[HerrGlock]

http://www.nbc12.com/story/19331070/stor

[RussP]

HerrGlock, wasn't there another story about this, or was it another store owner earlier?

[HerrGlock]

Originally Posted by RussP

HerrGlock, wasn't there another story about this, or was it another store owner earlier?

I don't remember. May have been. It's odd enough that this note actually made the paper that I would imagine this is the only store that does it, that gets reported.

[redbaron007]

Hopefully the robbers don't read this story and enter again.....SURPRISE!!!

I hate thieves!!



red

[nosuchagency]

it's definitely refreshing to see an employer empower his staff/not infringing upon their right to protect themselves (lord knows we see the opposite side of the spectrum all too often). were i a small business owner, i'm uncertain whether i would force this particular decision/life choice upon anyone as a contingency of employment though. .02...

[Chris Chris]

Requiring all employees to have a CCW is, IMHO, no different than banning all employees from having a CCW.

It's a mandate that takes away individual choice, based soley on what their employer feels at the time.

I do applaud an employer that encourages their employees to obtain a CCW and carry at work... but I have problems with the employer mandating it.

[4Rules]

Originally Posted by Chris Chris

Requiring all employees to have a CCW is, IMHO, no different than banning all employees from having a CCW.

It's a mandate that takes away individual choice, based soley on what their employer feels at the time.

I do applaud an employer that encourages their employees to obtain a CCW and carry at work... but I have problems with the employer mandating it.

Suppose that an employer wanted - as a condition of employment - to subject every potential employee to a thorough background check that would necessarily exclude known criminals and those known to be mentally ill, would you have a problem with that too?

[Dukeboy01]

Originally Posted by Chris Chris

Requiring all employees to have a CCW is, IMHO, no different than banning all employees from having a CCW.

It's a mandate that takes away individual choice, based soley on what their employer feels at the time.

I do applaud an employer that encourages their employees to obtain a CCW and carry at work... but I have problems with the employer mandating it.

I agree. If a person hasn't decided for himself that he should carry a firearm for protection, then it seems like a bad idea to put that person in a position where they are being mandated to do so. Let's be honest, some people simply don't have the mindset to effectively use a firearm if they have to. Arming them would be a liability.

Allow your employees to carry if they choose. Encourage them even. But mandating? Seems like a bad idea in the long run.

[Dukeboy01]

Originally Posted by 4Rules

Suppose that an employer wanted - as a condition of employment - to subject every potential employee to a thorough background check that would necessarily exclude known criminals and those known to be mentally ill, would you have a problem with that too?

Apples and oranges. A background check isn't the same as insisting that your employees take on the responsibility of making life and death decisions.

Obviously some jobs require the carrying of weapons as part of the job task, so we're not talking about that. People who take those jobs know that going in. But most jobs don't require the carrying of a weapon as part of the employee's daily tasks.

Mandating that employees who wouldn't have made the choice for themselves to carry a firearm and accept the life and death responsibility that comes with it is a bad idea.

Allow them to carry if they've made the personal choice to do so. Encourage them to do it if you want. But requiring it? You're inviting a lot of liability problems.

[PettyOfficer]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

Apples and oranges. A background check isn't the same as insisting that your employees take on the responsibility of making life and death decisions.

Apples and apples!

Requiring the license is not the same as requiring actual carry. This would be a sneaky way of having employees pay for their own background checks and they can claim it as a work expense on their taxes (even if you don't hire them for failing).

[IndyGunFreak]

Originally Posted by redbaron007

Hopefully the robbers don't read this story and enter again.....SURPRISE!!!

I hate thieves!!



red

My bigger concern is they've actually read it, and will simply walk in shooting.

I'd rather the owner keep this information to himself.

[willy1094]

Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak

My bigger concern is they've actually read it, and will simply walk in shooting.

I'd rather the owner keep this information to himself.

This same thought came to me as I was reading the article. I also agree that requiring employees to get a CDW permit is as bad as not allowing it. There is the cost of getting it and cost of renewing. What if the employee gets one to get the job but then changes their address. This employee may not know that they could be fined (depending on where they live) for not changing it on the permit. Having mine I'd be all for it, but if I didn't I'd tell the potential employer to pound salt.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by Chris Chris

Requiring all employees to have a CCW is, IMHO, no different than banning all employees from having a CCW.

It's a mandate that takes away individual choice, based soley on what their employer feels at the time.

I do applaud an employer that encourages their employees to obtain a CCW and carry at work... but I have problems with the employer mandating it.

I concur. As much as I would like my employer to allow carrying at work, I wouldn’t like being forced to carry either. He also needs to understand that for some, being armed might not mean much to the business as the handgun won’t be drawn unless there is a threat to a person and not just property.

I, for one, might not intervene over property (even my own). The actual circumstances would dictate if being armed would change whether or not there is a robbery.

.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by 4Rules

Suppose that an employer wanted - as a condition of employment - to subject every potential employee to a thorough background check that would necessarily exclude known criminals and those known to be mentally ill, would you have a problem with that too?

I wouldn’t have a problem with that. It is not uncommon for prospective employers to do background checks. That, however, is not imposing a future risky action that goes beyond the duties of the actual position being applied for. Now, if I were applying for an armed security position it would be logical that being armed be part of the requirements. The salary would also need to contemplate the risk at hand.

.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

I agree. If a person hasn't decided for himself that he should carry a firearm for protection, then it seems like a bad idea to put that person in a position where they are being mandated to do so. Let's be honest, some people simply don't have the mindset to effectively use a firearm if they have to. Arming them would be a liability.

