Will My CHL Be a Deal Killer?

[iratollah]

There is an organization that wants me to open an office in Houston for them, this would be their first Texas office, I would be their General Director (part-time volunteer) and would hire a paid staffer.

They are an international organization. I asked them if they had a position on 2A or if my CHL would be a problem in any office I open here. I got a reply of "Well if you accidentally shot the mailman when he walks in that creates liability issues for us."

Oooohhhh boy, here we go. I can tell that they don't get it.

So this could be a deal killer. They're convinced I'm the right guy to get them started here. I was ready to approach some potential benefactors this weekend. I'm not going to advocate any organization that wants to disarm me or would make their offices a Gun Free Zone.

I sent them a long letter explaining that I'm going to use Texas laws to my advantage and I'm not going to be anyone's victim. I also told them we better get this cleared up on the front end. It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out.

[AEA]

Well.......

Since you would be the one to set the rules at the office, I would think that it would be up to you to post a 30.06 or not. I am afraid you may have jumped the gun in asking them about this and from their initial reply I am willing to bet that they are not gun friendly, and care nothing about the 2nd or the crime situation in Houston. Just my .02.

I too may be coming to Houston to work out of an International Company's Office for a few weeks before going out in the field throughout Texas and Louisiana. If that happens (and we are in discussions now) I will certainly be carrying and keeping my mouth shut!

[iratollah]

The national executive board sets this policy. Some other similar organizations filed as amicus curiae on the wrong side of the Heller case. This turned me off to those groups as they supported those who seek to disarm me. I decided I need to know up front if I'd be advocating for a group that would have joined in the wrong side of Heller. I don't want to bust my back building an organization for them only to find that we'd be parting ways over this issue.

It was also my intent that if this group had no policy that they needed to give consideration. RKBA and right to self-defense is something I see as important for my long term vision of this group.

I could have simply kept quiet and there would be no issue for quite some time, but I'm an upfront kind of guy and I thought this should be out in the open. If they want me to be their founding member in Texas, they have to accept that Texas isn't California or Seattle.

[AEA]

Well put and I wish you luck.

I understand your openness with them and wanting to do the right thing. Unfortunately, if they are as you suspect, the final answer will not be in your favor.

It has been my experience that groups of this type that are on the "Dark Side" are not open to discussion or turning around on their stance. Usually has something to do with funding........ Example - the rise of our new Commander in Chief.

[iratollah]

If their reply is unfavorable, they'll have set themselves back some number of months getting started here. I basically have an organization that I would bring under their umbrella and build on their established name. Let them find someone else who has built what I've already got who is willing to work with them. If they don't want me, then I still have a very significant work load that I've brought on myself. Affiliating with this established organization will drain the little bit of free time I still have. So in a way, it's win/win for me.

[srothstein]

Well, I guess I am a little different because I took their answer as permissive to carry. I see it somewhat more of a tongue in cheek answer to something they had not thought about. I would have answered along the lines of promising not to shoot the mailman by accident and taken it as permission.

[AEA]

That was missed by me. I guess I consider people's response to me to be as direct as my question to them.

Interesting thought though and you may be correct.

[iratollah]

Steve raises a very valid point. When they made the mailman comment they said it was a topic they hadn't considered, so now they would have to visit this subject. I could have left it alone at that point. But I also I have the opportunity to influence their by-laws by becoming a state director. For a variety of reasons on which I won't elaborate, I think this particular group must take a stand on RKBA. How badly do they want me?

[KD5NRH]

"Well if you accidentally shot the mailman when he walks in that creates liability issues for us."

They didn't say that intentionally shooting the mailman would be a problem, so just don't try to pass it off as an accident, and you'll be fine.

[KC5AV]

I got the same impression as Steve. Best of luck with it, and keep posted on how things develop.

[atxgun]

Ira, kudos on your convictions and standing up for what you believe in, especially when it means there's a potential for a negative outcome on your end.

[Oldgringo]

"Don't ask, don't tell". Isn't that about what they told you?

FWIW, you asked....

In any event, good luck with your decision.

[seamusTX]

I've been thinking about how I would approach this issue.

In the course of discussions, I would ask whomever I was talking to for a copy of the organization's employment and premises policies. Every organization with employees should have policies for legal reasons, such as prohibiting discrimination and sexual harassment. I would have good reason to see these policies before I became responsible for administering them.

If the policy was silent on weapons in the workplace, that would be the end of the issue.

If I found anything in the policy that I disagreed with, I would compose a letter discussing those disagreements, my reasons for them, and what we could do to make the situation acceptable to both parties.

Here's my reasoning:

Only a few percent of the adult population in the U.S. thinks strongly enough about armed self defense to get a concealed-carry license (whatever it is called). Although about half the households in the U.S. have at least one firearm, most Americans do not have a planned self-defense strategy that involves using their weapon.

Except for the U.S., Israel, and Switzerland, firearms ownership is extremely limited or banned in what we think of as civilized countries. Therefore most of the people of North and South American, Europe, and Asia don't even think about the issue. For them, weapons are for the military, police, and criminals.

Most of the members of organizations like the NAACP, the ACLU, B'nai B'rith, the National Council of Churces, etc., are reflexively afraid of weapons and opposed to armed self defense. Many of these organizations have taken formal positions in favor of "gun control" up to and including complete bans on non-LEO firearms ownership: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You say this organization has not gone that far, but it is possible that the typical member thinks that way.

Asking early in negotiations about weapons policy probably is as shocking to the person on the receiving end as if you asked about alcohol or nudity in the workplace.

Writing a letter gives the recipient time to think and research the issue before replying.

In any case, I hope that what you are doing works out for you.

- Jim

[Fangs]

How badly do they want me?

If nothing else, you know you're a valuable asset and expect them to deal with you on your terms because of it. I like your attitude.

[Frost]

I would avoid even mentioning the 2A when discussing these issues with someone of unknown persuasion. The 2A is not useful or persuasive when dealing with private individuals and organizations.