FedEx crime scene

“Allowing employees to have near, immediate access to firearms, at work, creates an element of risk that is unacceptable.” Mark Hogan, vice president of security for FedEx, quoted in Guns-in-Parking-Lots Foes Speak Their Piece [2012 via tnreport.com]

Recommended For You

114 Responses to Quote of the Day: How’d That Work Out for You? Edition

      • Hah!!! I am confident that comment will be a front runner for best comment of the day on the InterWebz!

        Thanks for the morning laugh!

        • Bahahaha see what laws get you? DEAD, or seriously wounded. The only people that pay attention to laws are law abiding citizens, Duh, the shooter sure didn’t, so in those cases where people are getting shot and are dying what do you do, ignore the stupid law and shoot the sucker. At least then you don’t have over a dozen wounded and an active shooter still running around, unless it takes a while for you to get there. You might have 1 dead and several wounded but the shooter would be among the dead.

    • I doubt the sprint to the parking lot and back would be timely nor once out of the building, any of us would/should return to do battle. Parking lot guns rarely can be deployed in time. (yes, there was the small parking lot AutoZone one)
      And being adamant about Rights, as most of us are, we must acknowledge FedEx has the right to set policy on their property, just as you do. The only thing we can debate on the issue is the policy’s wisdom, not who gets to decide.

      The main point of concern for me would be the to and from commute to work being disarmed.

      • We have touched on this topic before and I will revisit it since many visitors to this site may not have seen past discussions.

        I think almost everyone will agree that private property owners have extremely wide latitude to set policies for their property. That being said, I want to point out that private property owners do not have infinite latitude: for example no private property owner can create a policy whereby they can murder guests.

        So, what is a logical limit for private property policies? Policies that needlessly endanger and/or harm guests without any benefit to the guest whatsoever are beyond the limit.

        Let’s look at the workplace in this light. We know that criminals attack and kill employees in the work place. Therefore a workplace policy that forbids all employees from being armed with personal firearms for self-defense provides no benefit to the employees whatsoever and needlessly endangers them. Therefore such a policy is impermissible. If a workplace policy required armed employees to carry concealed, that would be permissible because it does not needlessly endanger nor harm an employee.

        I know some of you are thinking, “But armed employees might increase the employer’s liability insurance rates or expose the employer to lawsuits … thus increasing the employers expenses. Isn’t that a legitimate reason for the employer to forbid armed employees?” Answer: NO. First, any number of things can happen at an employer and result in someone suing the employer. Second, employers absorb lots of employee related expenses … such as ventilation systems for employees who work with noxious chemicals. These are simply costs of doing business. If an employer’s liability insurance company wants to increase rates because employees might be armed, that is simply a cost of doing business.

        • Common sense would be that companies or businesses disarming people requires responsibility and liability on their part for the defense of those people. Does that seem too much to ask, that if Fedex disarms its employees it is also required to at the very least provide armed security to replace it. Metal detectors, entry control points, and armed guards like that vetoed Arizona law would require.

        • I agree, if you prevent me from defending myself, then you are responsible, morally and (hopefully eventually) fiscally for my protection. A few high-profile lawsuits after a mass shooting putting a few companies out of business would probably do the trick for significant portion of gun free zones. They claim to make it a gun free zone due to liability, let’s make the opposite true as it should be.

        • At a very minimum, in no civilized society would someone who hires you to do a job for them, somehow be “liable” for whatever else you may happen to do. That whole racket is just another wealth transfer to lawyers, public union salaried court drones and other expendables.

          Private property owners should absolutely be able to prevent someone from carrying guns on their property. Just as they should be able to prevent women from wearing clothes. Government simply has no business interfering in any way whatsoever. Nothing prevents those who prefer not going naked, from going somewhere else. The civilized way to solve any issues stemming from the inability to set up a competing shop across the street, is to keep paring away IP and other “protections” until setting up a competing shop across the street is no longer a problem.

