Weapons Policy

I am on the governance and operations team of a large company. We are meeting next week to discuss weapons carrying by employees at our locations. I am very pro 2A and I think the prevailing opinion will be to totally ban any and all carrying. I am against this. What are the best arguments I can make to permit weapons carrying or allow certain people in leadership or authority positions etc to do this at least?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you have drivers who carry cargo of any value? That's probably the best leverage you'll have. In terms of carrying in the building, that'd be a much harder sell.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      not too much of that. a lot of stuff is simply picked up by freight or delivery companies we contract and such. I know carrying in a building will be a tough sell, but I cannot in good conscience simply go along with enacting firearm bans.

      >The public knows that our drivers are defenseless
      vs
      >The public knows that our drivers carry weapons
      Which one do you think is going to drive up loss?

      agreed, but we don't really do much of that ourselves.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The public knows that our drivers are defenseless
      vs
      >The public knows that our drivers carry weapons
      Which one do you think is going to drive up loss?

      These are totally dumb suggestions. For most businesses losses from theft or whatever are just another statistical tick on the balance sheet to be accounted for with insurance and margin. And frankly if their employee is shot they don't have much if any liability for that either in general, nor will they suffer negative PR. vs if their employee shoots anyone or gets into a messy gunfight, even if it's justified, even if they'd win at trial.

      There are a very few industries in specific areas where that's not the case and it wouldn't be a consideration then anyway because they already know it and already would be having armed training, insurance etc as part of their model. There'd have to be some major, concrete cost to prohibiting carrying, like it making it much harder to recruit people in a dire worker shortage situation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >And frankly if their employee is shot they don't have much if any liability for that either in general
        Do you think the business is willing to lose millions in civil litigation costs to prove that? Because that's what's going to happen if an employee gets harmed after being told they can't exercise their right.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Employees aren’t real people, anon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You must be a moron.

      https://i.imgur.com/NzEXpm9.jpeg

      I am on the governance and operations team of a large company. We are meeting next week to discuss weapons carrying by employees at our locations. I am very pro 2A and I think the prevailing opinion will be to totally ban any and all carrying. I am against this. What are the best arguments I can make to permit weapons carrying or allow certain people in leadership or authority positions etc to do this at least?

      The best argument would be if your customer/client base is also into 2A, or if you can swing it into more profits somehow. One other question would be the liability of disarming employees. If you disarm your employees, is the company now liable for their safety? If a situation happens and employees are unable to defend themselves, will they be able to sue the company?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If you disarm your employees, is the company now liable for their safety? If a situation happens and employees are unable to defend themselves, will they be able to sue the company?
        No, and no. Or at least not unless there is a state cause of action. In Hoven this came up explicitly, the company flat out had a "non-escalation" policy not merely no guns, if someone was robbing the store employees weren't supposed to fight back in any way. Hoven said this violated his rights. Court said nay. On the more positive side sounds like some states have or are considering laws offering immunity from workplace injuries if the employer complies with gun laws. That'd be pretty helpful.

        But it definitely has to be fairly applied. If anyone can show it's not that's a cause of action. And looking around more it seems MOST states (barely, 26 out of 50) now have parking lot protection laws so that definitely needs to be on OP's radar. The company CANNOT prohibit guns on their "premises" including the parking lots in private vehicles.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a right to life? sorry, chud, but this is an at will state

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The public knows that our drivers are defenseless
    vs
    >The public knows that our drivers carry weapons
    Which one do you think is going to drive up loss?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Loss is less of a liability than armed employees shooting, threatening, NDing someone. It’s just a massive risk to allow your employees to be armed unless it’s absolutely paramount to your industry.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are a giant pussy and do not own guns
        > liability than armed employees shooting,
        Why would a no carry policy stop this? When have no gun zones ever worked?
        >threatening
        Same response. Someone violently threatening a coworker isn’t going to care about a sign.
        >NDing someone
        27 state have constitutional carry and concealed carry has been popular nationally for 15+ years. Where are all the NDs in public?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because then the company can shrug their shoulders and say they had a policy, so it isn’t their fault schizo bob went postal, he wasn’t supposed to have a gun anyway per company policy. Liability refers to getting sued, not actual safety and security.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Insurance will cover a driver getting robbed. Insurance will frick a company, hard if one of their employees does something stupid with a gun. When I drove for Gemini years back we had a dude ND a handgun in his truck (wasn't supposed to be carrying anyways), but the company got fricked by insurance and fines, dude got fricked by Gemini, insurance, and fines, and all the drivers got fricked by corporate pushing for cameras and mics in all trucks. Now they can't even get away with a cigarette while driving without getting fricked.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The latter, because if anything happens the company is on the hook for it.
      If a driver gets mugged or shot, c'est la vie. Part of the game, nobody cares. Drivers aren't even people.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You didn't say which state you're in right now, but people with state-issued CCWs have typically gone through background checks, training, etc. and should be permitted to carry.
    >inb4 SHALL
    This is a lot easier to argue, especially since the company could be on the hook for civil lawsuits if something were to happen on their property, and someone with a state-issued CCW was disarmed because of the company weapons policy. Lawgays would argue that the company should have provided adequate armed security if it was going to prohibit other people from carrying their own legally-owned weapons. Otherwise, it's a potential civil rights violation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      we operate in a lot of different states and are very much a nationwide company. Not sure how that's gonna go in the states we operate in that have permit-less carry.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of states that have permitless carry also have state-issued CCWs. Either they're holdovers from before permitless became legal, or they give reciprocity and special privileges to people who bothered to get training, submit to a background check, pay a cuck tax, etc. For example, some states only allow open carry without a permit, but concealed carry with a permit. As a nationwide company, it would probably just be easier to ban open carry of firearms, but not explicitly ban concealed carry in writing (out of sight, out of mind).

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    gay question. there aren't any.
    there is nothing you could possibly say to a team that could possibly convince them that opening themselves up to that kind of liability is a good idea. it wouldn't matter if your entire team was 2A positive. at the end of the day, everyone will want to keep the $$$ in mind and not want any of the legal/financial headache that would come from allowing even higher tier personnel the ability to carry a gun on any of their properties.

    maybe they'll turn a blind eye to leadership that does it, but no sane company would go on paper and give up the legal right to sue or absolve themselves of responsibility in the case of a shit show.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what sucks is we have no clear defined policy right now which was really the best position. I know it's a hard sell and they're going to be gay and ban carrying. frick.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that

      at best, perhaps a firearm could be kept in a safe, perhaps even a personal firearm, but why would any company actually be fine with their idiot workers walking around with loaded guns?

      A gun is a safety liability, accidents will happen, not can, and unless they've already worked out all those eventualities, including mr. rogers shooting half the women in the office, they'd be idiots to agree.

      Just keep a gun in your desk or bag, don't tell anyone about it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        curious if we can't have people sign some kind of liability waver for carrying if we allowed it at all.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i think it varies by state but waivers aren't usually a cure-all. it'd probably help reduce liability in some situations but, if the problem is bad enough, it's about as strong as toilet paper.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but no sane company would go on paper and give up the legal right to sue or absolve themselves of responsibility in the case of a shit show.
      This is probably the brutal hard truth. The company might not give a single shit about actually trying much to ENFORCE it, in practice. Like they're not going to do metal detectors and pat downs of everyone every single time they enter/exit buildings or whatever. But if they have a policy saying its completely banned, and have some minimal legally required efforts in that direction (like security summoned in case you actually try to open carry or flash it or are dry firing it at your desk or something) then that's huge for liability and PR, they can point to it as a flat out violation. Also gives HR flexibility if they think somebody is acting kinda creepy but can't quite justify termination, oh he's violating company policy black and white, now it's easy.

      It's an incredibly powerful card to have that on paper seems to cost them near nothing. Gonna be an uphill battle unless leadership is personally committed to otherwise, or again unless there is a worker side. In a strong union system that could be the counter pressure if workers overall wanted the right to carry, but need something.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is the situation I found myself in. I’m a bank teller and we have a convicted felon schizo client that thinks the FDIC disclosure means he has an “unvisible” account with $250k in it that we’re withholding from him. Like he seriously overdrew his account a quarter million trying to wire it to a different bank. He’s already tried to “whisper rob” my best friend (single mother of three by the way) twice but she’s talked him down and now his dickhead brother is egging him on. Instead of firing him as a client and sending him a cashiers check with his double digit balance (that he earned at a weed dispensary and we can’t legally accept and I’ve reported already) they posted a 5’0” lesbian unarmed security guard at the door and enrolled him in a financial literacy program. I said frick it and started carrying the last week I was there but luckily for me my son was born and now I’m on paternity leave. Had my hyper progressive market manager caught me doing that I would have been fired on the spot. At this point it’s a “when” not “if” he comes back and becomes violent because he got busted for trafficking again and needs cash to stay out of prison. At that point I’ve already told my friend I’ll testify at her inevitable lawsuit. They are knowingly disregarding employee safety because our management team think re-educating a mentally ill black felon is better for optics.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I mean, that fricking sucks. And mental health care in this country has gone utterly to shit. But
          >They are knowingly disregarding employee safety because our management team think re-educating a mentally ill black felon is better for optics.
          Yeah, that's how the MBA scum thinks. They also have put a number on your life and in particularly how much they would be legally liable for if you are assaulted/killed, vs how much they would be legally liable for in the "omg scary chaotic" case of a shootout, or some employee cracking under all their bullshit when carrying is not banned.

          Morally I think all of us are 100% with you. But OP was asking about how to make the case and shift the incentives to reptilians who don't give a shit. It's not easy in most if not all states. A law to make employers liable if they ban carry for any harm employees suffer that might have been prevented would be very helpful here. Alternatively if it was "industry standard" or something, some sort of way to hit a willful negligence, but that too would be hard right now because afaik it's not standard. Some safety group recommending it would help, something to give management "actual knowledge" (in the legal sense).