Allow your employees to carry if they choose. Encourage them even. But mandating? Seems like a bad idea in the long run.

Even if they do have the mindset, you still have some of us that won’t entertain its use for the protection of property. Even if it is allowed and encouraged I would not like to disclose to an employer that I’m armed and licensed. I get to be the sole decision maker as to when and why that firearm is drawn and have no desire to answer questions such as “why did you allow xxxx to happen if you’re armed and could have prevented it?”

That is among the reasons some people don’t know I’m armed. I don’t want eyes on me or comments like “Do something!” if I don’t believe the time and conditions are right.

.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by HerrGlock

http://www.nbc12.com/story/19331070/stor

He gets the added benefit of all employees having a better background check than employment usually requires and having it updated during employment. Unfortunately, it looks like it will limit his employee choices.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak

My bigger concern is they've actually read it, and will simply walk in shooting.

I'd rather the owner keep this information to himself.

Those are robbers from the movies you are thinking of - there are very, very few real ones like that.

[dpadams6]

Actually, on private property, his employees would not need a ccw to carry INSIDE HIS STORE as long as he allows it.

[HerrGlock]

Originally Posted by dpadams6

Actually, on private property, his employees would not need a ccw to carry INSIDE HIS STORE as long as he allows it.

But as was said before, he gets a background check out of the deal without paying for it.

I see it just like a requirement to wear pants to work. This job requires X, Y, Z. That job requires A, B, C. Choose which you are okay to work with given those requirements and apply for the job.

The only time I get annoyed at "No guns at work" is the ones that also believe they can disallow them left in the car in the parking lot. You can say they're not allowed in the work place, you do not have the right to declare the person not allowed to carry to and from work as well and that's exactly what you're doing, plus infringing on THEIR property rights by saying what they can or cannot have in their private cars.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by PettyOfficer

Apples and apples!

Requiring the license is not the same as requiring actual carry. This would be a sneaky way of having employees pay for their own background checks and they can claim it as a work expense on their taxes (even if you don't hire them for failing).

If the employer does no background checks, then yes, it would be a little more than they did before. If they do background checks it would not be a substitution. Have you any clue how many people with criminal/arrest records that don’t exceed the actual exclusionary requirements have concealed licenses?

It is possible that employers may have requirements that are a bit more stringent that the ones shown in 790.23 in the Florida Status http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.23.html

Comments implying that a person with a concealed license equates to a person that is law-abiding nearly always makes me roll my eyes. To me it just means they had no convictions that puts them over the threshold.

.

[HerrGlock]

Originally Posted by Misty02

If the employer does no background checks, then yes, it would be a little more than they did before. If they do background checks it would not be a substitution. Have you any clue how many people with criminal/arrest records that don’t exceed the actual exclusionary requirements have concealed licenses?

It is possible that employers may have requirements that are a bit more stringent that the ones shown in 790.23 in the Florida Status http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.23.html

Comments implying that a person with a concealed license equates to a person that is law-abiding nearly always makes me roll my eyes. To me it just means they had no convictions that puts them over the threshold.

.

Considering how few mom and pop shops do ANY background investigation, the little bit they do for CCW cannot be anything but a step up. Dunno about others but I've never said having a CCW says you're an automatic saint but it does say you're probably felony free and more than likely violent misdemeanor free as well and that's better than just doing a credit check on a prospective employee in my book.

[Dukeboy01]

I guess I misunderstood the situation. I assumed that if you were going to require your employees to have a CCDW that you were going to require them to carry a gun as well. I hadn't considered the background check aspect of it.

So, all we can say for certain at this point is that he wants them to have the license, but he's not going to require them to carry. Still not a good idea, IMO, especially if you're going to advertise it through the media.

[HerrGlock]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

I guess I misunderstood the situation. I assumed that if you were going to require your employees to have a CCDW that you were going to require them to carry a gun as well. I hadn't considered the background check aspect of it.

So, all we can say for certain at this point is that he wants them to have the license, but he's not going to require them to carry. Still not a good idea, IMO, especially if you're going to advertise it through the media.

I would imagine his thinking is along these lines:

I've got a CCW.
This store I'm working at has been held up numerous times in the past.

Then put 2 and 2 together and start carrying at work.

I would hope he doesn't mandate carrying at work but if that's part of the job requirements, I really don't have a problem with that either.

[IndyGunFreak]

Originally Posted by Bren

Those are robbers from the movies you are thinking of - there are very, very few real ones like that.

No doubt... but I sure as heck don't want to push someone from a "standard robbery" to this level because they know the clerk is likely armed.

I understand this sort of thing isn't common. About 3-4yrs ago, a local guy who had ran a small window/glass repair business for years, was found murdered in his shop here in Indy. He was well known in the area, and you never saw him w/o a gun on his hip (openly carried) while in his shop.

If he had carried concealed would his murder have been prevented? I don't know. I also often wonder if the fact he was "openly carrying" didn't cause a shooter to "come in shooting".

Unfortunately, the crime remains unsolved to my knowledge.

[ADK_40GLKr]

Originally Posted by Chris Chris

Requiring all employees to have a CCW is, IMHO, no different than banning all employees from having a CCW.

It's a mandate that takes away individual choice, based soley on what their employer feels at the time.

I do applaud an employer that encourages their employees to obtain a CCW and carry at work... but I have problems with the employer mandating it.

LEOs, security guards & military contractors are examples of other folks who might be required to have their own CCW by employer...if "security guard" is part of the job description, it's their choice to apply for the job, or quit if already employed.

But I would hope the employer would provide some training with the requirement.