          Having the government, or the local strongman or the Mafia, or any other such organization, insert themselves into the mix as some sort of referees, simply lends them credibility. Which none of them have ever in history earned, and never should be given. If FedEx operates a bunch of unarmed facilities, those less starry eyed and stupid should simply refrain fro paying taxes to fund police forces to come to FedEx’ rescue when some opportunists figure their facilities are a cool place to rob and shoot up. Then, over time, those organizations with the most sensible policies will win, while the insensible will disappear. That’s how society becomes better. Not by everyone grabbing their ankles while hoping some goon army will make their pathetic little lives feel better.

      • Let me try out my common sense, here. I say, if one of the dead or wounded holds a carry permit, the award (or most likely settlement) will be low-to-mid 9 figures. Then the company can recompute its rules.

  1. As a recipient of FedEx packages I have been traumatized by this event and I believe FedEx should be held accountable for my pain and suffering.

    On a serious note, Mike Hogan Vice President of security should be freshening up his resume about now.

  2. In 12 years, I know of no shots ever fired on our campus

    Virginia Tech
    Appalachian School of Law
    Bard’s College
    California State University
    Case Western Reserve University
    Delaware State University
    Northern Illinois University
    Oikos University
    San Diego State University
    University of Alabama
    University of Arkansas
    University of Central Arkansas
    University of Iowa
    University of Texas

    But it could never ever possibly happen here, so piss on you.

  3. When are these rhetoric spewing clowns going to be removed from their jobs and booted out on their ass for being stupid, ignorant, and above all, wrong about everything they say?

  4. There is always a risk of bad things, and we must accept that. Falling packages, slipping on a spilled soda, a disgruntled visitor [see what I did, there?] or Gods know what.

    “Allowing employees to have near, immediate access to guns” helps to mitigate a whole class of problems that might arise, and thus reduces the overall level of risk.

    • Outstanding point Russ. It is impossible to eliminate risk. We can only minimize it. And armed employees definitely minimize the risk of armed robbery or disgruntled employees/patrons from harming lots of employees.

  5. FedEx is liable for failing to properly protect its employees. Can’t wait to have popcorn and beer to watch this one play out.

    • What makes FEDEX likely to lose the case is the lack of armed security personnel. From a liability standpoint you don’t need to allow your employees and customers to carry their own firearms. You can provide effective armed security instead. FEDEX management has probably already used risk analysis to do the financial calculations. It is the same set of conditions that makes malls post as gun free zones. If the guard shoots the wrong person they get sued. If an armed employee shoots the wrong person in an active shooter situation or goes beserk they get sued. By maintaining a faux gun free environment they are betting that the chances of getting sued are less because the probability of an event like this is rare. It’s a calculated risk that really has nothing to with management’s personal view on the Second Amendment.

      • I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone successfully suing a business for being a ‘gun free zone’.

        • The suit would be about a gun free zone, it would based on inadequate security. FEDEX obviously thought that bad things could happen because they provided security. However, they were negligent because the security was unarmed and therefore couldn’t not stop an attack. If they had no security then they would have no liability. It is their decision not to arm their guards that puts them on the hook.

    • I like beer and I like popcorn but never together.
      Popcorn and Coke (must be muscle memory from the movies)

  6. It drives me nuts when they start spouting off about “untrained” people. Do they think the training standards were written before the dawn of time and handed down by god himself to the fraternal order of police? Well I’ve got news for them, it wasnt. These training standards come from normal peoples experience and don’t require a shiny badge to be understood.

    • I wonder if someone can draft up a legal document that lays out the “allowed” uses of a gun, rules for storage, etc for companies to use.

      Something like “Keep the gun holstered at all times”, “do not handle the weapon on premises unless there is an immediate threat”, etc.

      • I have been harping on your very point to many people for a long time. A handgun in a properly fitting holster will NEVER EVER GO BANG. So if an employer thinks they can trust their employees to not bring firearms into work, they can certainly trust them to keep any firearms in properly fitting holsters … thus eliminating negligent discharges.

        The liability problem is simple: an employer workplace policy must require employees to keep handguns in properly fitting holsters at all times unless an attack is occurring. Beyond that, a disgruntled employee or patron who is willing to murder employees is more than willing to violate a “gun free zone”.