          You might have better luck pursuing a case over a more secure teller booth or something frankly. I'm not saying the goal isn't right, but it's not clear to me or easy to get from A to B right now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >More secure teller booth
            They don’t want to install a bandit barrier because it would make the place look trashy. I work in the affluent neighborhood and they don’t want the clients to “feel” unsafe. They don’t even keep the guards posted more than a couple of days before they yank them for being too expensive. Yet here I am a veteran, new father, with a guard license in my state, that works for the bank in an area at high risk for robbery due to our proximity to the highway and state line, that would gladly carry for free yet my friends are exposed to excessive danger because they don’t want to ban a literally crazed criminal who is laundering illegal weed money through a national sized bank that we’ve repeatedly warned management about. They 100% absolutely have the authority to terminate their relationship with this dude. They refuse. That isn’t just a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act it’s flat out negligence. Yet I’ve seen Zelle ban clients for legally purchasing a firearm on their platform. Frick this is bullshit. If he tries to rob me I’m just going to mag dump and if they fire me I’m going to call a lawyer and snitch like a motherfricker.
            >Law to hold employers liable for harm if they disarm employees
            We fricking need this.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Honest question anon: have you looked at whistleblower laws already? While it depends on specifics the SEC takes some of that shit pretty seriously, and there can even be a sizable cash bounty where you get a percentage of fines. Again it definitely depends, I'm not your lawyer, but rather then waiting until after if you're genuinely spooked I'd be exploring the options now. Though I 100% feel for how damn hard it is to find any time at all when you're a new parent. Congratulations by the way mr good dad anon. That'll be a kid raised right.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                At this point I’ve already collected a list of accounts opened for illegal immigrants under knowingly falsified documents and similar violations, I’m keeping a list of HR and Ethics violations on all their favorite employees with receipts whenever possible, I’m sending all my “concerns” regarding safety to management via email so it’s recorded, and I’m honestly just going to dump all the shit talk texts between employees into massive group chats and cause fricking chaos. Who fricked who’s boyfriend, who talks shit on the what managers, who makes AI memes of our clients, who has an onlyfans, etc. If they’re going to put me in a position like that I’m going to do what I have to to protect myself and if they decide to frick me Im going to hurt them as much as possible on my way out.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >At this point I’ve already collected a list of accounts opened for illegal immigrants under knowingly falsified documents and similar violations, I’m keeping a list of HR and Ethics violations on all their favorite employees with receipts whenever possible, I’m sending all my “concerns” regarding safety to management via email so it’s recorded
                This all sounds good. Actual financial law violations with receipts is what everyone should be doing in principle, puts you on the right side of the law, including serious whistleblower protections (though in practice recognize it might have major impacts on your career if you don't have latitude to go sideways, seriously look up any bounty potential or make sure you have your ducks in a row for what comes next).
                >Who fricked who’s boyfriend, who talks shit on the what managers, who makes AI memes of our clients, who has an onlyfans, etc
                Not sure if you're serious, but please do not do this however mad you are particularly as a new dad. The financial stuff is enough damage and has you entirely in the ethical and legal right. This would very likely get you blacklisted completely legitimately, is probably a legitimate contract violation, and in turn will definitely get you sued with a solid chance of losing. It will evaporate opinion of you amongst other employees and much of the public, it's not aimed at actual upper management, and if in anger you even breath a word of it (or if managers claim you did which becomes he-says/she-says except you will have actually executed on revenge) that's blackmail which is almost universally a felony.

                Your situation sounds infuriating but you've got responsibilities now, be cold in how you approach it. Good luck though anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Blacklisted
                Mag dumping a “client” in the lobby gets you blacklisted anywhere my friend. Every bank tracks the local robberies and gossip and I already know most of the management at all the competitors that offer peer level compensation. They’re the exact same type of weasel. We literally sent a gift basket to the competitor across the street after the last time they got robbed.
                >Blackmail
                I may be incorrect but it’s only blackmail if you threaten and demand something in return. I’m discussing dropping a massive truth bomb depth charge to cause chaos. High school bullshit really. Though I’d assume fricking your subordinates boyfriend and laughing about how he cried after is pretty damaging to your career.
                >Drop your opinion among other employees
                I would be targeting the shithead suck ups and sycophants I already hate and if I’m already blacklisted from the industry why care? I’d have to move cities and careers anyway.
                >It’s not aimed at upper management
                A lot of it is. For instance our regional exec making comments about Israel/Palestine, republicans, and his dead predecessor. I’m talking about taking all the shit talk these back stabbing twats have dumped into my phone over the last few years into one massive group text and watching them eat each other. I’d cut all contact with the staff except through lawyers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I may be incorrect but it’s only blackmail if you threaten and demand something in return.
                Yes, that's why I said "if you breath a word of it in anger, or if they make it up". Like, if they say "he threatened us in person to do this" you can say "no I didn't" but given the circumstances you're going to face a mess out of such an allegation. Particularly if other pissed off coworkers also go along with "yeah we heard him muttering about that" or something. It's going to be enough likely to get into discovery, and then they will go through your digital life looking for anything and everything. They will look at you posting here on PrepHole. This is one of those potential "even if you win you lose".

                And again, don't ignore the civil suit side. What you're talking about dumping isn't against the law. Your employment contract almost certainly has language about leaking private stuff. For actual law breaking, whistleblower protection will override any such contractual provisions. But for mere scuttlebutt you're on your own, which means a lawsuit you stand a strong chance of losing. You may also face defamation lawsuits claiming you took stuff out of context or whatever. Again, even if you won in the end it'd be horribly expensive and stressful. Don't do that when you can just report on real stuff to the feds and leave it at that.

                Basically like other anon said: weigh real hard the value of these frickers vs the rest of your life and the trouble. We all dream of massive justice and revenge against buttholes sometimes, but it's usually not worth it vs just dumping them and moving on with your life. There is lots of good work and people out there.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ugh. God damn it. Fair points. You’re right. For fricks sake if I’m gonna get paid to deal with schizo criminals with a high likelihood of shooting one I might as well just go be a cop at this point. It’s an extra $5k a year. Wife would flip a shit though. Frick. Good luck justifying this at your meeting. I’d come work for a company that allowed me to carry in a heart beat. I heard QT was doing that for a while. Maybe you can look up their program and results. Maybe you can justify it by cutting security costs by sending employees to get certified as guards or some shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Just quit and get a different job, none of that is worth the energy, which you will have even less of now that you have a kid.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >t. corpo bootlicker
                Abandoning all your principles and dignity because a child is too much work is some weak shit, i really hope you don't have any.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They are knowingly disregarding employee safety because our management team think re-educating a mentally ill black felon is better for optics.
          Holy frick anon, that is bleak.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      good point about insurance.

      hey OP

      https://i.imgur.com/NzEXpm9.jpeg

      I am on the governance and operations team of a large company. We are meeting next week to discuss weapons carrying by employees at our locations. I am very pro 2A and I think the prevailing opinion will be to totally ban any and all carrying. I am against this. What are the best arguments I can make to permit weapons carrying or allow certain people in leadership or authority positions etc to do this at least?

      Argue that not allowing any guns on corporate floors makes the company LIABLE in the case of a "domestic incident" because 2A would have constituted deterrence and resistance.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Although mass casualty events are rare, the perception is that they are common, so people are worried about them. "No guns" policies sound good on the surface, but actually do nothing to prevent a bad actor from bringing a gun and doing harm. Usually such a person is way past their limit and does not care about any consequences, in fact most plan to die in the process of doing a mass casualty event. What does work (not so much for prevention, but as a resolution) is having serious and motivated people armed and ready to protect themselves and others.

    It's a hard sell, especially since insurance companies rule the country these days and might be the main opposition to 2A at the workplace. But you could try to meet them halfway by proposing a system for the company to vet people who want to carry at work.
    >inb4 cuck
    This is a losing battle anyway for the reason I stated above, at this point I'm just curious if there are any conditions at all under which people will be allowed to carry at [large company who finds self defense inconvenient]

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Call dissenting coworkers candy ass homosexuals and tell them to read the constitution.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The constitution does not apply to private companies. If you don’t like it, start your own business, work somewhere else, or enjoy being unemployed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The constitution does not apply to private companies
        It absolutely can if they choose to

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The constitution does not apply to private companies.
        Ackshually it does thanks to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Now point out where in that act it mentions guns

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act
            >TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
            >SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
            Coincidentally, it's part of my sincerely-held religious beliefs to carry a firearm for defense of my God-given life in accordance with my 2nd Amendment right, being that my national origin is the United States of America.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's not the employment part, the standard is "reasonable accommodation", and what if they have a sincere religious belief against guns? There's lots of caselaw to say you're wrong at the federal level. Feel free to be the test case though lol.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
                >SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

                >(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
                >(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
                >(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
                >(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization--
                >(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
                >(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
                >(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.
                So yes, it is my right to carrying a gun at work according to the doctrine of the Holy Murder/k/ube, War Be Upon Him.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There is no greater sign of a total fricking kook then someone who just blindly copy/pastes federal law text in a common law country with a federal government.

                Yes? They can also choose to simply follow the 2nd amendment too, which is what I'm proposing. Nobody who isn't a moronic gun grabbing commie would disagree with that

                >private property
                If non-owners are allowed to freely come and go on it, it’s definitely not private property in the same sense that a domicile is.

                This. It's not like I can open a restaurant and claim that health codes like cleaning and pest control are optional because it's private property.

                Please quote the state or federal law that prohibits companies from restricting firearms carrying by their employees as a condition of employment. Be specific. If such a thing exists nationwide great! If you're just going to post wishful thinking that doesn't actually exist in text or caselaw then I mean, sure, you're welcome to your copium.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Please quote the state or federal law that prohibits companies from restricting crossdressing by their employees as a condition of employment. Be specific. If such a thing exists nationwide great! If you're just going to post wishful thinking that doesn't actually exist in text or caselaw then I mean, sure, you're welcome to your copium.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >quote state or federal law
                2nd amendment seems to have it covered and the fact that it’s ignored is not a good thing.
                Simping for someone restricting your rights because he’s buying time from you is insanely foolish.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Get a different job or work yourself then

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Or I'll just conceal carry my gun while I'm on the clock lmao You won't do shit about it unless your pockets are deep enough to pay for metal detectors and armed rent-a-cops.

