New twist on banning guns.

[Al Norris]

I believe this belongs here, as it is about contracts and policy, not law or politics...

There's a new resource out on the web that gives a clear indication of what we, as gun owners, are up against. It was put up by Prof. Eugene Volokh a gun rights advocate.

From the website:

Opponents of gun restrictions often argue that even seemingly modest restrictions are the first step towards total bans on all guns or all handguns.

Some proponents of gun restrictions mock this: No-one is talking about gun bans, they say -- the slippery slope concern is groundless. In the words of Martin Dyckman, associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times (Dec. 12, 1993, at 3D), "no one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns. You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed."

Who is right here? Is it true that no-one is seriously proposing broad gun bans? Is it true that the slippery slope concern is just a bogeyman? Here are a few relevant quotes on this point. (All of them have been verified by me, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School, with help from our excellent law library.)

Since all facts there have been checked and verified, we now have a little more ammunition to use against the grabbers. And it may be needed, as Volokh has reported that there may be a new twist on the horizon.

A lawprofs blogger, Kaimipono Wenger, writes:

Here's a question, perhaps a suggestion: Should companies, as a condition of employment, start requiring workers to sign an agreement of non-gun-ownership? This would require an employee to state that she does not own any guns, and that she will not purchase any guns during her employment. It seems that if an employer required an employee to agree to non-gun-ownership, the likelihood of a workplace killing by that employee would be lessened.

This should chill you to the bones. If businesses, for insurance reasons only, adopt such a measure, how many of you will comply? Or will you be out of work? Would this be legal? There are already several states that have said that bans of certain activities off-the-job are legal.

Wanna bet the farm on this being ruled an unlawful intrusion into your privacy?

 

[Rob P.]

I wouldn't bet anything on this being ruled either way.

The fed courts have ruled that an employer is OK to require that employees refrain from certain activities even during their off hours or weekends (like smoking and drinking). They don't seem to believe that this is an impermissable intrusion on employee rights or privacy. The courts has also indicated that they are OK with employers screening employees for certain medical conditions for legitimate insurance & business concerns.

Based on that type of critical thinking I would believe that the courts would go along with this. Their analysis is that one can always go to work somewhere else if you don't like company policy.

 

[Garand Illusion]

In colorado, there is a specific law that you cannot fire people/not hire people for doing something legal on their off hours.

This was passed to protect smokers, but should protect gun owners.

For me ... I would have no problem lying about this to an employer.

 

[HappyGunner]

More really stupid ideas

Again we see more really stupid ideas that some really stupid people think will make the work place safer. Just when you think you have seen every stupid anti-gun idea along come another one or two.

 

[23Skidoo]

How about if people just signed an agreement that they wouldnt go postal and shoot up the workplace? It would carry about as much weight, no one would object to it, and everyone could go about their business.

 

[HappyGunner]

Bye Bye Job

And as soon as you signed that little agreement it's bye bye your job because were downsizing or something. and if your applying for a job well forget that one.

 

[KyJim]

What happens when someone signs the employment agreement, gets rid of his firearms, and then gets killed or injured by a mugger or robber? The employee or estate ought to sue the employer. It is reasonably forseeable an employee could be a victim of violent crime. It is reasonably forseeable that the employee might have been able to defend himself/herself with a firearm. But for the employer disarming its employee, the employee would not have been injured.

An analogy would be the motel that doesn't light the common areas and/or puts on flimsy locks on doors knowing their is a risk of crime. Whether the suit is an actual winner would be up in the air. It would, at the very least, make employers think before implementing such a policy. This is completely different than barring an employee from bringing a firearm into work.

 

[blackmind]

This should chill you to the bones. If businesses, for insurance reasons only, adopt such a measure, how many of you will comply? Or will you be out of work? Would this be legal? There are already several states that have said that bans of certain activities off-the-job are legal.

Wanna bet the farm on this being ruled an unlawful intrusion into your privacy?

It IS wrong to intrude on one's private, personal, at-home affairs in this way. Many many people would rebel against this. (Troubling, though, is the realization that many people would have no problem accepting it. Sheeple.)

We know that in some places, some companies do this regarding smoking. They are taking on the mantle of being the ones who protect us from ourselves.