    • They ALWAYS mention “untrained” people, like the police have a monopoly on being trained. Guess what? Some of us private citizens have better training than your average officer. Some of us put more rounds downrange in a month than most officers do in a year.

      Sure, probably a lot of people get their concealed carry permits and never train a day in their life. Here in NC we have to qualify, and some of the people I’ve seen shoot…well, I’d not want them defending me. HOWEVER, what is the national hit ratio of shots fired by LEOs? Like 15%, I believe. How many bystanders have the NYPD alone shot up trying to get a bad guy?

      But then these geniuses try to call everyone untrained like we’re somehow more dangerous with firearms than cops are. Not to mention that as a citizen if I were to hit a bystander I would be SCREWED. As an officer? Not so much.

  7. “Allowing employees to have near, immediate access to firearms, at work, creates an element of risk that is unacceptable.”

    Guys, he’s not talking about the risk to the employees. He’s talking about the risk to THE COMPANY!
    Dollars and cents bottom line: FedEx isn’t liable when some madman walks into the building shooting. The body count is irrelevant, because the company isn’t on the hook for criminal acts by a third party. They just mop up the blood and carry on.

    But if a person employed by the company , in this case FedEx, shoots a spree killer dead at the front door-the scumbag’s family can and WILL go after the company and the employee for tort. Even if the company wins, it’ll be a five figure legal bill to pay for the defense.

    So, its basically cheaper to let your employees die then to risk exposure if they defend themselves. Gotta love tort law in America!

    • Some things to keep in mind about Mr. Hogan’s [probably] soon to be open position (some Universal Security Truths):

      * Security has NEVER been a profit center.
      * Security’s job has always been to reduce liability for the company.
      * A Security VP slot is usually filled by a retired ex-cop or federal LE Manager, because they’re fairly cheap to operate and easy to replace [see first point].
      * Posting the right sign is always cheaper than committing resources in the long run [see first point].
      * Arbitrators will usually side with the company [who just happens to be paying their fee].

  8. Ludicrous Logic of both Business & Government herd policy of signage, followed by “Awe it’s too bad you died today” but to keep everyone safe…..except for the medicated lunatic, who has more “rights” than law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves.

  9. Substitute “citizens” for “employees” and this Mark Hogan guy sounds like he could be giving a speech as the next police commish of Newark or Chicago.

  10. “Sen. Mike Bell, R-Riceville, asked Hogan if FedEx, which has property across the country, had encountered problems in any states that allow employees to store guns in their cars on company lots. Hogan said that he did not know of any problems in those states, but that FedEx had opposed those laws as well.”

    Translation: We at FedEx don’t have any sound reasoning why we oppose this, but we’re not going to let that deter us from announcing to every criminal in earshot that FedEx employees are, by FedEx policy, defenseless and vulnerable.

  11. This happened a few miles from my home. I knew some people on that shift. I wish that at least one were carrying.

  12. “FedEx should be allowed to continue to implement policies that are designed to protect our employees from irrational or heat-of-the-moment actions by their co-workers,” he said. “Allowing employees to have near [change that to “no”], immediate access to firearms, at work, creates an element of risk that is unacceptable.” [to the employees]

  13. This was a response to tin hat but copying here as a general statement.
    I doubt the sprint to the parking lot and back would be timely nor once out of the building, any of us would/should return to do battle. Parking lot guns rarely can be deployed in time. (yes, there was the small parking lot AutoZone one)
    And being adamant about Rights, as most of us are, we must acknowledge FedEx has the right to set policy on their property, just as you do. The only thing we can debate on the issue is the policy’s wisdom, not who gets to decide.
    Who here is saying that right should be legislated away from them or you?

    The main point of concern for me would be the to and from commute to work being disarmed.

    • Someone else posted a comment on this topic a while back along the lines of:

      Their property rights end at my person. I’m carrying on MY body, not on their property.

      • Your body is on my property,
        I may have conditions for your welcome,
        Not met?
        Please leave.
        Could be, “I don’t like you”
        Could be “I don’t like your gun”
        Could be “Any Reason”
        No matter, you and your gun protrudes into MY space (unless your that girl with the NAA .22) and your right to occupy that space ends at my property line.