                Webm related is my new Gadsden flag spirit animal for shitlib corpos who try to steb on my God-given immutable constitutional rights.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >tread on a stingray
                >it stings

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He removed the barb from the ray with pliers before filming the video.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You’ll slip up one day, and when you do, enjoy being unemployed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not him but being unemployed is better than being dead. Also being unemployed for a few months isn't that big of a deal assuming you aren't a moron with no savings and no valuable job skill.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What kind of high risk job are you working where you need to be carrying? If your job is that dangerous, you would be open carrying anyway or have provided security. You most likely work in some cushy office and want to feel like a big man by carrying a weapon around.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >work place violence never happens

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What kind of high risk job are you working where you need to be carrying? I

                It's not about the need to carry. It's about the RIGHT to carry

                >You most likely work in some cushy office and want to feel like a big man by carrying a weapon around.
                I'm starting an electrician apprenticeship soon so I'd be travelling to and from jobsites. I don't carry at work and never have at previous jobs, but I respect people's right to.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You absolutely do not have a right to carry a gun on private property owned by a private company if they don’t want you to.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You do. Shall not be infringed. Outside your literal domicile I literally don’t care.
                And even then that’s just me being personally polite.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What part of PRIVATE property do you not understand, you insufferable homosexual?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t see any of that in the US Constitution. Seems to be some shit you made up to give elites more power. Don’t worry. I’m sure they’ll throw you some table scraps for being their obedient little dog.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You sound like a commie

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >this guy standing up for the Constitution is a commie!
                Get your ass back to r/libertarian.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Goddamn, I didn't think TEA party boomers still posted here. Aren't you late for dialysis or another alimony hearing?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No actual retort, pupper? Didn’t expect one. It’s going to be a shock when you realize that young people don’t like corporate stooges and carry on the boss’ sacred land without telling him.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not the one arguing with you. You just remind me of those TEA party boomers that use to post here like 10+ years ago.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >caring about your gun rights on a gun forum is being a hecking boomer!
                I don’t know what your generation is, but I can guarantee your peers think you’re a homosexual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ok boomer

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You don't care about your rights though. You care about larping about rights, without any actual effort or spending on your part. You also don't care about other people's rights.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The frick are you even talking about, homosexual?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >its ok for me to infringe on your rights but muh 2A SHALL
                Frick off moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There’s a right in the constitution that says I own your ability to exercise your rights.
                >no I won’t show it to you.
                Also let’s be honest, you don’t own a business that’s not a windowless van.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Constitution defines what the government can do. Everything else is left to the People by default. This is fundamental to the design of the document. If the law doesn't say we can't do something, we can. Strong rights over our own property is the default state of man. All Americans understand this.

                Which has laid bare what's really going on here: you're not actually American. Probably don't have guns either.

                Good bait though up to this point 10/10.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Morons like you are how people get fired for “voting wrong” because “HURR MUH PRIVUT BIZNIZ”.
                Tired of fricking lolberts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nice mindless buzzwords you absolute moron.
                >calling for laws and regulations to protect gunrights is lolbertarian
                I'd tell you to have a nice day if you even owned guns.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Replied to the wrong person. I was going to apologize but then you acted like a homosexual. Oh well.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's not a lolbert position, ideally we'd crush such companies under the weight of the free market, but with the fed having turned entire industries into sockpuppets for its policies your moral obligation is to prioritize your individual liberty and carry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ideally we'd crush such companies under the weight of the free market
                lol, lmao even
                such companies ARE the free market you dunce

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You don't have the right to deprive others of their rights or they're morally obligated to kill you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                amendments only apply to the federal gov and entities they fund (states, schools, colleges, etc). Joe Schmo’s private business where he wants to be a pussy and ban guns is completely fair—it is his property after all and you’re agreeing to his rules (voiding discrimination and criminal actions) when you choose to work there/shop there.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Can you give me a complete list of Constitutional amendments that don’t matter because of non-domicile private property accessible to the public? Thanks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Can you give me a complete list of Constitutional amendments that don’t matter because of non-domicile private property accessible to the public? Thanks.
                Do apply:
                13th, 14th, 18th (before repeal)
                Don't: literally every single other one:
                1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th

                Most of which don't even have anything to do with anything but purely governmental functions, but hey you asked. And the right to vote ones are talking about right to vote in government, not in shareholder meetings, or on the company board or whatever.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                electrician here, if your on a white crew theres a 50/50 shot of there being a gun in someones glovebox at all times. me, i keep mine in my toolbag at the bottom where nosy inspectors and superintendents won't see it. most jobsites and contractors have "no firearms/no carry" rules, but these are rarely enforced. nothing ever happens on construction sites that requires a firearm so I leave it in the truck for going to/from jobsite.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                shut the frick up libshit I carry because I'm a small man
                I'm weak, I can't win a fight without it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >being unemployed for a few months isn't that big of a deal
                >assuming you aren't a moron with no savings and no valuable job skill
                You're a NEET or a lazy slob if you think going months unemployed when you have a "valuable" skill isn't that big of a deal. Either way I wouldn't want some dumbass with your line of thinking carrying on site. Probably shoot one of the decent Mexican workers cause he looked at you weird.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >AAAAAAAAAAAAAA A WAGIE IS TRYING TO PRETEND HE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE ELITE! RUIN HIS LIFE! HURT HIM! MAKE THE BAD MAN GO AWAY!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                See

                https://i.imgur.com/JZBs8XF.png

                Nope that's when I hire a pro-bono 2A lawgay to sue you for violating my civil rights. You'll settle out of court and I'll make bank.
                [...]
                >What kind of high risk job are you working where you need to be carrying?
                It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Get fricked, war tourist.

                That's you, schizos.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You're a NEET or a lazy slob if you think going months unemployed when you have a "valuable" skill isn't that big of a deal.

                It's not at all that big of a deal because you can just get another assuming you have the cash to cover living expenses while you search for work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why choose to not work your trade you've been trained on? Weeks is understandable. Months isn't. That's just not wanting to go back to work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That's just not wanting to go back to work.

                And?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're a lazy slob and/or NEET.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. I just don't live paycheck to paycheck.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >my mom does that for me

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I graduated college 5 years ago and have been saving and investing money from every paycheck at every job. I decided to change careers and pick up a trade. While I wait for trade school to start I decided to not work.

                Must suck knowing that if you lose your job you'd be on the street rather than being able to spend time with friends and enjoying hobbies.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I graduated college and tech school in 2011 and 2013 respectively. I'm an owner operator, I have my own business that machines fireplace parts, and I own a farm. If you want to wave dicks, go ahead.
                But that's nice anon, I'm sure you needed a big break from work before you started big scawy tech school. Tell your mom I said hi.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Good for you. Try not being such a crab ass homie then.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                how bout you homie

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You started this shitflinging contest by suggesting I'm lazy for not wanting to spend every waking moment of my life at work. I don't care anymore though. I'm going to the park to read a book.

                Have fun 🙂

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Mommmmm! I'm going to the parrrrkkkkk!!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Some people don't need external validation for contentment, anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you so excited about people getting fired for exercising their right to bear arms? And on fricking /k/ of all places.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nope that's when I hire a pro-bono 2A lawgay to sue you for violating my civil rights. You'll settle out of court and I'll make bank.

                What kind of high risk job are you working where you need to be carrying? If your job is that dangerous, you would be open carrying anyway or have provided security. You most likely work in some cushy office and want to feel like a big man by carrying a weapon around.

                >What kind of high risk job are you working where you need to be carrying?
                It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Get fricked, war tourist.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >hire a pro-bono

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What kind of high risk job are you working where you need to be carrying? If your job is that dangerous, you would be open carrying anyway or have provided security. You most likely work in some cushy office and want to feel like a big man by carrying a weapon around.

                Post guns you godless eurogay

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not if he's pocket carrying a tiny single stack LCP or NAA revolver and there are some semi auto pocket guns that are somehow even smaller.
                Yeah that leaves you stuck with 22lr/22WMR, 25acp, and 380 but that's better than nothing.

                https://i.imgur.com/NzEXpm9.jpeg

                I am on the governance and operations team of a large company. We are meeting next week to discuss weapons carrying by employees at our locations. I am very pro 2A and I think the prevailing opinion will be to totally ban any and all carrying. I am against this. What are the best arguments I can make to permit weapons carrying or allow certain people in leadership or authority positions etc to do this at least?

                I dunno OP other anons have better suggestions/arguments than what I can cook up at the moment but if you lose which I hope you don't then I dunno just carry pepper spray, ideally the kind mixed with tear gas or a taser if they'll allow that at the very least and you won't be completely helpless, kinda hard to shoot someone when they can't see shit and are coughing after all.
                Sorry your place of employment is considering becoming even faker and gayer.

                https://i.imgur.com/AV3VnPF.jpeg

                >DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
                >SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

                >(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
                >(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
                >(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
                >(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization--
                >(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
                >(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
                >(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.
                So yes, it is my right to carrying a gun at work according to the doctrine of the Holy Murder/k/ube, War Be Upon Him.

                How do we get Me/k/a out of leafland and into a more sensible state like New Hampshire or Alaska?

                Or I'll just conceal carry my gun while I'm on the clock lmao You won't do shit about it unless your pockets are deep enough to pay for metal detectors and armed rent-a-cops.

                Webm related is my new Gadsden flag spirit animal for shitlib corpos who try to steb on my God-given immutable constitutional rights.

                What compels a man to do this? Does he also feel an urge to step on Anteaters and Komodo dragons too?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Come up with an answer that isn’t cowardly, corposimp. Shouldn’t you be licking Bezos’ balls?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >2nd amendment seems to have it covered
                The second amendment does not apply to private companies anymore then the first amendment does. Deal with it.
                >Simping for someone restricting your rights because he’s buying time from you is insanely foolish.
                Calling a realistic actual recognition of actual reality "simping" is the absolute most fricktarded omega tier behavior. Amongst other things, it means NOT ACTUALLY GETTING THE RIGHTS YOU WANT. Because states definitely CAN restrict how private contracts work! So if you care about being able to carry in business circumstances, then you should want a real law passed to do it! But if you just spout about how
                >"oh it's already covered by the 2A, but somehow magically The Man is making the entire court system ignore it for hundreds of years"
                then that just discourages anyone interested from engaging in the democratic process. Lots of worker rights have been won over the last century. This could be another movement. But if it happens it won't be through the kind of childish magical thinking you're running on.

                Deal with it. Or don't, and cope and seethe I guess?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                All that crying to say that corporations being able to dispose of rights as a matter of convenience is a good thing. Wow.
                Also that literal fan fiction at the end. Sometimes I forget that there’s actual boomers on here now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >All that crying to say that corporations being able to dispose of rights as a matter of convenience is a good thing. Wow.
                You're literally the one supporting it though, and now you're absolutely seething about it lol.

                But we all recognize you noguns and you're armchair internet bravado. You don't do shit IRL, ever. You post big on anonymous tibeten mitten weaving forums like this one, but you're not open carrying at work and telling your boss NUH UH 2A I DO WATS I WANT I DUNNA RECOGNIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                All hail the /k/ube

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >sincere belief against guns
                wym all mainline religions started pre Renaissance.

                >SHUT UP
                >SINCERE RELIGIOUS BELIEF
                >I BELIEF NOGUNS

                then OP

                https://i.imgur.com/NzEXpm9.jpeg

                I am on the governance and operations team of a large company. We are meeting next week to discuss weapons carrying by employees at our locations. I am very pro 2A and I think the prevailing opinion will be to totally ban any and all carrying. I am against this. What are the best arguments I can make to permit weapons carrying or allow certain people in leadership or authority positions etc to do this at least?

