Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts
- Thread starter lwestatbus
- Start date
But therin lies the rub. Who gets to determine what behavior disrupts the job? If an employee who is carrying prints or otherwise accidentally exposes his firearm and frightens a customer or co-worker, does that not disrupt the business? While I agree that the chances of an employee legally carring a gun causing trouble are quite low, who are you or I to tell an institution what does and does not disrupt their business or operation?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The legislative process can inform the business as to this.
I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose).
The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.
I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose).
The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.
Sorry, I've seen too many bad results from government interference in private institutions to completely trust trust them with such decisions. You have to look at this outside the realm of just RKBA, what other behavior might the gov't tell institution they must allow? Romantic relationships between employees aren't necessarily disruptive, but I don't hear anyone saying that we need legeslative action to protect them as they have the potential to be very disruptive. Many people view company dress codes as overly restrictive, should the government mandate abolition of those as well?
Once again, a person doesn't have control over their gender (without elective surgery anyway) and thus refusing to hire one sex or the other is discrimination. They're two separate issues.
I agree the accidental exposure of an employees firearm is no less disruptive than the accidental exposure of a customer's. That's why a mall should have the right to prohibit customers from having firearms on their premises if they wish.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Agreed, but religion is a protected class. Carrying firearms is not.
Glenn, to me, denying a person the right to defend themselves (a God given right that cannot be "waived") and then offering no reasonable protection as a result IS a moral question as is this thread I think. Any rule that forces you to choose between feeding your family, going to school and staying alive is immoral and IMO you have no moral requirement to follow it. Openly or otherwise. You may be punished if you are caught but that is true with any immoral law or rule.
The Rosa Parks example doesn't fit since she was publicly trying to show the evils of racial discrimination. If disguising herself to save her own life was needed, she would not be dishonest for doing so.
Some people will say: "Get another job!" "Go to another school!" "Move!"
but in my CCW class I had 12 out of 15 in class who happened to be female. They were getting their permits (all of them) because at some point they had been threatened by ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands. As long as those guys were after them they weren't safe ANYWHERE. So, if a school says no carry and the ex comes in and kills the women on campus who cannot carry because she "follows the rules" , how does that seem?
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm sorry - I don't buy the good faith of private institutions on such decisions. Private institutions have a long history of treating labor unfairly and being discriminatory. Governmental and court action were necessary to stop these.
One core issue against my view seems to be that preventing discrimination is acceptable as color is unchangeable. But that doesn't hold for religion - one can change one's religious behavior quite easily. Go to a different place or no place. However, we decide that for some behaviors (religion) they should be protected as a class.
I opine that the basic right of self-defense should be protected and not alterable by an employee except for technical reasons. The rights of the property owner (who opened for business) do not trump this as the risk argument is not empirically supported.
So I equate self-defense as a right equal with religious beliefs and ethnic/racial identifiers for being protected from the vagaries of employers who only care about their bottom line.
If you disagree with that view, then that's it.
The equating is crucial to me. Being a FOG, I do recall my mother telling me of having to lie about her religion to get a job in the Depression. I supposed if we had the Internet. then, the businesses would have some philosophical blather about why private property rights gave them the right to only have White Christian males at work (not bashing that group - but that's the truth of that time).
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Glenn, you and I have a serious case of agreement here. Which BTW IS a moral issue
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
TG - pardon me for being a professor. For a project, I have read tons of stuff on what defines moral and pro-social behavior from various philosophical and social-cultural perspectives (blah, blah)!
One dividing point is whether:
1. Following the tenets of one's own conscience is the highest level of morality
0r
2. Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle, despite your own belief, is most moral.
Then, if you choose to disobey the principle in #2 - and there is a touch of self-interest, is your action moral or purely venial?
Blah, blah!
So the heck with the property owner who opens for business! They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business.
Or go live on an Island with the Professor, Skipper, Ginger ,etc.
One dividing point is whether:
1. Following the tenets of one's own conscience is the highest level of morality
0r
2. Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle, despite your own belief, is most moral.
Then, if you choose to disobey the principle in #2 - and there is a touch of self-interest, is your action moral or purely venial?
Blah, blah!
So the heck with the property owner who opens for business! They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business.
Or go live on an Island with the Professor, Skipper, Ginger ,etc.
The problem is the right to carry firearms is not the same as the right to self-defense. You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so (although they can be very useful for that).
For lawsuits about those harmed while their ability to carry was denied, I can see that. I would hold the party who disarms a victim partially responsible for injury sustained within their jurisdiction and if the victim was disarmed due to their law/policy. I can also see how property rights would allow privately owned locations to ban certain items.
Public universities should be subject to state pre-emption laws on firearms. They receive taxpayer money and operate as a governmental/public organization. They should fall under the same rules. (i.e. I agree with the basis of the Utah ruling.) I don't think the government should necessarily regulate privately run schools the same way, due to property rights issues.
From a logical standpoint, if a person can carry at other public, unsecured locations, a college campus should be no different. The state "trusts" them to safely carry at the supermarket, why not on campus?
For lawsuits about those harmed while their ability to carry was denied, I can see that. I would hold the party who disarms a victim partially responsible for injury sustained within their jurisdiction and if the victim was disarmed due to their law/policy. I can also see how property rights would allow privately owned locations to ban certain items.
Public universities should be subject to state pre-emption laws on firearms. They receive taxpayer money and operate as a governmental/public organization. They should fall under the same rules. (i.e. I agree with the basis of the Utah ruling.) I don't think the government should necessarily regulate privately run schools the same way, due to property rights issues.
From a logical standpoint, if a person can carry at other public, unsecured locations, a college campus should be no different. The state "trusts" them to safely carry at the supermarket, why not on campus?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
You poor devil! Ting Tang Walla Walla Bing Bang!