        • On a tangential note, I was checking out the all new gun counter at my local Rural King last night and they had a NAA under the glass. My wife couldn’t understand why I couldn’t stop laughing.

          On the my body vs. your property thing, all it really does is raise an interesting argument.

        • While I might agree with your libertarian premise, the sad truth is that your “property rights” argument has long since been nullified by the Feds.

          Your assertion “I may have conditions for your welcome, Not met? Please leave.” is simply is no longer true.

          If your condition was for example “No dogs, period” you have run afoul of the ADA and a blind person can bring their dog on to your property weather you like it or not. If you are a racist piece of crap whose condition bars people of a particular race (or gender, or religion for that matter), you have run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.

          Sadly, at this point property rights are defined by what your special interest group can force upon property owners. I would happily accept going back to property rights in their entirety, but our opponents would and have used the law to prevent property owners from allowing carry even if they want to (churches, daycare, private schools, bars, etc), so I have no problem responding in kind.

        • North American Arms. They make the mini revolver, there have been a couple of TTAG articles (can’t find the links) wherein gun owners of the female persuasion use them to practice deep, deep concealment.

          And I have to say, after seeing one in person (the gun…) the review from a while back does not do justice to the scale of just how tiny the thing is.

        • KCK,

          The entire idea of property rights is that you own your property and manage the use of your property. That means no one can confiscate your property (except through due process). And you direct how people may use your property. Whether or not a person is armed has no impact on the use of your property and obviously does not confiscate your property. That is why a property owner has no right to tell a person that they cannot be armed.

          Keep in mind this is totally unrelated to “freedom of association”. You are certainly free to associate with anyone you desire for any reason that you desire — as well as not associate with anyone you desire for any reason that you desire. If you do not wish to associate with someone because they like guns or carry guns, that is your right and you are both free to go your separate ways. But you owning property does not give you the right to disarm someone.

  14. I wish he’d be honest and just say “if we allowed it our insurance rates would jump way up so to save a buck we’re opting to be a ‘sitting duck’ zone. I’m sure our employees won’t mind being completely vulnerable to any nut off the street.”

  15. Said it before, and I’ll say it again, being on your property doesn’t make me your property.

    • Tell you what you show on my property with a gun and decide you are a threat I will shoot you and I probably won’t even be prosecuted. Being on my property doesn’t make you my property it makes you either a guest or a threat.

      • Would you shoot someone for merely having a gun on your property?

        Say for example, I were a delivery man bringing something to your home, would you blast me just for being noticeably armed?

        Do you ask everyone that comes to your home to please disarm before entering?

        This seems like a “rights for me, but no rights for thee” argument.

        • I guess you missed the guest or threat. A deliveryman would have my permission to be on my property. A door-to-door solicitor would not. The I am going to shoot you because you have a gun on my property without permission is an exaggeration to make a point. The Constitution protects private property rights. It makes sure that I can do what I want including prohibit people from bringing objects I don’t like on my property. Guns are used to protect property rights not the other way around.

        • Do you remember the story here on TTAG a few weeks ago where the two people were going door to door to pass out fliers for a pro-gun, open carry event and one of them was open carrying?

          Folks here came out of the woodwork to say they’d shoot the dude on their porch…for having a gun in a holster on his belt. Dude HAS A GUN, he must be a threat.

          That response provided some interesting insights.

        • td,

          Oh no, I got the that part, I just don’t understand the rest.

          Such as, one right trumps another, or one’s rights trumps another’s rights.

          I don’t think works like that…

          9th Amendment:
          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

          The founders put the 9th A in place as a hedge against being denied rights not expressly written in the Bill of Rights. But, you can also view it simply as “one right is no less important or less valid than another.” They are all equal.

          Your property rights don’t trump other people’s 2nd amendment rights, and visa verse, I’m deny you right to property, just to denying you being able to controlling me while on your property.

          One again, I am not your property.