                For the purposes of the policy meeting, you are now a Sikh, and it is your sincere religious obligation to be armed with a Kirpan, a weapon for the defense of the weak, which in the modern american context is a 1911 holding .45 zapcaps, and an ergogrip knuckleduster bangle for a Kara. If they question you, say
                >Yes, the Kirpan and the Kara is as vital as underwear
                >read the ten gurus, bigot.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              This is sovereign citizen tier mental gymnastics

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How is that mental gymnastics when crossdressers are using the Civil Rights Act and EEOC to their advantage right now as we speak? Any BS nondiscrimination policy carries the force of law as long as you can convince enough HR Karens to enforce it on everyone else.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Ackshually it does thanks to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
          No, that's a separate regular law that applies to companies in specific ways. It does not say
          >"hence forth private entities must abide by the bill of rights same as government"
          Which it's worth noting would in fact be unconstitutional lol.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Slavery is now legal again as long as you’re a business! HOORAY!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is really the way it should be. Every day I go to work and take orders from a soft spoken idiot, a professional pen pusher who failed upwards into middle management. In the stone age I would have killed him with a single punch, stolen his cows and daughters, and been done with it. Ted Bundy was a dumbass, it all went to shit after the neolithic age

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > Ted Bundy was a dumbass, it all went to shit after the neolithic age
        >can’t even get his Ted’s right
        >has the gall to say others are idiots
        Ever thought you aren’t as smart as you think you are? Regardless apologize to the ghost of uncle Ted

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED loudly and repeatedly.
    Counter argument? Idk can your coworkers read English? Then its very cut & dry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED loudly and repeatedly.
      >Counter argument? Idk can your coworkers read English? Then its very cut & dry
      Can you? Bill of Rights applies to government. People can set their own rules on their own private property. You can say "no guns allowed in my house" same as you can say "no progressives allowed", unless there is state law to the contrary.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes? They can also choose to simply follow the 2nd amendment too, which is what I'm proposing. Nobody who isn't a moronic gun grabbing commie would disagree with that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >private property
        If non-owners are allowed to freely come and go on it, it’s definitely not private property in the same sense that a domicile is.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This. It's not like I can open a restaurant and claim that health codes like cleaning and pest control are optional because it's private property.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It’s good to know that minimum wage is now abolished due to “private property”.
          No taxes either. Private property.
          You can also steal from anyone you want! Just gotta lure them onto your private property and their pesky property rights don’t apply!

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >this whole scenario
    weird larp, but ok underaged poster

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not making this up. might surprise you, but some people on this board are gainfully employed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm sure

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I would never allow any of my employees to carry at work, and would immediately terminate them if I found out they were armed on the job. You can carry on your off time when I can’t be sued for what you do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      homosexual

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >once you pay someone you own them
      Found the israelite.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're carrying anyway schlomo

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shabbat shalom, gay bag

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gun free zones are free range for people who mean to kill. Liability, say something about how the company could open itself up to civil suits if anything were to happen since it disarmed the employees, might be bull but just bringing it up may scare idiots enough to sway them. Load up on 30% facts and statistics but 70% feelings arguments, you're likely dealing with normies don't expect logic and reason to win the day, you must win their feelings make them feel like you have a point make them feel like you're right, main thing is to just be vocal no one will say anything likely because they're scared but ape together strong and you just saying something will give strength to those around you to voice their opinions also and support you someone has to be the first to speak, you be that man. Think about how when you let a friend take control of something and it goes fubar, you know you could have done better but you were lazy or some shit well don't be lazy this time

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      thankfully the board is small, but some people there definitely have more authority than I do.

      Is there any reason that your employees cannot keep direct control of their firearms? I work in a big factory and it's not practical or safe for a lot of the employees to carry because of what they're doing. Are there any employees that currently carry? Can you give them a number? Manager morons like numbers. Whatever the outcome, concealed means concealed.

      I haven't a clue on the exact number. hard to tell due to the number of locations and number of employees we have.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any reason that your employees cannot keep direct control of their firearms? I work in a big factory and it's not practical or safe for a lot of the employees to carry because of what they're doing. Are there any employees that currently carry? Can you give them a number? Manager morons like numbers. Whatever the outcome, concealed means concealed.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tell them that if they enforce a policy on employees to keep it hush hush to the public. that would be "baseline concern of potential predators". Including the stalkers that will attack lonely female workers getting to and from work.

    Follow up with examples of businesses with pictures that show "Predators paradise" in that line.

    Secondly, you can't make a business change policy because its public image if an employee has a gun and is at work and something happens that divulges that information. For example: Your employee is arrested going to work on a vehicle charge of some kind. He has a gun in the car. That information will be divulged to the public in most counties.

    That will come back and be problematic to the partners associated with your company.

    Any acceptable policy would be management with a conceal carry license and a parameter of what type of pistol they carry. Eight round small carry pistol in a wallet holster would be zero profile. They can carry their cards and money in a chest pocket wallet clip/purse.

    This is the best I can offer you. The best you can do is strike ahead of the meeting and discuss privately with the other members attending. Get a general idea of who is anti, and convince them otherwise BEFORE the meeting. They will come with an agenda and can't be convinced during the meeting. They're going in to do battle at that point.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think this makes much sense or would work. Better compromise (but still expensive) might be official secure storage safes, so that people can carry to work, leave their gun in a safe only they have access to, then carry home. That solves a lot of any trouble, there are no guns hanging around in cars or whatever, there are no people with guns inside except security, but neither is anyone denied a gun on their way home end of the day.

      But since real safes cost significant money I think even that is a stretch vs "frick the employees who are scared on their own time not our problem" unless you come up with some real numbers of people who'd quit or whatever. Or local politics that'd be more favorable, something. But some $$$ number has to be on the support side of the equation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I was giving a general acceptance policy other companies accept. No profile and having loose management say "Yeah I guess that's okay" when the gun profile is easily printable on the employee.

        You first cannot ask to disclose medical history(mental conditions) so it has to have a time tested person(management) be allowed to carry. In a sense they have a lot more to lose if they frick this up. So the weight of carrying a pistol that "DOES NOT PROFILE" is like a lifesaving seat belt they choose to wear.

        A safe policy counters the potential and insurance companies being driven a draft over a lost gun that was in a safe and someone took from the group-gun-safe will look so very horrible.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    are you in a state that has permits to carry? if so, I would present the arguement that anyone carrying has passed objective criteria from the state qualifying them to be armed. why stop someone government certified from carrying? If you are in a constiutional carry state, or multiple states, this becomes a more difficult angle to take. regardless though, if your position is challenged because people are scared that an armed employee will begin a confrontation, challenge them to provide evidence that concealed carriers in your state are provoking violent enounters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i just read all the discussion about liability and anon probably has that right. its still worth presenting a structured dissenting opinion even if its going to get completely btfo by the convenience of banning it for liability reasons.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i just think it would be irresponsible of me not to raise some kind of counter argument or alternative

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    dont

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm pro-2A as well, but employers do (who aren't the government) have the right to ban weapons. And if your state gives those bans the force of law, then there isn't much you can do about it.

    Most people who CC understand this and choose to either leave their gun in the car at work or know they would rather lose their job than their life and carry it anyway. If it's a company that has public facing employees who travel to jobsites than you might have luck, but otherwise the nogunners will probably win.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >on the governance and operations team
    The good news is you will probably not be personally sued after one of your trigger happy monkeys shoots someone on company property, but your company will be.
    You will be remembered, tho, as the shit for brains that thought it was wise to let Ronnie store his stendos in his locker so he has an easier time going postal and Columbining your workplace, and you'll be terminated sans unemployment and likely blackballed for being the butthole that thought encouraging guns in the office was cool

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >muh Columbining
      Are you honestly suggesting that a rule barring firearms from the workplace is going to prevent someone from committing mass homocide?
      Are you moronic?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yep, antigunners really are that stupid.

        amendments only apply to the federal gov and entities they fund (states, schools, colleges, etc). Joe Schmo’s private business where he wants to be a pussy and ban guns is completely fair—it is his property after all and you’re agreeing to his rules (voiding discrimination and criminal actions) when you choose to work there/shop there.

        So I can open a private business and ban blacks, israelites, homosexuals, and women then?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >So I can open a private business and ban blacks, israelites, homosexuals, and women then?
          No, because there are LAWS against that. Which is different than Constitutional amendments you absolute fricking moron. What LAWS are there about CC in public accommodations at the federal level or your state? You should check because some states actually have indeed been taking action to prevent this, yours might be one of them, and if not it's something you can lobby for. Many states do not give "no guns" signs the force of law already for example, though you can still always be individually told to leave for a non-federally protected reason.

          Though note again that public service law and employment law are also separate. If you actually care pay attention to both.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I WILL conceal carry my legally-owned firearm while I'm on the clock, and there's absolutely nothing (You) can do about it. Cope, seethe, dilate, etc.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the noguns who doesn't care about gun rights still trying to pretend
              lmao, and figures you'd be a dumb frogposter.

              https://i.imgur.com/beZpSOe.jpeg

              >some states actually have indeed been taking action to prevent this
              Bruen supersedes all new gun control that did not have an 18th Century equivalent. Guns are only allowed to be banned in "sensitive areas" like court houses. Several commie states have already tried to make all public accommodations into "sensitive areas," and the lower courts have smacked them down since it would mean that states could effectively make the right to bear arms illegal. My constitutional rights don't magically disappear just because I punch in for work. Slavery has been outlawed in this country since 1865.

              >complete moronation: the post
              No gun control laws are needed for private entities to restrict things. It's the opposite, laws are needed to restrict them from exercising their default rights of association and exclusion. Bruen has nothing to do with it. If no law says you CAN'T be fired for something, then you can be. Dunno why freedom is such an impossible concept for you smoothbrains to grasp.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >laws are needed to restrict them from exercising their default rights of association and exclusion.
                See

                https://i.imgur.com/AV3VnPF.jpeg

                >DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
                >SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

                >(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
                >(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
                >(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
                >(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization--
                >(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
                >(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
                >(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.
                So yes, it is my right to carrying a gun at work according to the doctrine of the Holy Murder/k/ube, War Be Upon Him.

                and

                >quote state or federal law
                2nd amendment seems to have it covered and the fact that it’s ignored is not a good thing.
                Simping for someone restricting your rights because he’s buying time from you is insanely foolish.

