CC workplace legal question

[Silveravnt]

My employer is pretty cool. We are a laid back small business. We have about 800 people and I think about a third of those work in my location. We have everything from the board of directors to proffesionals like me to low wage warehouse workers. That's the background.

We have the "no weapons" sign on our front door as well as a "no weapons" clause in the employee handbook. As a shareholder I can apprechiate the need of our company to avoid legal problems. Also we wouldn't want alot of the people here to think it's okay to have guns at work. Many are temporary and we don't know thier backgrounds. Many have gang tattoos.

Most of my bosses know I like guns, like to practice at the range and have a permit to carry that the OSBI and my Sheriff gave me.

Anyway, one of the VPs asked me if it would be legally okay for me to carry at work if they gave me somthing in writing that stated I have permision.

Should I persue this?

 

[thecolonel]

I personally would not carry at work even if they "put it in writing" that you can. It seems that there are a great many ways that this could bite you in the backside. In stead I would ask them to take down the know weapons sign, the bad guys don't pay attention to them anyway, and rephrase the no weapons at work clause in the employee handbook. Our personnel policy is, "violence at work will not be tolerated."
Understand, that I am not an attorney, but if you carry at work under a no weapons sign, even with permission could cause problems

 

[Rod Snell]

Anyway, one of the VPs asked me if it would be legally okay for me to carry at work if they gave me somthing in writing that stated I have permision.

Legally, the state of OK has no interest in whether you carry on private property until/unless the owner makes a complaint. I accepted a written authorization to carry a gun at a specific college to conduct a specific class, which is allowed by state law on a case-by-case basis. I would be curious if the VP wants you to provide store security without proper training. IANAL

Personally, I think it is idiotic to put a "No Weapons" sign on the entrance, because the ONLY people you might stop are licensed carriers and retired cops. No criminal is going to be hindered by the sign. No discussion of what the customers or employees might look like changes the fact that all this does is create an unarmed victim zone.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

.... we wouldn't want a lot of the people here to think it's okay to have guns at work.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "you can carry" but "you can't". Just lose the sign and allow anyone who wants to to exercise their constitution right.

As for the letter, if they keep the sign up then the company can give you a letter that permits you to carry but it is only for the company's benefit, it would not have any legal standing that I know of.

BC

 

[Burk Cornelius]

I personally would not carry at work even if they "put it in writing" that you can. It seems that there are a great many ways that this could bite you in the backside. ...... but if you carry at work under a no weapons sign, even with permission could cause problems

I don't see how it could cause problems. the sign is only a company policy, not statute.

BC

 

[Silveravnt]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "you can carry" but "you can't". Just lose the sign and allow anyone who wants to to exercise their constitution right.

I don't think you have the constitutional right to bear arms on my companies property.
Anyway the signs and policy are a liability issue. If one of our emplyees hurt another one with a weapon, nobody can say we allowed it.

From what I understand of the SDA, a company certainly can control weapons on thier property any way they see fit (with the vehicle exception of course).

 

[thecolonel]

Let me clarify my earlier post. The potential issues do not have to do with the SDA, but from an employee perspective. If the policy at work is a "no weapons policy", as described by the sign and the employee manual, then the employer opens himself up to action by other employees.

If employee A carries a weapon to work even though there is a policy of no weapons at work and this gets around. It probably will; especially, in a small business setting. Let us say employee B is fired for violation of a workplace policy as outline in the employee manual. Employee B has potential grounds for a discrimination law suit under the federal fair labor act. The person can argue, that she was singled out for termination as the work policies are not enforced in a fair and equitable manner. The presence of a permission to carry a weapon gives support to her argument. Employee A is receiving special treatment, to carry a weapon, this clearly in violation of the work place policy and he is receiving "special consideration" from the employer. The only way around this would be to have a caveat in the job description of employee A that has to do with providing security, but this can open other issues.

The best way to handle this potential labor issue is to remove the sign and change the policy in the handbook to "no violence at work" wording.

 

[Silveravnt]

I agree. And I'm definitly not signing up to provide security.

I wonder if they could just add an exception in the policy for All CWL holders. We shouldn't have to worry about anyone who has gone through the proscess and passed all the safeguards.

 

[Roadking Larry]

Get the company policy changed to "Violence in the workplace will not be tolerated".
You know as well as I do that a "No Weapons" sign or clause is not going to stop someone from bringing in a weapon if they have already decided to do harm. Does your "No weapons" policy specifically define what is and is not a weapon? A 12" steel ruler can casue a lot of hurt. Do your temporary employees that you don't know their backgrounds and have gang tattoos have access to hammers, box knives, big sticks, broom handles or other possible improvised weapons?

 

[Shooter00]

I believe that the difference would lie in the terms "prohibited" and "unlawful" as stated in the SDA. You would be prosecuted if you are caught carrying in a place where it is "prohibited by law," because you've broken a law put in place by legislation.

Unlawful carry could be seen as a civil matter, like trespassing. If you are on someone's property, they would have to notify you that there is no trespassing (posting or verbally). If you disregard the notification, they can press charges. With a CCW, if it's posted on a building, you are notified. Whether or not they enforce the post would be the key, I would assume.

This might be up for debate, it was explained to me by a SDA instructor who took the question to a CLEET attorney. It's second hand info...

This is what gets me - if your weapon is concealed, who would know? And if a day came where you needed to skin it and perhaps save a life (your own) are they really going to go there? It would only be a misdemeanor with a $250 fine (TITLE 21 § 1277, para. c) Small peanuts for living!

Let me know if I'm not tracking guys...Not trying to sound like the a guru...