        • The Bill of Rights constrains the Federal government and after the passage of the 14th Amendment the State Governments as well. It does not constrain the rights of individuals. If you think your right to carry a gun on to my property trumps my rights to say no then what property rights do I have left intact? Can you also come on to my property to post signs, have a political rally or religious service? If my property rights don’t trump your Second Amendment rights then they don’t trump First Amendment rights either. Or do you believe that the Second Amendment is more equal than any other amendment or enumerated right?

        • Well, that’s the way you see it, then that’s the way you see it.

          Im not changing my mind and your not changing yours.

          Just don’t cry foul when others citizens disarm you and are justifiably allowed.

        • That’s how I see it and that is their right to do so on their property. My solution is to not go where I am not wanted. Your solution is to sieze their property.

          You confuse personal autonomy with liberty and as such you are no friend of liberty.

        • “Can you also come on to my property to post signs, have a political rally or religious service?”

          Apples to baseball bat comparison.

          Carrying a weapon on one’s person is not controlling, modifying or denying you use of your private property in any way.

          Those things you listed do. If I post a sign, I am changing (or may even be damaging) your property. Holding a rally involves denying you use AND means inviting guests onto your property that I would have not standing to do without your permission.

          Carrying a gun on my person does none of those things; it does not cause any infringement of your right to control your property at all.

          I’m not saying I would carry at your house against your wishes, but there is a very clear distinction between “property” and “person.”

        • “You confuse personal autonomy with liberty and as such you are no friend of liberty.”

          I actually laughed out loud at this one, good show.

          That’s a high horse you got there, brother, and you look good on it.

        • Rockon:

          It is you who need to get off your high horse and you better not do it my property. 🙂

          JR:

          You are saying that yes indeed the Second Amendment is more equal than the others. I have a right to control my own property for any reason whether damage is involved or not because it is my property. I can kick you off because I don’t way dress, speak or act. Every see signs that say no shirt, no service? As long as it is enforce without regard to race, religion or sex (and in some states sexual preference) I can do it.

        • You are completely conflating two very different principles.

          Yes, you can kick me off your property for ANY reason you choose…and you don’t even have to provide a reason. “Get off my property” is sufficient.

          But that’s not the same thing as “Take your gun off.” Or, “Change your shirt.”

          That’s the distinction that is being made. You are claiming your right to “control your property” exceeds the 2A and I’m saying they are COMPLETELY ORTHOGONAL.

          You cannot ask me to change my shirt or take my gun off, so long as I have otherwise a legal right to be on your property. Try it. Call the cops and ask them to arrest someone on your property for wearing the wrong color shirt…OR carrying a gun (if legal to do so there).

          Here’s what they will tell you: “I cannot arrest them for that. They are violating no law. Now, if you want them to leave, ask them to leave. If they don’t, I will arrest them.”

          In my state, there is no statute that requires me to disarm myself because you ask me to, whether on your own property or anywhere else. There *IS* a law that requires me to leave if you ask me to leave.

          These distinctions are vital to understand if you are going to throw out terms like “property rights vs 2nd Amendment Rights” as some sort of bright line hierarchy. There is no such hierarchy because they apply to distinctly different things.

          As I said…apples to baseball bats.

        • JR:

          You are missing something big time. I indeed can tell you that if you want to come on to my property you must disarm. That does not violate your rights in any way, You can leave or you can comply. It’s your choice If you fail to heed me I can have you arrested for tresspassing. In some states, like Texas, the property owner is within rights to shoot you.

        • You are completely missing my point. You cannot have me arrested for refusing to disarm at all. You can have me arrested for refusing to leave if you ask me to for ANY reason.

          I’m trying to separate the 2A issue from the trespassing.

          If I am legally on your property (ie, you have not asked me to leave), you cannot disarm me. As I said. Try it. Try to have me arrested for refusing to take off my gun.

          Trespassing does not “attach” (for lack of a better word) because I’m carrying a gun. It becomes trepassing as soon as I am no longer legally on your property which is when you ask me to leave and I refuse to do so.

          You are saying your property rights are more important than my 2A right, and I’m saying that’s not true at all. Your property rights have precisely ZERO to do with my 2A rights.