                It's my sincerely held religious belief that I be armed at all times to protect myself. The 2nd Amendment is my God-given right. You can't disprove this or convince me otherwise. You're not allowed to discriminate against me because of my sincerely-held religious beliefs per federal law. Get the 1964 Civil Rights Act repealed if you don't like it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                None of that childish shit you spewed out has any connection with a legal reality of restricting private parties from banning guns though. Keep coping and seething.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How is my religion any more childish than worshipping satan or a moon god or any other BS religion that gets federal protection? You can't answer that. You can't ban guns any more than you can ban black people or israeli people, you bigot. Gun rights are human rights.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sure anon by all means ignore and shit on our rights in favor of your fantasies. And if you get caught, fired, and then find out that no the courts don't agree maybe actually take it seriously.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what the frick? Is that real?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's wild to see anti-gun leftist shills on /k/, when did this shit start?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We've been raided by them for years. Leftists successfully subverting what was left of /misc/ gave them a big dose of unwarranted confidence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are unironic feds on this website ever since the 2016 election was stolen by le russian spies. They're a DNC-affiliated Super PAC known as Shareblue/Correct the Record who run a troll farm dedicated to influencing public opinion on social media.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                God fricking damn it, will they leave if we're racist enough? It's gonna be hard since I'm not all that racist but I'll give it the ol' college try.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do it. You have nothing to lose, anon, and your boards to regain.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                At least 8 years ago. It got bad about 5 ago

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Notice how they abandoned the thread immediately after getting called out. They're really scared that the same laws and weaponized federal agencies progs used to force all their pozzed BS onto the general public will be used by conservative gun owners for our own benefit if this year's election doesn't go their way.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm still here, queer.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Is this what commies actually believe?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                As long as it pisses you off, yes.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It was all a social experiment!
                Watch one of your friends die.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that windup
                holy frick, that guy might actually be dead

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He is. Antifa homosexual went straight into a coma and his family took him off life support literally as soon as they legally could because like all antifa he was a shrieking embarrassment.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                "might actually"
                rightfully deserves to*

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >if someone isn't on /k/ 24/7 because they have no job like me that means my antiguns schizo fantasy wins
                yeah

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Projection
                >Sluggish Schizophrenia diagnosis
                >Deflects rather than denies being a shill
                Yep we got a live commie here boys.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >some states actually have indeed been taking action to prevent this
            Bruen supersedes all new gun control that did not have an 18th Century equivalent. Guns are only allowed to be banned in "sensitive areas" like court houses. Several commie states have already tried to make all public accommodations into "sensitive areas," and the lower courts have smacked them down since it would mean that states could effectively make the right to bear arms illegal. My constitutional rights don't magically disappear just because I punch in for work. Slavery has been outlawed in this country since 1865.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What LAWS are there about CC in public accommodations at the federal level or your state
            The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Full stop. Secondly, most states in the US now have permitless carry meaning there was removal of a law prohibiting it. That’s even more of an endorsement to carry. Laws tell you that you can’t do something, they don’t exist telling you that you can

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The constitution is the supreme law of the land.
              And the constitution does not say that private parties cannot fire people for carrying guns contrary to contract. By default, everyone has full rights to contract as they wish, and that includes many rights. You are free to sign non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements in most cases for example. You won't go to jail, but you can be fired and sued.
              >Laws tell you that you can’t do something, they don’t exist telling you that you can
              Yes. That is what I've been trying to get through you stupid fricking skull. There are laws telling businesses they cannot discriminate by race or sex. That they must make reasonable accommodations for other things, etc. There is no federal law doing the same for guns. There is not in most states either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And the constitution does not say that private parties cannot fire people for being Black folk contrary to contract.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And the constitution does not say that private parties cannot fire people for being Black folk contrary to contract.
                No, it does not, but the Civil Rights Act does say that. What do you not get here? I'm saying we need laws to protect this, or at least support choice (like in terms of liability). You're for some reason insisting it's fine to not have any protection.

                It's wild to see anti-gun leftist shills on /k/, when did this shit start?

                Good question, why are anti-guns schizos like you on /k/?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >No u
                What are you talking about?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What are you talking about?
                You? Since you're opposing gun rights?

                https://i.imgur.com/BIFX24V.png

                >Projection
                >Sluggish Schizophrenia diagnosis
                >Deflects rather than denies being a shill
                Yep we got a live commie here boys.

                turdie tourist detected. I am very demoralized.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Link the post where I opposed gun rights. I guarantee you have mistaken some other poster for me out of autism or more likely because leftists turn into rats shrieking "NO U" whenever confronted. Link the post where I opposed gun rights or shut your homosexual lying commie mouth.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Link which posts are yours then if you think I got it wrong. We're all anonymous here except for tripgays.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. You responded to my first post in the thread unprovoked, here it is.

                It's wild to see anti-gun leftist shills on /k/, when did this shit start?

                If you are the person I'm responding to there, you're anti gun and need to rope

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                OK so I didn't get it wrong, and yep, you're anti-guns. You're one of those fricking zoomie slacktivist homosexuals who prefers lazing around in fantasy and ebin upboats or rando protests vs actually protecting our rights in reality which requires actual work, recognizing when we're not there yet, and getting shit done in courts and legislatures. I fricking hate you people. If the rest of us actually pay money to help fund test cases, or lobby to get better laws passed, you get to enjoy it but then whine about how we failed to reach your imagined level of perfection instantly which means somehow we're whatever mystery conspiracy enemy you're on about this week. All progress is dismissed as "oh well that's just how it should be anyway" as if it'll happen all by itself, by magic. Eat shit and die. Don't (you) me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >pointing out anti-gun shills means you’re actually antigun
                Not him, but that’s one hell of a logical leap you’re making off a very benign statement. Post carry gun just so we know you aren’t anti gun too

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nice post you copied from someone else to try to look "based" while shilling against gun rights, homosexual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You’re the one being moronic so you should back up your shit talk. It’s not on him to spoon feed you

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >So I can open a private business and ban blacks, israelites, homosexuals, and women then?
          No but you should be able to

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >rule barring firearms from the workplace is going to prevent someone from committing mass homocide
        no you fricking rusty nailhead, I'm saying that YOU will catch the rap for encouraging guns in the workplace, no matter what the objective truth of the matter is, if YOU take a stance on approving guns on the property, YOU will be the scapegoat, you frayed shoelace.
        anyway its still a good diea, where enforceable gun bans are put in place, gun violence goes down immediately and drastically, for the same reason that when car bans are put in place automotive deaths go down

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I worked in a company full of chinks and they were all h1b holders. They wall wanted to carry after Allen outlet. I made it policy they shouldn't. Have you ever been to a gun range with chinks? It's not a fricking stereotype.

    Anyway, I carried every fricking day. Frick em. Not my problem.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When discussing the policy on weapons carrying in your company, it's important to present balanced, well-reasoned arguments that address both the benefits and potential concerns. Here are some key points you can raise to support permitting weapons carrying under certain conditions:

    Self-Defense and Personal Safety:

    Employee Safety: Emphasize that carrying weapons can enhance personal safety and provide employees with a means of self-defense in potentially dangerous situations, especially if your company is located in high-crime areas.
    Deterrent Effect: The presence of armed individuals can act as a deterrent to potential criminals or violent intruders.
    Legal and Constitutional Rights:

    Second Amendment Rights: Highlight that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and banning weapons outright might be viewed as infringing on these rights.
    State Laws: Ensure the policy aligns with state laws regarding the carrying of firearms. Many states have "shall-issue" or "constitutional carry" laws that permit carrying weapons.
    Controlled Implementation:

    Selective Carrying: Suggest a policy that allows only certain individuals, such as those in leadership positions or those who undergo specific training, to carry weapons. This ensures that only responsible and trained personnel are armed.
    Training and Certification: Propose mandatory training and certification programs for those who wish to carry weapons. This can include firearms safety, conflict de-escalation, and legal responsibilities.
    Emergency Preparedness:

    Response to Threats: Armed employees could provide an immediate response to active shooter situations or other violent threats, potentially saving lives before law enforcement arrives.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Security Augmentation: Having trained individuals who are permitted to carry weapons can complement existing security measures, providing an additional layer of protection.
      Comparison with Other Companies:

      Industry Practices: Research and present examples of other companies or organizations that allow employees to carry weapons and how they have implemented these policies successfully. Highlight any positive outcomes or statistics from these cases.
      Best Practices: Suggest adopting best practices from these organizations, such as clear guidelines, strict training requirements, and regular policy reviews.
      Employee Morale and Trust:

      Respecting Employee Rights: Allowing employees to carry weapons can be seen as a sign of trust and respect for their judgment and responsibility.
      Feedback and Involvement: Consider involving employees in the discussion and decision-making process. Conduct surveys or hold forums to gauge their opinions and concerns, ensuring that the policy reflects the needs and preferences of the workforce.
      By presenting these arguments, you can make a compelling case for a balanced policy that respects employees' rights and safety while addressing potential risks and concerns.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Conduct surveys or hold forums to gauge their opinions and concerns, ensuring that the policy
        This will backfire horribly due to the abundance of femal normies and sois crying about how they will NOT feel safe knowing that somewhere within 100ft of them, a gun could exist.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Security Augmentation: Having trained individuals who are permitted to carry weapons can complement existing security measures, providing an additional layer of protection.
      Comparison with Other Companies:

      Industry Practices: Research and present examples of other companies or organizations that allow employees to carry weapons and how they have implemented these policies successfully. Highlight any positive outcomes or statistics from these cases.
      Best Practices: Suggest adopting best practices from these organizations, such as clear guidelines, strict training requirements, and regular policy reviews.
      Employee Morale and Trust:

      Respecting Employee Rights: Allowing employees to carry weapons can be seen as a sign of trust and respect for their judgment and responsibility.
      Feedback and Involvement: Consider involving employees in the discussion and decision-making process. Conduct surveys or hold forums to gauge their opinions and concerns, ensuring that the policy reflects the needs and preferences of the workforce.
      By presenting these arguments, you can make a compelling case for a balanced policy that respects employees' rights and safety while addressing potential risks and concerns.

      Best post(s)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        thanks, they're totally not ai generated :^)

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well first of all, frick you for not giving us the details we need to answer this question.
    But, as someone who works unarmed security (i just check peoples keycards), im going to try to help you because i wish i could carry.
    First of all, find recent and local violent crimes, bonus points if they happened to employees in a similar field. Bring in news articles that detail these crimes
    If you can find stats on rising crime rates, bring those in as well.
    Establish the need first.
    Then, put their minds at ease by saying a clause can be written in absolving the company of any liability should someone use their firearm, or be injured by another employee via firearm, that must be agreed to by all employees / applicants.
    Then, require a state CCP, AND company “CCP” if someone wishes to carry.

    Yes this is all very gay but all theyre gonna care about is not getting sued, so speak legalese and relieve them of any concerns.

