CC workplace legal question

[Bierhunter]

PI and armed guard are different. An armed guard may only carry on duty and within the assigned area of duty (ie...not to and from work or go shopping, etc).

A PI is different, where there is not really an assigned post (so may carry throughout the State). Also, a PI can be considered on-duty at any time. Many PI's are self-employed.

 

[DaveTec]

Thanks BurkLee for your kind words.

After completing the legal section of the SDA courses, I got the distinct impression that having my CCW license actually opened me up personally for extra liability when it came to defending myself.

But, like G. Gordon Liddy was so fond of saying, "I'd rather be heard by twelve than carried by six."

 

[.45Lover]

Not a lawyer, but thought I would wade in. If I remember correctly, you cannot carry into a business that has posted a no guns sign. I know that could be against someones constitutional rights, but it is in the statute and makes you liable if you do (don't patronize the business if you can). In order for you to carry at work, the handbook (policy) has to be changed and the sign removed from the door. After that, you should be able to carry concealed at your work place.
If you carry with just the OK of the VP, both of you will be open for all kinds of problems as stated by others in the forum.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Not a lawyer, but thought I would wade in. If I remember correctly, you cannot carry into a business that has posted a no guns sign. I know that could be against someones constitutional rights, but it is in the statute and makes you liable if you do (don't patronize the business if you can). In order for you to carry at work, the handbook (policy) has to be changed and the sign removed from the door. After that, you should be able to carry concealed at your work place.
If you carry with just the OK of the VP, both of you will be open for all kinds of problems as stated by others in the forum.
Just my 2 cents.

It's trespassing.

But concealed is concealed.

I weigh my risks before carrying in certain places. That's why I don't leave my firearm in my truck at work. There is no reasonable place to park off campus, so I keep a close tab on what I have available as improvised weapons or retreat points.

Some people would be surprised at what you can find for a weapon if you just take a look around.

 

[mons meg]

Thanks BurkLee for your kind words.

After completing the legal section of the SDA courses, I got the distinct impression that having my CCW license actually opened me up personally for extra liability when it came to defending myself.

But, like G. Gordon Liddy was so fond of saying, "I'd rather be heard by twelve than carried by six."

What you may already know but should be repeated here, is the criminal conviction rate for permit holders nationwide is MUCH lower than that of the general population. I'm sure we can scare up some numbers if we need to

 

[boomerPI]

IANAL - just my .02, but the businesses in Oklahoma are going to have to address this issue. I agree that the only reasonable and least-liability way would be for the company to change their employee policy. If they change their employee policy, that does not mean that they have to change the policy governing customers, re: no weapons sign.

Just off the top of my head, I would think that a policy change as already stated to exclude CCL from the policy would be sufficient, then a copy of the CCL should be in the employee file. However, I also believe that an additional CYA for the company would be to also include a liability waiver for all employees to sign that indicates the company policy re: CCL exclusion to no weapons policy and that the employee is aware of this policy. This waiver should also absolve the company of any actions not sanctioned by the company by anyone, including a CCL using a weapon in an SD situation. This way, if law enforcement calls it a good shoot, no problem. If it is not determined to be a good shoot, the company can still limit their liability with a phrase such as "all normal and usual efforts are made to ensure employees' safety on our property."

 

[mons meg]

All this talk of liability when it comes to no weapons policies, but I've never seen anything concrete like an actual insurance policy that demands no weapons. Can someone point us to the actuarial tables? I tend to think companies *say* the insurance companies make them have those policies, but I think they're full of poo poo.

 

[rawhide]

All this talk of liability when it comes to no weapons policies, but I've never seen anything concrete like an actual insurance policy that demands no weapons. Can someone point us to the actuarial tables? I tend to think companies *say* the insurance companies make them have those policies, but I think they're full of poo poo.

I've thought the same thing everytime I read one of these "liability" discussions.

Couldn't this issue be viewed from a different direction?

An employer refuses to allow employees to CC but also does not provide armed security and metal detectors at every entrance. The employee is severly harmed or killed while at work. (In a situation that they would normally be able to defend themselves with a firearm.) Wouldn't the employer be liable for the damages to the employee because the employee could not adequately defend themselves?

I think this applies to the government as well. Any place that I'm forbidden from carrying (i.e. school) must be aggressively protected by the government. If the government won't allow me to protect myself then the government must provide the protection in those places.

 

[mons meg]

See, I'm pretty sure a company wouldn't be found liable for events ot normally associated with the workplace. Violent incidents are so rare, they could say, reasonably, they had no idea that something like that would happen.

 

[Rod Snell]

I think this applies to the government as well. Any place that I'm forbidden from carrying (i.e. school) must be aggressively protected by the government. If the government won't allow me to protect myself then the government must provide the protection in those places.

Unfortunately, the Federal courts have ruled otherwise, including SCOTUS.
I don't remember the case reference offhand, but it is available from the online archives.
If I remember correctly, it was a particularly blatant case of a person begging for protection, but the rulling was that the police (and government) are not responsible for protecting individuals.
Sucks, huh?