Making a work rule or law that disarms someone and then failing to provide protection for said person is not "democratically ins..." whatever. It is immoral and we have no duty to obey immoral laws.
No one has the right to take away a God-given right of self defense, business or otherwise.
BTW Glenn, I always preferred Maryanne.
raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.
But a bad guy would be able to feel Chuck Norris' mere presence in the building and would be too afraid to even enter.
I keep researching the number of permit (CCW or whatever else they are called around the country) holders who are arrested for shooting up a building or going on a shooting spree. The stats I can find appear to be so rare, I don't even count them and rarely find one I could count to begin with...
Where's the blood bath? Where are all of the permitees playing Superman and rushing to the defense of others? It doesn't happen. Those are bogus counter-arguments to the carrying of firearms. IMO, 99.9999% of the folks who carry guns in accordance with the established laws in their location are indeed law-abiding citizens. They are mature people who behave maturely.
After reading through I conclude that..
the general consensus is
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
that if property owners prohibit firearms, you can be sked to leave, but there should be no legal action taken against you if you comply.
that universities who accept public money should not enact policies more restricive than general law.
that the public access nature of colleges does not make them any kind of special case, and so no law or policy more restictive than general law is acceptable.
that there is a great deal of confusion over the legal roles and responsibilities of CCW holders, particularly among those who do not CCW.
and for Glenn, I do agree that employers should not be allowed to fire, or otherwise discipline employees for anything other than actual job performance issues.
However, Glenn, the employer's looplhole is in the employment contract, and we all have one somewhere. There is almost always somthing in the contract that covers something like "actions of the employee that are detrimental to the public image of the company". Ususally listed somewhere in the employee handbook, or company policy rules. Govt laws only prevent firing for certain specific reasons, age, sex, religion, race, etc. Anything else is up to the company. So, if the company thought that you were presenting them in a bad light by wearing women's underwear, they are within the law (if not within good sense) to fire you for that, because you signed a contract with them, allowing them that authority over you. These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs.
They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.
the general consensus is
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
that if property owners prohibit firearms, you can be sked to leave, but there should be no legal action taken against you if you comply.
that universities who accept public money should not enact policies more restricive than general law.
that the public access nature of colleges does not make them any kind of special case, and so no law or policy more restictive than general law is acceptable.
that there is a great deal of confusion over the legal roles and responsibilities of CCW holders, particularly among those who do not CCW.
and for Glenn, I do agree that employers should not be allowed to fire, or otherwise discipline employees for anything other than actual job performance issues.
However, Glenn, the employer's looplhole is in the employment contract, and we all have one somewhere. There is almost always somthing in the contract that covers something like "actions of the employee that are detrimental to the public image of the company". Ususally listed somewhere in the employee handbook, or company policy rules. Govt laws only prevent firing for certain specific reasons, age, sex, religion, race, etc. Anything else is up to the company. So, if the company thought that you were presenting them in a bad light by wearing women's underwear, they are within the law (if not within good sense) to fire you for that, because you signed a contract with them, allowing them that authority over you. These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs.
They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.
If a customer or invitee, I have a moral responsibility to respect his wishes, but no legal responsibility to do so. As long as he uses legal loopholes to allow criminals free reign, I use legal loopholes to defend myself.
Which is why I am in favor of laws like the one in Florida which prohibits an employer from disciplining employees with CCW who keep guns in their car. In fact, I have no problem with them adding the workplace to that.
So how far should we let the government intervene? I agree that private institutions have a long history of bad decisions, but so does the government. If the private institutions are making the bad decisions, at least I still have the choice to go elsewhere, if the government does it I'm stuck unless I leave the country. So, I view leaving it up to the institutions as the lesser of two evils.
The problem with your logic is that a religeon is not necessarily a behavior, it's a belief. Being Catholic is a belief while fasting on Good Friday is a behavior, being Muslim is a belief while praying five times a day is a behavior, being Jewish is a belief while celebrating Passover is a behavior get the idea? Private institutions can and do prohibit certain religious behaviors such as wearing certain types of clothing and jewelery or performing religious ceremonies on company premises.
Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets.
Last edited:
I totally agree. The problem here is that the company invariably claims third party interference: that is, they claim that they have no control over whether or not a goblin chooses to rob their store and shoot half a dozen customers, therefore claiming that they shouldn't be held liable for that act, yet choosing to ignore the fact that their very act of ensuring a risk free environment for the bad guy to rob the store was a factor in the robbery, as well as ignoring the fact that the bad guy would not have been able to shoot those 6 customers had one of them been armed.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
And if they do not assume that protection you are morally justified in ignoring the prohibition but may face sanctions if caught.
While I agree that an employer may fire you if he catches you CCWing on the job, no one can ask you to "waive" your right to self defense. I have the moral right to ignore those work rules if they save my life. I will not give my life for the employers right to control his private property (but really his bottomline)
There is a legal term for this waiver stuff that relates to contracts but I can't remember what they call it. When I was in insurance lots of people I insured thought that if they got signed waivers from people who used their facilities or rode their rides were protected by that waiver. They weren't and got sued if somebody got hurt and their insurance almost always paid. One lawyer told me, you can't waive your own responsibility.
I'm not advocating hand-to-hand over firearms, that's for sure! The problem is basing arguments on premises which have holes is a good way to get beaten by those who can spot the hole.Tennessee Gentleman said:
Perhaps we should say something like "effective defense," since not many people can easily win over an armed attacker without some sort of weapon.
I'm an advocate of carry rights. (Currently, I limit my advocacy to "unsecured" locations.)
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I guess I thought we were talking about firearms and therefore the threat of them being used against us. At least that is what I thought the thread was about.
I disagree, they are inextricably linked. I carry a firearm for self defense, no other reason.