    Also this is only semi-related but, next time someone gets injured via shooting in a gun free zone, that person should sue the place, arguing that they couldve protected themselves had they not had to abide by gay “no guns allowed” rules or policies

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can point to homeless sleeping outside nearby the parking lot that reeks of pot smoke 24/7 that the company has me park in if anyone says shit to me. Find an excuse if you can.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Are there women weighing in on this issue with the company? If so you've already lost.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just tell them you identify as a 2Agender ammosexual, and your pronouns are gun/guns/gunself. Pic related is the ammosexual pride flag, and you demand full recognition during Pride Month™.

      Sure anon by all means ignore and shit on our rights in favor of your fantasies. And if you get caught, fired, and then find out that no the courts don't agree maybe actually take it seriously.

      So now you're out of arguments and coping that no courts will uphold the blackletter law that prohibits (You) from discriminating against me based on my religion. I hope you're ready to hand over a fat settlement check to my lawyer.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    my opinion has always been, if you're in an area that gives out permits (like new york), if you have the permit, it means you've been trained in safety and whatnot, and should be allowed to carry.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're a fricking moron. I hope you're able to convince them not to ban weapons so you get shot by all the disgruntled employees.
    >only allow management to carry weapons
    Even more moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      sorry abdul, but the office place shootings will be stopped.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Post guns shitskin

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >that sign
    >no automatics and bowie knives
    >cool, this doesn't apply to me with my revolver and folder
    >hey didn't you see the sign
    >explain myself
    >are you moronic
    >Hey don't blame me I'm going by the picture I cant read
    >get off scott free

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if there's a shooter who's gonna stop him
      if it's known we have a no weapons policy we make ourselves a target

      >I can't read
      A classic.
      >what do you mean you can't read?
      >this country has an 89% literacy rate
      >I'm dyslexic, those white devil signs be shifting and floatin around on me

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >going of the PICTURE I cant read

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That there is a top tier revolver! 3 inch J frames are sex incarnate.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you people really want to carry guns into work? Someone call the funny farm lmao cause this ain't it.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There was that one dude about two years back in Texas, who wanted to shoot up an office building with his rifle. He got ventilated by the employees in the foyer without getting even one of them. Cases like this of course get no big media attention because there's bo tradegy to milk.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This sort of thing might genuinely be useful, if OP can find and cite enough actual cases. Doesn't need to have gotten any media attention. Ideally some gun rights group would be gathering them, doing interviews and so on so it's captured hard data, and have an easily digestible set of case studies and surveys. OP might be able to make it more palatable along with some extra gun usage course, but basically sell it as valuable security "for free". Like, compare it to the cost of paying a bunch of extra security guards I dunno.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And don't forget psychological impact either - a company that lets employees carry and treats them like adults signals that it values their life past "organic means of production." Which results in more loyal, better motivated employees.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >a company that lets employees carry and treats them like adults signals that it values their life past "organic means of production."
          But management and a megacorp does not in fact value our lives past "organic means of production" nor really even comprehend they could do such a thing. So:
          >Which results in more loyal, better motivated employees.
          You're going to have to be able to put some profit/loss figures on that one chief.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            same gay here, I realize that sounds extra pessimistic. One hopeful factor right now is that in much of the country companies are really, really understaffed and desperately hard up for workers. But the thing they hate more then anything at all is actually raising salaries. So if OP could do a survey of current employees and show a bunch would quit, or show that it'd make it easier to hire more people "for free", that'd be worth something. But that might not actually be true if it's a really lefty type of work force.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If OP is somewhat knowledgeable/cunning he can substitute the P/L with personnel turnover rates of comparable companies and extrapolate the monetary and opportunity cost of headhunting, hiring and training new people on a more frequent basis to present a future of pure L. Toss in some lingo about home office slack and quiet quitters to really season the distaste.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're going to have to be able to put some profit/loss figures on that one chief.
            That’s honestly not hard. It’s expensive to hire and replace employees and you lose a lot of production in the meantime (or stress out everyone else covering for them). His HR department should have an estimate of that or just use the average which is like $10k or so last I saw. Frame it as encouraging retention and even a 0.5% increase in retention makes a big difference.
            >inb4 what if it makes people leave instead
            Say that allowing carry is keeping the current status quo. If someone quits because of this they were looking for a reason to quit

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mandatory AR-15s for all staff

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Op say nothing lest it backfire and you mess it up for the real G's who are carrying anyway. You wouldn't want them to put in some gay metal detectors or something after you tell em "well someone could just carry anyway"

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What it's all going to come down to is this: your insurance company is going to dictate your policy.
    Companies have to weigh what their insurance company says with the potential public backlash, it's part of why Walmart doesn't allow open carrying of firearms but doesn't care about CCW.
    >"If we say you can bring your guns to work and someone gets shot we're going to get sued and the insurance company is gonna be like yeah you're on your own"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it's part of why Walmart doesn't allow open carrying of firearms but doesn't care about CCW.
      A lot of stores are like this now because about 10-15 years ago, lolbert morons made a habit of doing open carry demonstrations at Walmart, Target, Starbucks, and anywhere else soccer moms love to shop since they never explicitly banned carrying firearms, so naturally it backfired, and forced those corpos to come out with a middle-ground position saying
      >"We'll abide by state law if you are legally allowed to carry firearms, but we respectfully ask you to not do it in our stores."
      i.e. they don't like it, but they won't kick you out and cause a scene because of employee safety concerns. The cherry on top is that at least one open carry gay has had his AR stolen by a crackhead while he was distracted shopping for tendies at Wally World.

      yeah gov shall not infringe on my private property rights including the right to ban ur guns lol

      Get it through your thick skull that your property rights don't preclude the civil rights of other people, especially if you are operating a business as a public accommodation. The only exceptions are if you are operating a private and exclusive club or a religious institution that requires employees to be church members.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Get it through your thick skull that your property rights don't preclude the civil rights of other people
        yeah it does, unless specified otherwise in law. you gays just wanna have big government when it suits you not when it doesnt but also pretend you dont want big gov at all.
        >especially if you are operating a business as a public accommodation. The only exceptions are if you are operating a private and exclusive club or a religious institution that requires employees to be church members.
        lol completely wrong scotus just ruled on this a few years ago you don't even have to do a design for someone if it goes against your beliefs. "gun carrier" isn't a protected class lmao. unless ur state says u cant. like u homies serious tons of states give antiguns signs force of law

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you gays just wanna have big government when it suits you not when it doesnt but also pretend you dont want big gov at all.
          My rights have nothing to do with the government. If you want to open a business, you already have to kneel to the government anyway.
          >"gun carrier" isn't a protected class
          Carrying guns is part of my religion, so get fricked. Ave nex alea. Glory to the Murder/k/ube.
          >tons of states give antiguns signs force of law
          States can make any rinky-dink anti-gun laws they want. They are superseded by federal law, the SCOTUS Bruen decision, and the 2nd Amendment. Take a civics class.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Carrying guns is part of my religion, so get fricked. Ave nex alea. Glory to the Murder/k/ube.
            and private property rights are my religion checkmate filthy commie
            you want stalin go to snowgeria
            >They are superseded by federal law
            lmao there is none
            >the SCOTUS Bruen decision
            literally nothin to do with it
            >and the 2nd Amendment
            does not apply to private citizens
            >Take a civics class.
            no u

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >and private property rights are my religion
              Not how it works, buddy. If you open a restaurant, you don't get to claim that you're a follower of Nurgle, and all of your customers and employees are required to eat moldy food and dine with roaches just because they set foot on your private property. As a business owner operating a public accommodation, you don't have the right to force other people to compromise their own rights. You're not allowed to discriminate against your own employees based on their religious beliefs either. The EEOC mandates that you make "reasonable accommodations" for employees' religions as long as doing so wouldn't put an undue burden on the business operation or safety. Me worshipping the Murder/k/ube and exercising both my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights does neither, especially if my firearm is safely secured out of sight in my holster, employee locker, or car. By the way, I will be taking all Christian, israeli, and Muslim holidays off. You can't stop me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yeah it is how it works. if i don't like homosexuals and open a shop making cakes or websites i can refuse to do them for homosexuals. us supreme court literally decided this twice first in 2018 then a few years ago in 303 creative vs elenis try to keep up commie
                >You can't stop me.
                literally i can by firing you :^)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >if i don't like homosexuals and open a shop making cakes or websites i can refuse to do them for homosexuals
                homosexuals aren't a protected class.
                >literally i can by firing you :^)
                I'll see you in court then. You can't fire me based on my religious beliefs or otherwise create a hostile work environment. You have to reasonably accommodate my worship of the Glorious Murder/k/ube.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >homosexuals aren't a protected class.
                "protected class" had nothing to do with ruling and neither are gun owners
                >I'll see you in court then.
                yeah you will then you'll find out about your gay "2a applies to private parties" make believe lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If your restaurant isn't hygienic nobody will go, word will spread, and your business will fail. Every argument you're making for regulation, the free market does better for cheaper. How sheltered are you that you think restaurant owners MAKE their customers come there and eat by force? This is the kind of thinking I'd expect from some modern woke game dev before the free market crashes and burns their product, not from a human that will surely claim to own a firearm.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >health inspections aren't necessary because muh free market will solve everything
                peak lolbert lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not him but if we had an all white society again, it really would.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. The only thing it does is let the government israelite business owners for a fee, thus causing prices to rise for customers. Regulation is just the fed demanding money for nothing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The rat infested shithole that offers roadkill meat at half the price of everyone else will ALWAYS make more money than places that don't give you occasional food poisoning. See: fast food chains. And when one of 300 locations loses 40% sales because ma & pa open across the street, how long do you think they'll last before they're bought out for $30,000,000 dollars and now there's only Taco Bell available again?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Hyperbole. All it takes is a few social media posts about finding possum bones in the hot dogs and you're out of business.
                >Muh buying out
                How's that working out? There are loads of independent restaurants and the only thing that put a dent in them was the big chains LOBBYING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LOCK SHIT DOWN DURING COVID YOU DUMB moron. At every turn you sabotage your own argument, a captive market will always favor big actors that have political connections and no responsibility for quality. A free market rewards merit. That's how it has always worked, and you're seething about it because you're invested in some autistic view of the government as your friend to stomp on the people you don't like. You don't belong here, you belong in a mass grave.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There are loads of independent restaurants and the only thing that put a dent in them was the big chains LOBBYING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LOCK SHIT DOWN DURING COVID YOU DUMB moron.
                That's just the free market working, sweaty. Keeping the feds on your payroll and under your thumb is just smart business practices. Unless you think we should restrict what certain businesses can do with their money, i don't understand how having the government shut down all your competitors is anything but the peak of free trade.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >All it takes is a few social media posts about finding possum bones in the hot dogs and you're out of business.
                Mhm. That's why every month some major food manufacturer or resturant chain has a recall of rash of poisonings and literally nothing happens. People are too stupid to care about better options if it's quick, cheap, and convenient. This has been proven throughout history.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is a blatant strawman.

