to force their individual views on some one else,(see all wars in history).
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
As the movie “Grosse Point Blank” proved–you can kill a person with a pen (as well as numerous other objects).
Now, having said that there are two ways a person can “snap” both of which would be frightening on any level. The first is the person who get’s noticibly agitated to the point that they are yelling, screaming, nearly purple with rage and pushing or throwing things around. This person may be assultive, but they will be immediately assultive and as long as security is on their way the folks in the room with this person have a good chance of being ok. This person will be escorted out drive like a nutcase and then blow up at their family, sigificant other, etc and maybe file some sort of legal action against the company. They might come back with a weapon but they’d probably scare themself more by the time they got back with it, especially if the weapon was fired, that it would be a relatively quick calm-the-person-down-and-into-custody thing. The second, and more worrisome person to me, is the person that get’s angry but seems self contained and leads folks to think everything is fine. They walk out of the room and are “fine”. Maybe security escorts them to the door. Once out at their car one of two things will happen–either they will be “fine”, or they will come back to the work place with a weapon and introduce folks to the concept that they are most definitely NOT “fine”.
Quite frankly I’d rather limit the possibility of the latter person having access to a weapon with the potential to be instantly deadly upon use that is so easily concealed as a handgun would be. Please don’t assume I am going to suggest that shotguns or rifels would be acceptable–they aren’t. During the cold months quite often folks will wear long jackets and a longer gun could be concealed (at least partially) under such a garment.
A compromise could be that each work place have a gate in and a gate out where the person operating this gate is in a bullet proof station. Attached to this station would be a locker where employee’s could keep their guns and receive a canister of pepper spray instead (if they are that concerned about their safety). Additionally anyone coming in or out of the station with the gun locker wouldn’t be able to get in or leave if they had a weapon on them as they would have to go through a metal detector on both sides for the automatic door to work. A touchless system of gun “handling” and storage could be developed and used (like drive up pharmacy’s or banks). To retrieve their gun a person would have to swipe a security card and return their can of pepper spray in order to have their gun released from the locker. If a company couldn’t afford to have a gate and booth like that then the employee can’t bring their gun to work.
Realistically speaking there is nothing that can stop a person from bringing their gun and leaving it in their car, however a company can put policies in place that make it job costly for an employee to do so as long as it doesn’t interfere in the rights guarenteed under law. For instance, the law guarentees a person the right to bear arms, however the employer can say that for employee, client, vendor and consultant safety all firearms are to be stowed in secure locations, not on a person, at all times in compliance with state storage laws and an employee must report all concealed weapons permits and weapons to HR. Failure to comply with company policy at all times will lead to an employee’s immediate dismissal. Now, if there isn’t a state law on gun storage it’s best to avoid that clause all together. As long as a policy is written from a safety stand point rather than a refusal of rights I think it’s do-able. It also provides an instant hot list to the police of people to account for in an event that someone goes postal.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Well said, Megan! Your solution appears to be a rational, and relatively safe, compromise.