Forcing Guns Into Workplaces

Forcing employers to allow guns at work? This is an idea only the gun lobby could like. Yet it is one they are trying to push into every state and workplace in America at the expense of your safety.

For several years, the NRA had been losing this fight, thanks to solid opposition from the business community, the Brady Center, the American Bar Association, and the vast majority of affected workers.

But earlier this month, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist - a potential running mate for John McCain - ignored that opposition, and concerns for private property rights, and signed his state's guns-at-work bill into law.

If this law takes effect, it will certainly increase the risk of workplace violence for millions of Floridians who go to work every day. Far too often, disgruntled and dangerous employees in a moment of rage have retrieved guns from their cars to shoot coworkers and supervisors.

Consider too, that:

• A May 2005 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns were prohibited.

• According to the most recent CDC data, murder is the leading cause of injury-related death for women in the workplace, while about three-quarters of work-related homicides are committed with firearms; and

• 60% of major employers said in a 2005 survey that disgruntled employees had threatened to assault or kill senior managers in the last year.

We should be making these workplace gun crimes harder to commit, not easier.

What can be done? The next step in Florida will be a lawsuit arguing that this dangerous law is unconstitutional. A federal judge in Oklahoma last year struck down a similar law in that state because it ran afoul of the federal duty shared by every employer in America to provide a safe workplace. Companies can hardly meet this obligation if they no longer have control over guns on their property.

The Brady Center, joined by two major safety and security professional organizations, recently filed a brief seeking affirmance of that decision, and we will certainly support the legal battle in Florida as well.

The 7.8 million Floridians who go to work every day, and who have the power to replace legislators that put the interests of the gun lobby ahead of their safety at work, need to make their voices heard.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[Mark0]

"More than anything else, I felt betrayed. I realized that I had been manipulated by gun control advocates. They had lied to me about the origins and scope of the Second Amendment. They had lied to me about the availability of guns, and the ease with which firearms could be obtained legally. They had lied to me about so-called “assault weapons”. They had lied to me about the effectiveness of gun control laws. They had lied to me about the history of gun control, never mentioning how it was used by Jim Crow-era southern governments to disarm blacks and make them easy prey for the Ku Klux Klan. All of it was a pack of lies. "
A well-written and interesting read, beginning to end: thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=359807

[djkrlsn]

Drurylane, I was wondering when you would meet basic academic and standards by stating the title of the NEA article we were supposed to read. "Read more, post less and you may learn something (TM)" was old when Kelli/shedances used it.

[djkrlsn]

sorry--I meant to say basic academic and journalistic standards.

[Melodyl]

And most likely you will wait a very long time for any response.

Besides the NEA articles are little more than fabrications, written by a left wing author and are less creative than the tripe written and produced by the Joyce Foundation. You will find more credible writings in the Sunday Comics, or a “National Enquirer” type of Newspaper.


(Reasoned discourse TM)

[benEzra]

In order to obtain state authorization to carry a handgun, I had to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, a mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrated competence with a firearm in front of an instructor, (live fire). And I can pass the firearms qualification tests for most state police departments.

You are deliberately obscuring the fact that laws like this merely protect the right of those LICENSED to carry a weapon, to LOCK THE FIREARM AWAY IN THEIR VEHICLE without having to fear warrantless search.

Licensed CHL holders are not the problem, and you know it.

You realize that your intentional conflation of state-licensed CHL holders with mass murderers and other violent criminals seriously undermines your position on licensing as a prerequisite for mere gun ownership, yes? Regardless of how much you SAY you'd be OK with handgun ownership if we had to be licensed, we can see clearly how you view individuals so licensed when you label us with criminals and murderers, even though we are statistically even less likely to commit a violent crime than even the police.

[djkrlsn]

I seem to remember that certain posters that support DC and Chicago "common sense gun laws" also seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between law abiding gun owners and the Ku Klux Klan.

[Jadegold]

..and I can beat up Mike Tyson. Really.

In your opinion, you are can pass a firearms qualification test for most state police departments. Additionally, Ben Ezra, nobody flunks an NRA course--unless he shoots the instructor. Even then, I'd put the odds at even he'd get the certificate.