                >ideally we'd crush such companies under the weight of the free market
                lol, lmao even
                such companies ARE the free market you dunce

                No they aren't. Holy crap you stick out like a sore thumb. The way the free market works, I am free to buy from or work for whoever I want and if they do shit like this customers and employees alike will abandon them for better options. This is the reason why such behavior happens in companies where the fed or a proxy of theirs has its hand up the corporation's ass giving it marching orders and protecting it from competition, which is the inevitable endpoint of regulation. You're trying, badly, to play both sides here when we've all seen the actual Democrat endgame of choosing which companies win and lose at the federal level, then using those companies as a sock puppet to take away your rights. Neither of you get to infringe on my 2A, and I won't be tricked into giving you more power to do so.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >webm
                I love Jean Reno. What movie is that from?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think it's Leon the Professional

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, he never kicked a troony in that movie

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, he never kicked a troony in that movie

                I just found it. The movie is called Wasabi and it looks fun. Thanks anon!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Holy crap you stick out like a sore thumb.
                Who am I in your imagination?
                >The way the free market works, I am free to buy from or work for whoever I want and if they do shit like this customers and employees alike will abandon them for better options
                This doesn't happen when they can stomp out "better options" like snails at their convenience with low, low prices. Because of the moronic masses, they will ALWAYS be more powerful than the "better alternatives". If you think Luigi's Pizza has more lobbying power than Pizza Hut you are mentally ill.
                >This is the reason why such behavior happens in companies where the fed or a proxy of theirs has its hand up the corporation's ass giving it marching orders and protecting it from competition, which is the inevitable endpoint of regulation.
                >ANTITRUST LAWS AREN'T REAL THEY CAN'T HURT ME
                >we've all seen the actual Democrat endgame of choosing which companies win and lose at the federal level, then using those companies as a sock puppet to take away your rights.
                Ah yes, thank The Lord for the incorruptible, pure, innocent Republican party, whose members are never ever corrupt and never EVER put business interests above the law and public interest. I'm so glad we have a reality where this is true!
                How do Bezos' testicles taste btw?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Kek nice job outing yourself in the last paragraph with your commie seething after all that effort you put into your strawman.
                >B-but big corpos can just lower their prices and drown the competition then raise their prices when they have a monopoly!!!
                This has worked a couple of times and failed hundreds of times. It increasingly fails as large corporations become more and more beholden to shareholders who don't give a shit about a long term monopoly and want their short term bet to pay off, which doesn't happen when you sell at a loss. Moreover, this tactic requires the federal government on your side to succeed, which means it can't work with a free, unfettered market. Try reading a book before you come to a board where the average poster is in his 30s and owns guns and land, kid.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This has worked a couple of times and failed hundreds of times.
                Yes, because of antitrust laws you sperg.

                >Moreover, this tactic requires the federal government on your side to succeed, which means it can't work with a free, unfettered market.
                [citation needed]
                >Try reading a book before you come to a board where the average poster is in his 30s and owns guns and land, kid.
                Oof ow the irony.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Well the free market will be subverted by these laws
                NTA but I don't think you understand what the free market is. If you have those laws you don't have a free market.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >and private property rights are my religion checkmate filthy commie
              A business open to the public letting in foot traffic isn’t your private property the same as a house. Post guns you giant homosexual

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                says the fricking communist on /k/

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Gun rights > all on /k/. Back to

                [...]

                with you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Communists aren't people and thus have no rights, as they explicitly do not believe in rights except to use OUR belief in them to protect themselves until they're strong enough to take said rights away.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >noooo stop advocating for gun rights in a gun board
                I posted my hellcat. Here’s another carry gun. Post yours. You’re not a larping homosexual shill trying to distract and sow division are you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >States can make any rinky-dink anti-gun laws they want. They are superseded by federal law, the SCOTUS Bruen decision, and the 2nd Amendment. Take a civics class
            Go open carry a normal AR in manhattan, then use that argument if you aren’t immediately shot

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Go open carry a normal AR in manhattan, then use that argument if you aren’t immediately shot
              Honestly thinking of martyring myself for gun rights like this. I hate my life but don't want to die without meaning.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Politician or CEO. Don’t throw your life away for “muh gun rights,” nothing will change if anything MORE gun control will pass and morons here will laugh and make memes of you.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You would eventually win in court if you have enough money and time.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Eventually
                These days it would get fast-tracked and Clarence Thomas would personally sign your gun.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This. Don't forget, it's the government who wants businesses to put up those signs in the first place.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry I meant to respond to you too. You're both homosexuals, him for blaming lolberts, you for being a cuck. I almost think you're samegayging with that cartoonish typing style you're using.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Anyone who types with “ur” or “u” in a non character limited format should be publicly flogged

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ur an homosexual

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hilarious to see commies shilling against lolberts as if advocating for more carry rights is somehow the problem.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Walmart is this huge company that is held firmly by the balls by their insurance company.
        When that happened, their underwriters freaked the frick out and threatened to raise their rates. Walmart came to a compromise because they didn't want to piss off the armed rednecks club of America by banning guns in their stores so they implemented some policy changes. These policy changes do frick-all to prevent violent crime, but now some litigious Larry can't just sue Walmart's pants off because they allow people to carry guns in their stores.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >S H A L L
    >N O T
    >I N F R I N G E
    end of discussion

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yeah gov shall not infringe on my private property rights including the right to ban ur guns lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You have the right to ask anyone on your property to leave for any reason. You don't have the right to curtail their rights while they're there, thirdie.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shoot it down and enjoy the trucker strike next time one of em gets hurts

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can't frame this in terms of monetary benefits to the company from employees carrying because the potential legal liability to the company is too high. Instead you need to minimize the perceived negatives, focus on talking points such as how much more accurate the average citizen is in a gunfight when compared to police and how the vast majority of DGUs end without a shot being fired. The numbers are clearly on our side so lean into that, such as how your chances of being harmed in an armed robbery are significantly lower if you resist using a gun versus comply or resist unarmed. So the way you need to frame it is...
    >carrying a gun clearly leads to better outcomes for the employee and the general public, increasing their safety. The likelihood of negative effects on the company is very low since violent attacks are very rare and violent attacks where shots must be fired are even rarer, however this low probability is meaningless when compared to the value of a human life. Therefore it would be wrong to stop our employees from being able to defend themselves with the most effective tools available, tools that the people attacking them almost certainly have access to as well.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The best course of action is to have a very vague policy that allows each facility to handle their own situations as they come up.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why do your higherups need to know you're carrying? Just do it yourself, either don't tell anyone about it or do. Your employer doesn't give a frick about you, they also can't afford the necessary insurance hike if they as a business encourage their employees to carry firearms.

    Why do people want permission before doing something they rightfully should?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why do people want permission before doing something they rightfully should?
      For protection from retaliation if they ever have to use the gun they're rightfully carrying. Because entities with power over us don't care about the right to self-defense as it's inconvenient for them (as many rights tend to be). For whatever reason, being armed is just treated as a second-class right and the unfortunate consensus is that that's fine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you shoot someone in self defense while on the job you're getting fired, my man. Doesn't matter if your employers allowed you to carry a gun or not (they would never.)

        This whole thread is dumb.

        Your employer would and should never let employees carry guns unless they're moving large amounts of money/metals/valuable merchandise. Most people are morons, a ND will happen, and your employer would never want to be held responsible for it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > If you shoot someone in self defense while on the job you're getting fired, my man
          Depends on if you’re valuable. I wouldn’t be fired because I’m hard to replace. Regardless that’s way better than getting shot.
          >This whole thread is dumb.
          You’re dumb
          >Your employer would and should never let employees carry guns
          Frick off noguns eurogay. Post em and prove me wrong
          >Most people are morons, a ND will happen
          Then why doesn’t that happy daily with millions of people CC’ing?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >my higher-ups aren't stupid and have the company's best interest in mind.

            right

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >he still doesn’t post guns
              Called it

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hmmmm why is the guy calling others commies for advocating for gun rights not posting his own gun? What a mystery?

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >totally ban any and all carrying.
    >What are the best arguments
    Enforcement. Pass a rule against something and the company is de-facto taking responsibility to prevent it. So some moron sneaks a weapons in anyway, gets in a fight, NDs or just goes postal. What did the company do to enforce that rule? Pat-downs? Metal detectors at the entrances? No? Well then, you're probably getting sued anyway.

    Make it an extension of personal responsibility for behavior in public. Employee fricks up. Employee gets fired and possibly charged civilly or criminally.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Best OP can ask for is no policy at all, not for or against.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Best OP can ask for is no policy at all, not for or against.
        Comply with the law. That is all.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Enforcement. Pass a rule against something and the company is de-facto taking responsibility to prevent it.
      Sorry anon but as others have already pointed out this is literally the opposite of reality in current liability litigation. NOT passing a rule is what creates liability. A company saying "this is not allowed" and taking even bare minimum steps to enforce that shifts responsibility to employees instead, because then they're breaking policy. It does not create nearly any extra enforcement responsibility on the company's part, because employees are all adults who have signed contracts and are expected to follow the rules by default.

      Also, it's not so much about WHETHER you're sued (though high probability of loss may discourage it) but about what comes after. What do the odds of victory look like, at what stage of the trial (summary judgement is basically as good as not getting sued at all), which in turn also affects settlement negotiating strength. If the company can say "yes we banned that, we made sure all employees were informed and there was signage, and when we discovered violations we took prompt action each time" that's plenty good enough here. They're not parents of children.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Companies already have conduct rules. You're not allowed to stab someone with company property already as well as private property at nearly any company.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

  38. 1 month ago
    Sieg

    Don’t come out and be like you’re a 2A nut job

    Just insinuate the women could and would get raped in the parking lot by some unknown entity but suggest it could be the blacks

    The weak men will follow the women.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think the safest bet to get any kind of carry allowed would be to allow anyone with a state issued LTC/CHL to carry during deliveries. It's a much harder sell to say warehouse workers need to stay strapped but personally I think if you have an LTC a company has no reason to bar you from carrying since you've demonstrated enough proficiency and understanding of the law to receive such a thing. You should at least angle for less than lethal carry such as pepper spray be legal for all employees as there's really no good reason to ban people from having such a thing for violent workplace confrontations

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    From my experience the best policy is no policy. Let the people who want to carry and are smart about it do so, you should already have a good enough screening process for your job to filter out unhinged weirdos. No policy on guns also means you're not opening yourself up to any legal liability, you should already have some don't be antisocial or violent policy so that will cover you in any scenario.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the best arguments I can make to permit weapons carrying or allow certain people in leadership or authority positions etc to do this at least?