          The distinction is important. You keep saying you can have arrested for trespassing, but that’s NOT a second amendment issue at all; nor is it saying “property rights trump 2A rights” because it has nothing to do with the gun.

          They are orthogonal rights not linear ones on a hierarchy.

          You cannot disarm me. You can, However, ask that I leave your property. You have not trumped my 2A Rights at all, because the Second Amendment says NOTHING about my being on your property one way or another.

          It is pointless to keep this going. So…whatever.

        • Ar you dense? Your claim is that because of the Second Amendment I can’t ban you from my property because you are armed. In one sense you are correct. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it because it doesn’t apply to me, a private individual, in this case. It only applies to the government. Your initial claim is that I can’t tell you to leave the gun at the property line because you are not my property is irrelevant and nonsensical. Your right is either to comply or leave and if I tell you to leave you must do so under penalty of law. Look up the Castle Doctrine. It might help you understand this.

        • Oh, Dear God in heaven, and you are calling ME dense?

          Geez. Please. Re-read my post. Then Re-read it again. And then again as many times as it takes to actually understand what I actually said.

      • tdiinva,
        With JR and Rockon on this board, we can see the general lack of ability to reason. Why I point this out is because if we can’t reason with pro 2A people how can we expect to get anywhere with anti’s.

        “Carrying a gun on my person does none of those things; it does not cause any infringement of your right to control your property at all.”
        What can you tell JR that the standing on your property with out permission is the violation and have him understand that.
        It is NOT the GUN, it is you on the property with out permission that is the infringment.
        JR, Rockon, does this make sense?

        • Unless I’m mistaken, we are taking about banning the carrying of guns on the private property. So, basically, you can come on to this property, unless you have a gun. As such, it’s all about the gun.

          No trespassing on private property is one thing. But, no trespassing only for people who are excising their 2nd A rights is something else. Why if you leave your gun at home are you now, not trespassing?

          It’s not the person, it’s the gun.

        • Wow, dude. No reason? So I’m just a big dumb-ass, huh? Nice respectful debate we are having.

          I’m open to reasonable arguments. Not keen on closed minded insults, though.

          You see, I brought up a legal principle as the difference. The dude tried to equate something on my person as EQUAL TO me inviting others to gather on this property. That’s just pure nonsense.

          Let’s say instead of the gun, we are talking about he does not like the color shirt I’m wearing. Can he ask me to leave? Sure. If I refuse, that’s trespassing. I could be arrested for that. I will not be arrested for wearing a shirt he did not like.

          He does not have to produce a REASON for his asking me to leave…color of my shirt, gun, belief in God or whatever. He asks me to go, I gotta go. THAT’S property rights. THAT’S control of property. If I refuse to leave, I am denying him that control of his own property, and that is a crime defined in statute.

          But, that’s not what he said. He said that was equal to me going onto his property (assumed invited) carrying gun when he does not want me to carry a gun…not that he does not want me to be there. There’s jack squat he can do about that unless and until he either (a) ASKS me to leave or (b) he has posted a sign (in a State where such signs carry force of law). Too bad you don’t agree.

          In other words…he can call the cops and have me arrested if he asks me to leave and I don’t, but what exactly is the charge going to be if he calls the cops complaining that I won’t take my gun off and leave it in the car?

          The CCH law here says with my permit, I can carry a gun EVERYWHERE except certain places that are listed in the law. One of those is “POSTED Property.” Someone just asking me to take off my gun has PRECISELY ZERO legal recourse unless he asks me to leave, at which point it becomes trespassing if I don’t. The law does not REQUIRE me to honor his request to disarm; the law does not give HIM the authority to disarm me verbally, on his property or anywhere else in the State.

          Unless there is a specific statute prohibiting something, the cops can’t do anything. That’s kinda part of the whole Constitutional government thing we have going on here. Carrying a gun on his property is NOT AGAINST THE LAW except under certain circumstances….posted sign, for example.

          Really, man. Your whole bit was out there. If you have a counterpoint and want to discuss / debate it, that’s cool with me. If you are just going to stand high and mighty and act like you have all the answers with such a closed mind that you cannot even at least see other points of view, I guess I’m done. Flinging insults back and forth is counterproductive.