[ladyshooter]

Many of the civilian shooters can shoot better than the average police. Why? We are competitive shooters and we take accuracy as a serious matter. I have been able to sometimes shoot the police qualification course, and I have been able to shoot in the high 90's on the course. The average police score on the qualification course is in the low 80's.

[Tencfan]

Jade,

Do you get your jollies trying to be whimsical and non constructive or do like to just stir the pot?

[ladyshooter]

At my gun club, there have been three firearms accidents in 60 years of operation. All of those incidents involved police officers. They did not involve civilian shooters.

[benEzra]

It wasn't an NRA safety course, it was a State of North Carolina class on self-defense law, with the test administered by the Craven County Sheriff's Department.

Most state police firearm quals are quite easy (they are not SWAT quals), and most competitive shooters (including me) could pass them relatively easily.

Here is the Virginia State Police standards, based on the standard B21 target:

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/standardsTraining/documents/performanceOutcomes/section7.pdf

Have you ever seen a B21 target? They are HUGE. And you only even have to hit anywhere on the target with 70% of your shots to qualify, even given the extremely generous time allotments. Practically all competitive shooters could pass such a course.

[ladyshooter]

It still does not change the fact, the civilian shooters seem to be more competent than the average police officer.

[Tencfan]

New here, but have been reading the forums from several sights for over a year. Thirpower, mike, molon, lady, melody, etc...I wanted to express my thanks for all the powerful and well researched arguments everyone has made in regards to gun conrol and the true intent from the Brady campaign.

I finally had to log in because of my residency here in Florida (born and raised), I am a gun(s) owner, ccw and hold a c&r license holder. As others have stated, the Brady`s were handing out flyers at OIA warning tourist of the "shoot first" law enacted as a scare tactic when castle doctrine law was passed and saying the streets were going to run red with blood.

My opinion, give the tools and power to the good citizens of this country to disparage crime and violence committed by those who choose to be criminals and prey on the innocent and law abiding.

[djkrlsn]

Welcome aboard, it is always good to have another person here in favor of the right to selfdefence.

[Melodyl]

Tencfan, Welcome to the discussion. Your opinion is valued and welcome by us.

[Sneaky]

As a fellow Floridian and gun owner, welcome. Share your views, too, so that it becomes clear to Mr. Helmke and others that they are not a majority, and that they do not represent us (I know, and you know, but he apparently doesn't).

[ebaLnoloM]

Thanks for posting, Tencfan. It may seem futile at times to argue with people who consistently like to use lies and distortions to advance a political agenda. But venues like these boards are where the little battles are won. The ones which turn sheeple into people who are willing to do a little research and think for themselves instead of believing the lies, or not even seeing the truth because of surpressed facts.

Look at what exposure of the gun control issue has done for public opinion in Washington D.C.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/16/GR2008031600072.html?sid=ST2008031502430

This is the same link that Paul Helmke and Bryan Miller (CFNJ) like to cite stating that "59% of DC residents support the handgun ban." What is overlooked is the 17% shift from that opinion from Jan '08 - March '08 alone. When citing "Declining Gun Ownership(tm)" Paul and Bryan like to focus on the trends and change in percentages. I wonder why no comment from them in this instance?

Looking forward to your added insight to the "debate."

[djkrlsn]

Drurylane--please explain your moral and ethical opposition to law abiding citizens having effective tools to defend the lives of their families and themselves. So far the only thing that gunfree zones have apparently accomplished is to establish free killing zones for people like Cho.

[mike101]

Kelli said:

" I'd much rather have a choice of decent, strong gun laws over more caskets for more victims ... any day of the year. Thanks for taking my views into account on your most recent, fine blog."

Funny, because it seems like those Brady Gun-Free Zones are responsible for filling more caskets than anything that ever happens in non-gun free zones.

So, Paul took your views into account? Are you admitting that you are a shill of the BC?

[drurylane]

Paul,

One problem I see from such discussions over gun laws (not only concerning Florida, but in a wider context ...) is how there seem to be people who wrongly assume that the Brady Campaign is only about the traditional "guns or none at all" politics.