No one asked them to, but they decide they want to. Why? To save THEMSELVES MONEY! There is no other reason.

These corporations are not magnanimous, people-loving entities that just want to see us live longer, healthier, and happier. They realize that smoking (and perhaps other activities as well) increase the financial strain on their health insurance providers, and cause those providers to charge more to cover the cost of care. Less cash is left for the executives, who come up with these policies in order to guarantee themselves more cash.

As Garand Illusion said, I would have no problem lying to an employer about this subject. It is none of my employer's business if I own guns -- a legal activity -- or not!

Making me agree to not own guns will in no way guarantee anyone' safety in the workplace. Why? Because if I were the type of psycho who would come to work to shoot my colleagues in the first place, I'd be well past the point of being willing to okey-doke the company and say, "Sure, yeah, whatever, I agree to not own guns," and own them just the same. After all, I'd be contemplating murder!

Insanity is the only thing that could make a person believe that a would-be murderer would cancel his plans to kill because he remembers making a pledge to not bring guns to the workplace -- or indeed to not own guns at all.

These kinds of people are the same ones who believe that a promise extracted from a robber can be counted on. "If I give you my watch, my wallet, and my cash, you won't kill me, right?" "Right," says the guy who is sooo honorable that he's robbing you in the first place. And then he shoots you after he has your stuff.

WE MUST EXPOSE THE IRRATIONAL, MORONIC THINKING OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS WAY, before their "thinking" creates policies that are imposed on us all.

And if it causes us some financial hardship, because the job we want requires us to sign a no-firearms-ownership pledge, we must suffer that hardship in order to take the stand that must be taken.

How long would rights survive, if we knuckled-under to unreasonable demands and intrusions just to have a job? Some things, some concepts and ideals, are more important than employment.


-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

How about if people just signed an agreement that they wouldnt go postal and shoot up the workplace? It would carry about as much weight, no one would object to it, and everyone could go about their business.

Exactly.

Why extract a promise (an easily broken one) that one will forgo ownership of "murder tools" when you could simply extract a promise to not murder?


They're worth the same as each other: exactly nothing.


How does anyone who claims to be a rational human being come to believe that such pledges would be effective? Just like the signs that say, "No concealed carry allowed," they rely totally on the compliance of the individual to govern himself.


-blackmind

 

[shaggy]

What happens when someone signs the employment agreement, gets rid of his firearms, and then gets killed or injured by a mugger or robber? The employee or estate ought to sue the employer.

It wouldn't get anywhere and no lawyer would take the case, unless you wanted to pay by the hour.

As an adult with legal capacity to enter into a binding contract, you can bargain away the freedom to do certain things and engage in certain conduct. Owning guns could very well be one of those things - the forbearance of which would likely constitute part of the consideration for payment.

That said, I don't think this is, or would be, a huge problem. In a practical sense, it would be almost impossible to enforce and most gun owners would lie anyway (I certainly would). And if by some stroke of bad luck you got caught, what would happen? You'd lose your job (probably back to the same place as you would have been before you had the job).

And if it ever did become a problem, gun owners would simply have to learn what NFA owners have been doing for years - circumventing barriers to personal ownership by incorporation and possession as corporate assets.

Gee whiz, Mr. Employer, I don't own any guns (...but the LLC I own owns dozens)

 

[jefnvk]

I find the thought that if someone is willing to kill others, and that they aren't willing to break a written agreement saying they won't own guns, to be downright funny.

As for lying, I don;t feel the need to to work for a company that doesn;t want me owning guns

 

[blackmind]

jefnvk,
Good points, succinctly stated.

There are many of us who do, however, work for companies that may not object to us owning guns, but do prohibit our carrying them in the workplace.

Some people opt to disregard such rules, since they don't protect anyone against any person who sees fit to murder, but they do prevent legally licensed people from carrying their defensive handguns. (A murderer will simply bring the gun to work, finally, on the day he does indeed decide he wants to kill his coworkers.) And the only way, in most cases, that the employer would find out about the concealed carry going on under their noses would be if they did an intrusive search (rifling through a briefcase or day-planner that contained a CCW), or someone made unpermitted physical contact with the employee that enabled them to feel the bulge of a worn gun. Or, of course, if the use of the CCW for defense became necessary.

-blackmind