Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Ordered a couple of magazines for my Combat Commander. Didn’t like them, wanted to return. My usual shipper is the UPS Store on Lexington but no, their franchise agreement says they can’t ship guns or gun parts which they interpret broadly to protect their franchise. Fair enough, they gave me directions to the UPS hub in Minneapolis where I found this sign.
Guy at the counter confirmed they can ship magazines – even loaded ones, if I declare it – but no, I can’t carry my pistol on my belt while I drop off the gun parts I’m returning. He was perfectly nice about it, that’s just the company policy. The logic of higher management escapes me.
Joe Doakes
It reminds me of all the companies I’ve worked for that put “Workplace Violence Policy” chapters in their employee manuals. The “policy” invariably involves forbidding guns on company property – which, perforce, means barring the law-abiding from defending themselves against, well, workplace violence.
Interesting fact: As libertarian as the Koch brothers are they still ban firearms at all their facilities.
People are just not logical. People are frightened of guns that are carried by law abiding citizens, but actually believe a metal sign posted at a door will protect them? If this were a game of rock-paper-scissors, I’m going for the gun over the metal sign….
Considering the litigious nature of our society, I’m not surprised by any company policy banning guns and other weapons. Until a CWP holder is injured or killed, and his inability to protect himself due to posted company signs is part of the successful civil suit, the advice of company lawyers will be to post weapons bans.
What Smith said. The default legal position is that you can be sued if you allow guns, but you cannot if you do not. So guess what company lawyers say? I would guess as well that the reality of adverse responses to management action weighs in their decisions, too. At least one company I used to work for had a policy that when a manager terminated an employee, he could request armed guard, and that company had an RIF where there were multiple ones. More or less “if you can’t manage your way out of a cardboard box, you’d better maintain a monopoly on force.”
I’m guessing the case Smith refers to will be hard–the company so sued will note that the employee “agreed” to the provisions.
BB,
I’m not talking about an employee, though my wife had standing orders to sue the heck out of my employer if I was injured or killed while on the road trying to create sales.
The scenario I’m talking about will be a customer that is hurt. Think Mall of America with their posting, or some other retail establishment. My employer bans “team members” from carrying while on the clock, though at some locations we hire armed security theater, but does not post a “Guns are banned…” sign. I know of at least one team member that is known to carry while shopping.
Smith; I’m guessing that if a shopper is hurt, the argument will be the same. By walking past the sign, they agreed that they were willing to be a victim if a criminal ignored the sign.
Grotesque legal logic, I concede. But what else can we conclude?
It is an amoral gotcha:
Don’t post, you get sued for willingly allowing felons to carry guns onto your property.
Post, and put law abiding citizens at higher risk, while avoiding getting sued by feral, amoral and depraved leftist bastards.
There is only loser – the law abiding citizen. But then, they are just the litlte people, the sheople, the peeons, the necessary evil necessary to keep enslaved by the feral, amoral and depraved leftist bastards in power..