      • How can we cry foul with the disarmament crowd, yet make this argument.

        I can’t wrap my mind around it.

        • Honest question, then. How is that statement consistent with me wearing a gun ON MY PERSON?

          My person is where I begin. Are you saying, as it appears that you are, that property rights as a legal principle can be used to limit what another person wears or has in his pockets?

          If you answer “no,” then why would property rights extend to a gun on my person? Especially if we are talking from a RKBA “shall not be infringed” standpoint or even just a statutory standpoint CCH permits and laws?

          I’m genuinely curious as to your answer to this. My state’s carry laws specifically state that I can carry ANYWHERE in the State except those exceptions explicitly stated in the law; non-posted private property is NOT listed as an exception.

          So, are you saying that his “property rights” extend to my person when I am legally carrying, even though we are specifically talking about ON MY PERSON?

          I’m NOT asking about trespassing. Let’s leave that out of it for a moment. Let’s say that I have every legal right to be on his property and am legally carrying.

          If he tells me, “Take off your gun; I don’t want guns on my property,” do you believe I have an obligation to honor that request?

          (Note I worded this carefully…I did not have him say “Take off your gun or leave” for a reason. I want to leave the trespass issue out of this particular question).

        • That’s exactly what it does, some of the pro-folks here are making the case for the anti-folks to disarm us, we are figuratively shooting ourselves in the foot.

          You can’t disarms us, that’s our job!

        • Yep, that’s exactly what it is.

          OMG! I SEE A GUN! It must be a bad guy!

          RHC, I am having trouble wrapping my head around it, too. As I did before when similar points have come up.

        • Rights for me, but no rights for thee.

          I swear, some people’s kids, man. *shakes head*

        • Open, maybe, concealed, not so much. I’ve been in all manner of posted “no guns” areas, I just don’t tell them! That’s what “concealed” means. When they get around to having an armed guard and a metal detector, making me take off my belt and empty my pockets, I (and most of their customers) will stay away in droves. Getting in a poop-flinging contest is just silly.

    • Yes, like the cop pointing is saying
      “we can’t go in this door because of the sign, you, you go around the side to see if they have signs on all the doors”

  16. Since it is corporate annual mtg time, someone should have a small child go to the fedex mtg holding a sign (after clearing security) that reads “don’t let my daddy die for your executive bonus”

    Priceless

    • Ok, don’t take this the wrong way, but is there a class on “evil ideas 101” in law school? ‘Cuz I’m pretty twisted, but I know several lawyers and they all come up with meaner (read: better) ideas than I could ever dream of…

  17. Being self-employed doesn’t seem so bad. At least I can protect myself ( even though I’m struggling right now ). Is there any way to hurt FedEx? I wish my business didn’t have to use FedEx. Maybe more US postal & slow delivery is an option LOL. Yeah I know there gun free too.

  18. The “security” at FedEx was to protect FedEx from thieves and looters that work at FedEx. This was EGRESS security not INGRESS security. Their main job is to act as a deterrent to employees (including many temp, part time, and holiday workers) who might try to walk out with stolen items.

    Standard American Corporate Security Theater. We’ve done a C/B analysis and we can either protect our bottom line, or your lives, but not both. Sorry. (But we will put up an appearance of security if that makes you feel any better.)

  19. Folks, lets take a step back for a moment. I personally disagree with FedEx’s policy of No Guns On The Premises.

    BUT!!!!

    That is their right as property owners to establish that policy. Their building, their office, their rules. It may not be a smart policy, but its still their right to set up. How can people here seriously say “the 2nd Amendment is a civil right” and in the same breath violate the equally sacrosanct right of the property holder?

    Before someone jumps down my throat about “my right to defend myself trumps the building owner’s comfort”, lets remember that you didn’t pay for the building-the building owner did. You didn’t establish the business or own the property, which means in fact you DONT have the right to ignore the guidelines. That fact is so plain even the freakin’ anti-rights JUDICIARY legally recognizes this.

    If Uncle Sam can’t tell me to disarm in my own home, then I can’t tell FedEx to take up arms in their “house”.