I know you've addressed this, as you discuss the range of solutions the BC has been (& continue to) working on. But since interest in America's gun politics has increased greatly since the Columbine Colorado massacre and more recently, the Virginia Tech. killings, it may be worth revisiting again at some point.

Anyway, speaking for only myself -- & as someone who also values high civic morals & public health for even the most disadvantaged in our society -- I'd much rather have a choice of decent, strong gun laws over more caskets for more victims ... any day of the year. Thanks for taking my views into account on your most recent, fine blog.

[tadees]

Looks like Kelli's tilde key (~) is broken. Valiant effort, but nobody's buying your disguise Superman!

That being said, I must say this is one of the most level-headed posts I've EVER seen from you. Crawl, walk, run...even­tually you'll get it! Patience.

[Thirdpower2]

So how are those "decent, strong gun laws" working in Chicago? You know, the city where guns are banned yet has 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state?

[ladyshooter]

It does appear Mayor Daley has effectively put Chicago under martial law. Police are being equipped with M 4 full automatic weapons. It sounds a lot like military patrols, instead of ordinary police patrols.

What does this indicate about gun control in Chicago? The result, of Mayor Daley's 'progressive gun control policies' (as you would call them), is to turn Chicago into a war zone. In other words, gun control is totally ineffective in controlling violent crime.

[Sneaky]

I find it quite ironic, but I found this through a pro-gun-control organization's links:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

----------­----------­----------­------Flor­ida-------­----United States
homicide rate------­----------­-(-36%)---­----------­( -0.4%)
firearm homicide rate------­-(-37%)---­---------(­+15%)
handgun homicide rate-----(­-41%)-----­-------(+2­4%)"

As I read the concluding comments of Paul's article, I can't help but think that the 'unusual' correlation between Florida's decrease in crime and adoption of and increase of concealed carry of firearms was met with very similar remarks. Hm. I won't predict a sudden (as in the above statistics) decrease in homicide, firearm homicide, and handgun homicide rates, but I do predict a statistica­lly-insign­ificant relationship between the new Florida law and ANY change in crime rates.

[super8]

I find it less than ironic - let's call it "predictable" - that you aren't aware Florida is the fourth most violent state in the country today, and that between '87 and '97 (the first 10 years after it adopted CWP) it was number 1 in the country for violent crime. (By the way, the 3 most violent states in the U.S. today? South Carolina, Nevada and Tennessee. Concealed carry is doing wonders for them, too.)

[Thirdpower2]

And during that time, the rate averaged out to the same level , the same as the US average did. While, as sneaky noted, the homicide rate in FL plummeted overall while firearm homicide rates increased in the US.

Seems the pundits keep claiming CCW was supposed to cause blood in the streets and wild west shootouts. Never happened. The same kind of claims Paulie is making about this law.

[djkrlsn]

Yet when Florida passed its nondiscretionary concealled carry weapon law, the crime rates dropped, despite all of the warnings of the return of "the Wild West with shootouts over parking spaces and blood running down the street (TM)".

[Leifrakur]

The Florida law will give that state's businesses a reason to outsource operations to locations with fewer gun-fetishists.

[Sneaky]

The Florida law changes nothing, and no businesses will be moving bases or outsourcing because of something as trivial as a law that bars the businesses from punishing employees for one specific reason. Try again.

[DMeadows]

Yeah, there will be no jobs in Florida because of this law.

Another hysterical speculation from another hysterical gun-control person. Thank you, Leifrakur, for reinforcing our point about your side's credibility.

[mike101]

My 'one word' response didn't make the cut, apparently, but you put it nicely.

[qdemn7]

If a human being kills another human being, even unintentionally, they can be sent to prison or even executed. How many corporate officers in the history of US have ever been sent to prison for killing a human being, or beings, because of the decisions they made? How many corporations have been seized or dissolved by government for killing people?

If business is going to maintain the fiction that corporate entities are people, then let's start treating them like people. Let's start throwing some of these corporate execs into prison the next time they make a decision to cut costs that results in the death of a human being. I bet they would have a change of attitude very quickly, if they knew a jail cell was waiting for them.

Let's make the investors suffer right along with the execs. The investors choose unethical people to run the companies they invest in, they loose their investment. Since it appears the only way to get certain people's attention is to hit them in the pocketbook, then let's hit them there, hard.

American businesses have shown that in the last 20 years that they as a group are a bunch of amoral wretches. They don't care about America, or American citizens in any way shape fashion or form. Since business people refuse to voluntarily abide by what society deems to be ethical behaviour, ("Passenger Bill of Rights", for example) then the only alternative is to force them by power of law.

[Sneaky]

You know, I generally disagree with most policies involving government policing (often because too much policing is called, and usually for the wrong things), but right now I find myself in sound agreement with you. That, and you brought up my pet argument about the butchering of a certain amendment to grant corporate entities the rights of individuals.

I'm going to have to mull over this one and see if I can't come up with a constitutional reason for it not to be implimented. I'm liking it so far.

[Melodyl]

All I can say is Wow, But qdemn7, Sneaky I would not hold my breath that Paul the Brady’s, or Joyce foundation would support such (government policing) One big reason is that it could be applied to these groups.

But it is an entertaining thought of Paul and the Board of the Joyce Hate Foundation being hauled away in cuffs, and charge with a crime for every person who could have been saved, had they been allow their 2nd amendment rights.

Further I notice the “NEA” being cited, Just a quick note, you can not believe anything the “NEA” blurts out. This little Union is responsible for the children of America producing the worst test scores in history most unprepared for life in the real world and, Highest cost per pupil and worst schools. NEA needs to be disbanded. And all memories of it’s existence erased.

[mike101]

Really. The NEA would better occupy it's time finding out why 75% of the school kids in this country need to be wacked out on drugs, and explaining why they condone it. I'd like to see a study on that.

Seems to me when I was a kid, we had kids who didn't pay attention, and kids who had behavioral problems. Nobody seemed to think it was necessary to string them out on drugs.

Of course, this is back when parents actually took responsibility for raising their kids. They sent their kids to school to be educated, rather than babysat. Parents helped kids with their homework when they had a problem with grades. If the kid didn't behave, he was grounded for a couple of weeks, or smacked in the head. Can't do that now. It isn't PC.

Nope, now we just load them up with ridalin and hope that the earth is struck by an asteroid before they grow up and take over the country.

[qdemn7]

This attitude by Florida business is just another reason why we need a Constitutional Amendment to Repeal Corporate Personhood.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

The problem is that SCOTUS has given businesses far too much leeway in the way they are allowed to act, and be treated: i.e. as people, when manifestly they are not. People have rights, business should not, but they do. Bluntly the laws should be changed to strip ALL business of their Corporate Personhood, and ensure that under the US Constitution only HUMAN BEINGS have rights. And before anyone trots out the "taxation without representation" meme, businesses do not have the right to vote.

If business don't like the laws, rules and regulations that society chooses to make to force businesses to act in what society determines to be an ethical manner, (since it's quite apparent that many business people don't give a damn about ethics), then get out of business. If business / corporate people try to act as jack-booted little fascists, then it should be made clear that society will not tolerate that sort of behavior from them.

WHY is a corporate person treated better than a human being? Why are LLCs allowed to have limited liability when people do not?

(pt 1)

[Sneaky]

After my own heart, it seems. Agreed on all points, qdemn7.

[drurylane]

There are many who view the guns-in-ca­rs-at-work Florida law as unwise. A couple of comments that I found interesting were tongue-in-cheek; but managed to make their opposition loud & clear: "Imagine what workers will do when their boss tells them the company is cutting the health plan" & "if you're in a meeting in Florida and someone excuses him or herself to get something they 'left in their car' ... better to end the meeting."


More flatly ... another concern is that guns are not necessarily secure, even in locked cars (police report guns taken from their vehicles). According to the publication "Stolen Guns: Army the Enemy," approx. 80% of missing guns were taken from homes & cars ... and of the nearly 1.7 million guns that were reported as stolen in the past decade, only 40% were ever recovered.

Last concern for today. Will Florida's guns-at-work law have a detrimental effect on kids -- considering that "exemptions" failed to include daycare centers & preschools. And, will more kids be coming to the workplace with their moms or dads ... in cars with guns?

According to the NEA/Health Information Network site: "American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States (Centers for Disease Control)."

[mike101]

"Last concern for today. Will Florida's guns-at-work law have a detrimental effect on kids -- considering that "exemptions" failed to include daycare centers & preschools. And, will more kids be coming to the workplace with their moms or dads ... in cars with guns? "

Do you really worry about crap like this, or are you just stretching for the sake of the people you and the BC hope to rope in with your hysteria? Why should there be exemptions? Who the hell cares if kids come to school in cars with guns, Kelli?

[Sneaky]

Define children, or give us NEA/Health Information Network's definition for children. Then give us locations, since they undoubtedly mention them. You'll find much different results than you're inferring here.

[Thirdpower2]

I can tell you about Chicago where almost every single "child" killed in the recent spate of killings has been involved in gang activity or other illegal endeavor. Like the 16 year old who, along w/ an 18 yr old friend, decided after a night of drinking, to attack a 53 yr old man. The man stabbed them both, killing the 16 yr old. These are the ones that Kelli, I mean Laplane or whatever she's calling herself nowadays considers "children" to support her cause.

[Melodyl]

Yea Paul people who are going to shoot up a work place get up that morning, Brush teeth, shower eat Breakfast, suck down some coffee, Smoke a couple of Marlboro's, apply for a permit to carry a firearm, and go shoot the world up.

Maybe in the Brady world or your world Paul but the real world does not work quite like this. Your hysterics are the same old worn out ones you embarrassed yourself with when states debated concealed carry. And what happened in real life Paul, Crime went down and the blood bath you predicted never happened.

You were wrong then you are wrong now.

Drurylane hummmmm, Kelli do you know the muffin man???

[drurylane]

You seem to be a pro with fanciful details -- the problem is, what you wrote is not even close to what Paul Helmke actually said in his blog. Maybe next time, you ought to read his blog.

[mike101]

Well Kelli, in effect that is exactly what Helmke is saying. If you disagree, than what exactly is he afraid of? Please enlighten us.

Click here to donate now (tm)

[Melodyl]

What Paul says and what he means are two very deferent things Kelli. But you know that already.

drurylane , No I think I'll call you "Gingie"

[ladyshooter]

What is the old joke about representatives of the Brady Campaign?

How do you tell if a representative, of the Brady Campaign, is lying?

[djkrlsn]

Drury, looks like Melody got it exactly right. Paul seems to indicate that firearms can put the Imperius Curse on people and turn law abiding people into mass murders.

[Quaoar]

"60% of major employers said in a 2005 survey that disgruntled employees had threatened to assault or kill senior managers in the last year."

If things are really that bad maybe the focus should be on offering more counseling and mediation services for employers and employees and dealing with the causes of this problem. Guns would appear to be little more than a symptom and banning them will not prevent workplace violence.

[DMeadows]

You correctly focus on root causes of violence and how to mitigate or eliminate them, and not particulars of the symptoms, such as what tools are used in the violence. You seem to be too perceptive to be a gun-control advocate. Am I correct?

[DMeadows]

I'm OK with an employer having a gun-free workplace. As long as he guarantees his employees it is gun-free and they are truly secure in the facility. That means metal detectors at every access point. That means there are zero exceptions to everyone going through the detectors, every time they enter, from the owner(s) on down. That means full-time armed security officers on every floor and in every major section of each floor, and in sufficient numbers to back each other up in each section on each floor.

If those conditions are not met, the employer has not done his part on the "gun-free" and security bargain, and I don't blame legislators for ensuring people can provide for their own personal defense at work.

"Gun-free" policies of employers MUST be accompanied by real measures backing them up, or they are not ethically valid and they can be justifiably ignored by law-abiding folks who wish to quietly be prepared for their own self-defense.

[djkrlsn]

Dmeadows--it is not just the facitilty that I am worried about, it is travel to and from the worksite. There are many cities or at least sections of those cities where travel between work and home involves a high risk of being a victim of crime (especially if the travel involved is at night). I am inclined to require either to require the employer to provide armed escort on the commute both ways, or have policies in place to allow people to defend themselves (non discretionary CCW on the part of the state, and allowing concealed carry at work or secure storage).