Company implication for use of CHL?

[GhostTX]

So, with so many companies that don't seem to let their CHL employees carry...what are the legal ramifications if they allowed them to carry?

I'm just wondering, does it go beyond the "guns are evil"/"guns are bad" argument? Is there actual legal liability for letting CHL holders carry at work? If the worst case scenario happens...crazy at work, shots fired, people killed by both bad guy and accidental by CHL...what could happen to the company?

I would like to get out of the "feelings" arena and know some facts when a company doesn't allow one to carry.

[boomerang]

If they don't have a policy against guns and an employee shoots someone, it seems they would have the same liability as if they don't have a policy against automobiles and an employee kills or injures someone driving to work.

IANAL

[C-dub]

And especially when the parking lot issue gets resolved. Didn't it have wording that exempted employers from liability if there was a shooting by a CHL holder on their property?

[The Annoyed Man]

Caveat: I am not a lawyer.

It seems to me that there are several things going on when a company bans CHL carry.

One is the (obviously incorrect) perception that only an angry person would carry a gun around. Therefore, they feel (incorrectly) that they are creating a safer workplace by banning CHL carry.

Another is probably a concern about the security of a CHL's weapon. They've bought into the "guns in the home are dangerous because the bad guy will take it away from you and shoot you with it" canard, and they extrapolate it to the workplace. "If you bring a licensed gun to work, a bad guy will take it away from you and use to shoot you and your coworkers."

A third possibility is the fear that a CHL holder might accidentally shoot an innocent person in the process of defending themselves.

I'm not saying that any of these things (except maybe the possibility of the third item) are realistic fears, but corporate counsel are all about minimizing risk, and so they probably feel that banning even licensed carry from the workplace reduces the risks to which the corporation is exposed. But it isn't just large corporations run by liberals either that make these mistakes. My last two employers, both small printing companies owned by conservative republicans with with 4-5 employees, had "no-gun" policies in their employee manuals. Both manuals were written by HR consultancies which were hired because the companies were too small to have their own HR departments. In the case of the 1st company, we moved it here from California (where there is no CHL to speak of), and the company's HR policies were written within the context of California law. In the case of the second company, it shared a parking facility with several other businesses so there was no way to enforce the policy in the parking lot; but I obtained my plastic while working there and I disarmed in the car before coming in.

In any case, there are enough companies without their own HR departments that this type of HR outsourcing is fairly common (at least nationally, I don't know about Texas specifically), and so the picture is muddied because HR policies with regard to corporate safety have a tendency to be somewhat generic rather than being tailored to the specific needs of a specific company at a specific location.

At least... that is my perception. Fortunately for me, my company's policy is to encourage CHL carry at all times. I am self-employed.

[Tregs]

I think most companies weigh the odds.
If they allow CHL's, is there a greater chance that a BG goes on a shooting spree, or a CHL has an AD?

Back to the feelings thing rather than the legal ramifications - since most companies are made up of all sorts of people - conservatives, liberals, pro-gun, anti-gun, etc, I think they may weigh the benefits of having CHL's on site against the tension and discomfort that it causes the anti-gunners. Not that the CHL's are dangerous or showing, just that those who don't understand guns are scared of them and get a bit freaked if they think someone is carrying. They may act different if they think the person that they are about to yell at is carrying.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not defending the non-CHL decision, just trying to understand it.
I carry becuase there IS a small chance, however minute, that arming myself will save my life or the life of someone in my family.
My company is non-CHL. I wish it were different, but for now, the only thing I pack for work is lunch and a laptop.

[LaUser]

I think that it is very simple reasoning. If no one has a gun, nobody will get shot. It is the same basic argument put forth by anti-gun proponents.

[Tireshred]

Virtually every customer I visit has a no gun policy, but the one I work for allows work carry, but it's privately owned and managed. I disarm before going into most customer workplaces, but they (and me) aren't as safe as they imagine.

As a side note, one of my best friends was killed at work (NASA, one of the most if not THE most anti-gun places in the country) by a deranged employee and is what got me off my duff to get a CHL.

[Tregs]

I think that it is very simple reasoning. If no one has a gun, nobody will get shot. It is the same basic argument put forth by anti-gun proponents.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. it's certainly the argument of the anti-gun proponents, or of companies that don't care to face the uphill battle of changing their policy to allow CHL. I dont' know which.

[Tireshred]

I don't think corporations will ever allow CHL carry, the insurance companies would drop them like a rock.

[Frost]

I don't think corporations will ever allow CHL carry, the insurance companies would drop them like a rock.

If the actuarial tables actually indicated a risk I am sure the antis would be shouting it from the rooftops.

[karder]

The problem with "employee handbooks" is that the only purpose they serve is to provide liability protection for the employer. I worked at my company 10 years before they decided they needed an employee handbook. When I got mine, it was generically written and looked like every other employee handbook I have ever seen.
Our company owner hired a lawyer, who no doubt went to a website and downloaded a generic employee handbook, changed a few words (like the company name), printed it out, handed it to the owner and charged him $5,000. Every employee handbook has the same basic material--don't sexually harass anyone, don't steal office supplies, and you can be fired after receiving an oral reprimand, followed by a written reprimand, followed by a suspension. These things are all pretty much the same, because all the attorneys download the same generic one as their starting point. Apparently the "no guns on premises" is in the generic template.

[Tregs]

Something I've been wondering.....
For those of you who work for large CHL-friendly corporations, is it easy to tell who is carrying based on the daily routine?
Someone who always wears a jacket or an untucked shirt? Bends at the knee to pick something up rather than at the waist? Visits the restroom immediately after arriving at the corporate gym before suiting out?

I know these types of things are never noticed when out in a crowd, but working alongside people for 8-10 hours a day lets you pick up on little things like this. Maybe just CHL'ers recognizee the routine of other CHL'ers and the rest of the population never picks up on it.

[WildBill]

The problem with "employee handbooks" is that the only purpose they serve is to provide liability protection for the employer. I worked at my company 10 years before they decided they needed an employee handbook. When I got mine, it was generically written and looked like every other employee handbook I have ever seen.
Our company owner hired a lawyer, who no doubt went to a website and downloaded a generic employee handbook, changed a few words (like the company name), printed it out, handed it to the owner and charged him $5,000. Every employee handbook has the same basic material--don't sexually harass anyone, don't steal office supplies, and you can be fired after receiving an oral reprimand, followed by a written reprimand, followed by a suspension. These things are all pretty much the same, because all the attorneys download the same generic one as their starting point. Apparently the "no guns on premises" is in the generic template.

Many companies just copy from an employee handbook that they got from another company. They can also buy a template for not much money. http://www.employeehandbookstore.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Target1911]

I don't think corporations will ever allow CHL carry, the insurance companies would drop them like a rock.

I think that is the #1 reason for "no guns"

The owner of the company I work for has said he doesnt care if we carry but the insurance co wont let us.

[GhostTX]

If it's insurance, at least that's a semi-legit that's (3rd party involved). Versus anti-gun HR people.

It's just January and we've had two incidents (ABB in St. Louis and Penske in Georgia) with someone going berserk in a place of business and I can't help but wonder what the outcome would be if companies would drop the anti-CHL stance.