    Don't ask, don't tell.

    If an employee discloses they have a weapon and then do something wrong, the company is exposed to liability due to notice. Why open yourself up to legal issues by asking a question that doesn't need to be asked?

    If an employee freaks out over a coworker carrying, inform them that the CCW holder is legally allowed to do so and they'll have to talk to that employee. So long as an employee isn't pointing it at a coworker or threatening someone, it's not an issue. In the latter case, the police will have to be called anyway.

    There is no legal punishment for carrying in a prohibited area, as it usually takes a subsequent other crime for authorities to even know there is a weapon present. Even states that pass such laws often don't enforce them save for in public transit and government buildings. Even then, such places often have metal detectors.

    Attempting to keep firearms out will cost the company money. Having a security guard to watch, make employees empty their pockets, wand them, then hold on to firearms (can't steal other people's property) until the employee leaves. It also opens the company up to liability if they disarm a employee and they are killed on the job. Or even the simple issue of a lost firearm, which exposes the company to even more liability.

    tl;dr It's too complicated to attempt to regulate the private rights of others; you're either spending money for something that won't likely happen, or you're not spending and open yourself up to liability by even bringing the issue up.

    Better to just look the other way, so you can shrug your shoulders in court. It's not a company's responsibility to guarantee employee safety, so why push in that direction to begin with? Any action in regards to firearms by your company will require that company spend money.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weapons check-in at lobby with your employee card. No outsiders permitted to carry in, while everyone in lobby is packing. Cite any random domestic terrorist incident.

    As for carrying on the corporate floors, it is unlikely that an MNC will take you on board. The possibility of some disgruntled drone akimbo glockdumping HR - entirely deserved - is too unnerving for most foreigners.

    propose pure self defense personal carries on corporate floors, to "accommodate local culture": .22s only, pistols only, employees only, and a dedicated goon squad stationed in the command center packing actual heat. 22s about as effective stabbing with a scissors, and may arguably be less effective than 1" boxcutters, and they have both of those in the copy room.

    Any "incident" involving employees will only slightly higher stakes airsoft with no pads and no ref.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are underage, don’t have a real job, and don’t own guns.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >rule of three rhetoric
        never made it, never going to

        post an argument 5o! 6o!

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >post an argument
          Ironic considering you didn’t either. Nor did you post a gun while I’m the only one who has in this thread

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nor did you post a gun while I’m the only one who has in this thread
            nta but I'm the only one who posted actual court precedent in this thread. Given the topic that's a lot more relevant than people's dreams, feels, or guns lol.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Roe was court precedent, so was Daniel Perry getting convicted for killing one of your friends, court precedent on its own is fricking nothing.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Roe was court precedent
                Yeah and a pretty big impactful one for 50 years or whatever it was. That following decades of work and seismic shifts something might get changed doesn't mean it's not a big deal, nor governing in the mean time. If you want to be the test case to change it though sure, go for it.
                >so was Daniel Perry
                Literally who?

                >a right to life? sorry, chud, but this is an at will state

                One thing I'll never, ever understand about low IQ people is how mad you get about descriptions of the actual state of reality, vs the normal person reaction which is "ok, now how can we make this better?" You seem to prefer to jump between fantasy and lashing out angry denial vs caring about improving things for real. Guess I'm just really grateful my parents weren't alcoholics or whatever it was that stunted your brains.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, i just think that hoping the person robbing the store is doing so with good intentions is frickin dumb. I mean, surely if we comply with airline hijackers, then everyone on the plane will be ok

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No, i just think that hoping the person robbing the store is doing so with good intentions is frickin dumb.
                What the FRICK are you talking about? There is no such statement. That the law says that right now it's not the company's problem doesn't mean that's a good thing. Corps have gotten away with tons of shit the entirety of American history until people got angry and got the law fricking changed. As I've said repeatedly I'm fully in favor of changing the law such that at a minimum the company is legally liable if it takes away people's right to self defense, or at least the company is 100% shielded from liability if they let employees carry. But right now they aren't in either case.

                Note I think now is a very good legislative environment in a lot of states, I could definitely see it being a successful cause in Texas for example.
                >I mean, surely if we comply with airline hijackers, then everyone on the plane will be ok
                Note that complying with airline hijackers was indeed literally policy and expected procedure in most cases until 9/11. So not sure what you were going for here, since it supports the point that policies can be a mistake and things can change.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gun where
            >NOGUN
            >FILTERED
            just finding out that guns alone don't win arguments on chinchilla breeding forums?

            Unironically, you are the type of double tech9 autist who would actually shoot up a workplace when Chelsea rejects you for the third time.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        iono, is a postal worker a real job?

        Civil service planner?

        Rail depot engineer?

        Commercial printer?

        Admin procedural support?

        Day trader?

        HR manager?

        All mass shooters / their workplace victims.

        Nothing outside of the classic professions are very safe.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What does that have to do with anything I said?
          >that spacing
          Go back

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what does that have to do with anything I said
            "no real job". That could mean anything, depending on whether you (YOU)rself are bluecollar, office drone, mid management or higher management (unlikely; you're here).

            >go back
            lurk moar

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You should mention that, without armed guards and metal detectors, its likely that a large portion of workers are carrying anyway. Argue instead that you simply request that all firearms carried by workers remain concealed.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pull out a knife at the meeting and rape them all one by one at knife point. You'll go to jail, but they'll all learn a valuable lesson.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sneak in some cheeky "shoulds" or other suggestive language into the policy and omit definitive consequences to violations. Basically make a "employees are strongly encouraged to not bring weapons into the workplace" thing instead of an enforced ban.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does your company have their own metric for a statistical value of human life? If so, I wonder if you could use that to do a risk assessment on the value of no guns.
    like spitballing here, but if 1 employee dying on the job due to some tragic hostility costs the company 1 million in damages, and the annual risk of that happening is like 1%, then that's 10k expected to be payed per year.
    compare that to the risk of an ND causing the company some money, which may be less. who knows. you may have to load the math but im sure you could make it work from a cynical angle.

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    States have been enacting laws in recent years that require employers to allow employees to keep a gun locked in the employee’s car on company property. The 5th circuit ruled (Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences) that an employee who was fired after he parked his truck in the company parking lot with his gun locked inside could sue the company for wrongful termination for a public policy violation created by a Mississippi statute containing one of these laws. However, the majority of states do not have any prohibitions on employers forbidding guns and someone found in violation of policy can be fired for cause.

    Know that employers can often feel caught between competing laws in this area. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “general duty clause” requires employers to take steps to prevent workplace violence, but state laws may give employee rights to bring firearms onto their premises that some may think creates a heightened likelihood of serious violence. Negligent hiring and retention causes of action give victims of violence in the workplace common law claims to make against employers. Management and HR ultimately have to find a seemingly fine line between protecting employees from workplace violence, protecting the company from lawsuits related to any such violence, and complying with state laws vesting individuals with rights that potentially challenge these obligations.

    So make sure you know state laws and at least bring up that the company may not prohibit people from having them locked in their cars even on company premises in those states.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also last I checked at least these states have "gun in car" protection: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Main, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

      But again that's IN THEIR CAR, there have been plenty of cases of employees who took them out, including putting them in someone else's car, and then lost in court. The most direct case I know of was the 6th Circuit one Hoven v. Walgreen, where they flat out stated at-will employment trumps the Second Amendment, short of explicit state public policy exceptions. The 6th Circuit also ruled against the employee's arguments in Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions. In New Hampshire, a guy tried the "discrimination" angle that a bunch of anons have brought up in this thread in Dipigney v. AutoZoners LLC. It didn't work, because he couldn't show the No Guns policy hadn't been applied uniformly, and there was no legal basis prohibiting firing him for just the policy violation.

      However, in a PA case (Leibensperger v. Carpenter Tech) the court DID let it go to trial, because again uniformity came up, except this time it looked like the employer hadn't treated different violators equally.

      So make sure your company understands that any policy it adopts is all or nothing.

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I work for a large company. I keep a gun on me. I don't entrust my safety to corporate "yes" men and ass lickers. That's my policy. No more debate. If the office gets shot up, I'm going to hide somewhere until it blows over, only using the gun to protect just myself. Not point losing a job over some colleagues who failed to protect themselves. I have noticed the response to a treat often put the employee in more danger than if they had just followed their own stupid impulse, like leading employee into enfilade, along paths with chemicals or gasses, or concentrate into killzones far from cover or concealment, to "take a headcount". As far as drivers, they are already packing.

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "If employees with concealed carry permits cannot carry in the workplace, which security measures are you planning to enact as a counter measure for their safety".
    Spin it in a way where it's clear they need to come out of pocket to protect the employees.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Disharm the security team, remove police calls hire dangerous fellons and the next meeting the everyone must have a long gun policy will pass.
    As Deus Ex said make worst until they beg for mercy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Iron and copper

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My grandpa worked for banks his whole life and just never told anyone he carried until he retired and started shooting with the boys

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your company is going to get sued in constitutional carry states, lose money, and get compelled by attorney generals into allowing universal carry.
    They either allow some carry to prevent that or lose big and get all carry

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >leave thread
    >come back
    >the commie moron is unironically claiming lockdowns represent the free market
    I assume he's off sucking another troony right now so for those of you who have actual brains, reducing the power of the fed enough that it CANNOT do things like lockdowns is part of the whole point of being a lolbert. Another thing he seems not to understand is that unless I personally own a business, how it performs is not my concern.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >everyone in the thread is the same as my boogieman
      no beef in this clusterfrick but there are clearly like 20+ anons itt stating different shit about different topics lol but anyone who uses "troony" unironically smells of zigger /misc/ tourist

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ^This, I'm fine with individuals and private business choosing lock down an quarantine voluntarily if they so choose but as soon as Uncle Sam steps in and demands it in the name of 'protecting the children' then that's where I tell me to get fricked.
      >Note: (Microsoft, Zuckbook, and Google don't count as private business since they're very much agents of the anti Christ so no one should be surprised when they do something evil.)

      Also friendly reminder that the US and Chinese government spent two whole years killing small businesses and ruining peoples lives to try and slow the spread of a virus THEY cooperated in creating in the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab in the first place. It's their incompetence or intentional malevolence, a sensible person would simply come to the conclusion that building bio weapons, even half baked ones is evil. So let's just be thankful the so called 'boomer remover' was a bit over hyped and mostly just nipped people who were halfway out the door and on their death bed anyway, (mostly).

      That's my thoughts on the matter however, feel free to call me a homosexual though if you disagree for some reason.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *