Carry At Work Language

[Lars]

Who's worse? The Homeowner suing because Pizza Hut sent a man with a gun to their home.

Or the Family for suing Pizza Hut. Personally I think once you leave Pizza Hut's parking lot in your own car. You're no longer subject to their property rights/rules. Why does posing a question about personal security & responsibility have to be "liberal" in terms of who's at fault on one side of the coin or the other.

I'd say stripping someone of the right to take their own security in their own hands is far more liberal than using litigation to call them on it after the fact.

 

[bigus_D]

I don't defend the Homeowner suing Pizza Hut because they send a man with a gun to their home. Absolutely not. I don't think this suit is better or worse than suing the employeer for disarming the employee... both are equally terrible and have no place in my view of justice.

I just don't think it is right to suggest that the employeer would be at fault in any way for the actions of a third party. Suggesting otherwise is a very liberal political position.

Conservative beliefs would dictate that the business owner should be able to hire & fire whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. The buiness owner should be able to make whatever rules for their employees. If an employee doesn't like it, it is a free market, so he can go get another job he likes more. The liberal view, on the other hand, is that everybody is entitled to a job. Everybody is entitled to do as they wish while on the job, and can only be terminated under extremelly specific circumstances. The liberal view would put the blame for disarming the employee on the employer's shoulders, thereby removing responsibility from the individual. The conservative should say, "if you didn't want to be disarmed, then you should have gone somewhere else." The liberal passes responsibility...

I see no way in hell that the employeer should be held responsible for the actions of a third party. Clearly the only entity responsible for an attack on a delivery driver should be the attacker.

I agree, stripping the driver of his right to carry is a liberal stance... however, it is not within the employeer's capabilities to strip the driver of his rights. The employee has the right to decide for himself if he wants the job or not. The employee has the right to leave when he decides. He has the right to stay. He has the right to follow the employer's rules or to break them. If the employeer were somehow forcing the employee to take specific actions, then that would be a different story. That is simply not the world we live in, however.

 

[XDs4me]

No unlawful weapons allowed on site!!!!
No weapons allowed in warehouse area!!!!!
ALL VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT ON SITE!!!!!
Managment

 

[dross]

Gotta be very careful with some of the arguments you make. The reasoning that somehow the employer should be responsible because they have an anti-gun policy could be turned right around in many areas of our society, and in fact, is the very argument used to sue gun manufacturers, and to ban smoking in private businesses.

 

[BigMatt]

Well, this thread has opened my eyes to what a complex situation it is. After all everyone has written about, I am of the opinion that the best way to go about things in my situation is to remove all firearms related langage from the handbook and have everyone sign a revised copy.

There are 12 employees here and only 3 are interested in carrying. They are all in the office. We own the building and the insurance doesn't appear to be a problem.

Thanks for all the help and discussion guys.

-Matt

 

[Tenacious1]

On a related note....

I've been thinking about this. If a company like Pizza Hut wants to say that their delivery drivers are not allowed to carry weapons for self defense while on the job because they're afraid of being sued by a customer for "sending a man to my house with a gun."

Does that give the employee's family the right to sue Pizza Hut, if their family member is killed on a delivery "For sending him to that house without a chance to defend himself."

I know its an old thread. I doubt this will ever be read. But I did ask a lawyer friend about a pizza delivery man dead. (I'm a poet when I don't think anyone's watching).

The friend of mine (esquire) took a day to read up on it. He said he couldn't find a case where family sued the business because loved one was prohibitted. Then he said he believes that the family might have a case if they could convince a jury that the only reason the loved one was not carrying in self defense was becaue the company forced the situation. Basically they would have to prove that at all times when not on duty he was legally licensed and armed.

I have wondered the same thing.

 

[HighStrung]

Just post this sign. Since (in the eyes of the Anti's, every dangerous gun is an AK47 assault style battle rifle), this also conveniently leaves out the handgun catagory, which to me would mean that legally carrying a handgun would still be allowed

Doh, just realized how old this thread was.