A Modest Proposal For Guns In The Workplace
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 9 months ago
Our firm regularly prepares employee handbooks that include policies against violence that are protective of employers while allowing employees to carry their firearms to work. If you are an employer and would like to implement such a policy, here are a few
1. Screen your employees before you hire them, and always, always, conduct a thorough background check. A safe workplace begins with the hiring process.
2. Set requirements for training—if your state laws allow you to do so. At a minimum, require that your employees have a state concealed carry permit, which means they have passed a background check conducted by law enforcement.
3. Establish requirements for storage and control of the firearm. Leaving a firearm unattended inside the workplace where it is accessible to others is grounds for termination without discussion.
4. Ensure that employees have read your firearms policy and have had an opportunity to ask questions.
5. If not prohibited by your state’s law, implement a reporting system for employees who carry. Employees should at least annually update you with proof of their training. They should also at least annually sign a declaration stating they are not a prohibited person under state or federal law.
6. Have a self-reporting policy that requires employees to report immediately to their supervisor if they become a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm.
7. Make sure you have a procedure for other employees to report threats of violence.
My company already has most of those things since I work under a fitness for duty program that meets the requirements of the code of federal regulations. I’m not sure what she intends for number 2, but I put more rounds downrange than most LEOs. I shouldn’t have to demonstrate over and over again at a cost to me that I know how to safely and effectively operate my firearms.
On the other hand, if the company wants to rent out a range for a day and have employee fun day at the range with a qualification supervisor watching, I’m all in for that. I’d even buy my own ammunition. I just don’t think I should have to go pay a state-approved CHP instructor every year for this.
What’s not to like about this? It’s a win-win, and as few of those that come along in life, you have to grab them when you can.
|
|
On March 22, 2016 at 3:27 am, Daniel Barger said:
The problem with rules is that someone else always gets to set them and enforce them.
Sometimes they are minimal, logical or at the very least not particularly onerous. More
often than not they are created to be an obstacle, to facilitate control. My take on the
matter is that for private businesses the policy is up to the owner. For both private and
public businesses (corporations with stockholders and boards) the choice is theirs….but
the liability must ALSO be theirs. If they have policies that prevent or make it very difficult
for employees to possess or have immediate access to EFFECTIVE methods of self defense
then THEY need to be held legally AND financially liable for any harm that comes to employees
and customers on their premises.
On March 22, 2016 at 9:55 am, Herschel Smith said:
I agree with everything you said, I’m trying to strike a balance between property rights and the right to self defense. It seems to me that some sort of compromise like this best achieves that end.
On March 26, 2016 at 8:32 am, Publicola said:
Mr. Smith,
There’s no conflict – Property Rights are self defense are Right to own & carry. If we understand that Property Rights begin with Self Ownership, then it’s logical that ownership of one’s own labor & creativity, Right of Contract, acquisition & disposal of Property, defense of property (including self) & the Right to arms are all connected. Taking from one to “balance” another is tugging at the bottom of an already precarious Jenga tower..
But that’s perhaps a separate discussion. In regards to the guidelines above, I’m not crazy about the idea of requiring someone to get a permit. Most states have repressive & immoral laws when it comes to carrying, but 8 or 9 now have either some form of constitutional or permitless carry. It’d be damned insulting to finally have your Right treated like a Right but then turn around & have you employer demand you treat it like a privilege.
Also the reporting system seems a bit intrusive. I’ve never thought that some bureaucrat’s jot on a form was an adequate substitute for my own judgement, so I can’t see why an employed would depend upon a government okey dokey instead of relying on their own assessment of whether someone can be trusted in the workplace with a tool.
& as you mentioned, the notion of annual training seems problematic. Some, perhaps most people wouldn’t be unduly burdened by that financially, but some would. I doubt most employers would want the expense of footing the bill for a company-wide range session or class (though I do appreciate the ones that do that sorta thing), & may just scrap the whole idea if it seems too much of a hassle.
Still, it’s an interesting idea. I’d just prefer it were more focused on respecting Rights rather than making accommodations for privileges.