    • The property rights argument is a good one, but there is another gray area.

      They are NOT providing any form of security on the property. Unarmed guards that are more Loss Prevention Officers are not security.

      I mind less disarming to enter the Sheriff’s Office when I have business there. There’s a metal detector, an officer or two at the entrance and there are armed open-carrying deputies all over the place.

      Fed Ex and other businesses advertise their service and thus encourage people to come into their property. They have employees who are earning livings to provide for themselves and families.

      The problem is that Gun Free Zone stuff promulgated by “gun violence” thinking seeks to absolve them of all responsibility in any way. Yes; I don’t HAVE to go to Fed Ex. But…where does one draw the line? If EVERY shipper has such a sign, do I not get to participate in the shipping of goods? What if MY business / livelihood depended on shipping?

      There’s no easy answer here. It’s not a simple problem. Private Property is private property, but they are not a business operating in a vacuum.

      Personally, I can respect them putting up the sign or having the policy. Like it is said…their choice. But, since this incident happened, have they stood up and said, “Yeah, we failed to protect our employees. We accept responsibility.”

      I don’t know…truthfully, I don’t know. Where is the line? It gets to the whole “we should FEEL SAFE” in our schools and homes, but that’s a basic lie. They can SAY that…but it is a lie. There is no guarantee of safety ANYWHERE whether there’s a “Gun Free Zone” sign or not.

      • As both ST and I have pointed out above FEDEX gun free policy probably has little to do with their personal beliefs about the Second Amendment and everything to do with how the tort system effects their bottom line. By conflating their gun free zone with say MDA’s concept will get you nowhere near understanding this. Companies like FEDEX are all about operation research based decision making. They probably have run the numbers and saw that gun free is the financially smart thing to do.

        • I get that and yeah, it makes a lot of sense.

          But, it does not answer the basic question: Are they now saying, “Yes, this incident was worse than it could have been since we banned weapons on our property”?

          No; they are not.

          Let’s ask the question another way…one that appeals to their bottom line. There is a body of research by those that study the doo-doo out of this stuff that shows that “active shooters” stop when they meet serious, armed resistance. Often, that means suicide.

          So, from an insurers stand point, why is the liability arrow NOT pointing to them saying, “By disarming your employees AND disarming your customers, AND without providing adequate security to quickly end an attack, you have increased our potential payouts; we are, therefore, raising your rates.”

          The problem lies with the false notion that “Gun Free” equals lower liability. Well, we could add the moral argument, too…that profits are more important than human lives, but even without that, even with sticking SOLELY on the business profit angle…it’s still wrong.

          It will take a major lawsuit to change the thinking. Some victim or victim’s family is going to have to push the button and sue the snot out of a business, school district or whatever with the guts to say “The data shows an armed presence lowers risk and you deliberately went with the opposite policy.”

          I’m hoping someone can equate that to “negligence” in a meaningful way.

        • Let reiterate:

          If they allow guns on the property and:

          A bad guy shoots up the place they are llable.
          If the good guy shoots someone by mistake as collateral they are liable
          If their armed security guy shoots the wrong guy they are liable
          If cops come in to clean up the mess they aren’t liable.
          If the good guy stops the bad guy they still might liable.

          I think FEDEX’s mistake is having unarmed security because now the company failed to keep a safe workplace because employed ineffective security measures. Under our crazy tort system sometimes none is better than not enough.

        • Let’s reiterate some more:

          If they disallow employees and customers to protect themselves without providing any protection FOR them…they are MORE liable (morally, if not legally, but should be legally, too) than not.

          How on earth could FedEx be liable if, for example, a good-guy customer stopped a murderous attack? How does that argument in court go?

          ‘You see, your honor, that guy over there stopped 20 people from being senselessly murdered by the madman that came in shooting, so FedEx owes us money for something.”

          Hmmm. Not feeling it. Sorry. Where’s the tort?

        • And I say they should be sued into oblivion to demonstrate that it is NOT the fiscally responsible thing to do.

        • Larry, I agree 100%. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Creating an environment that all but invites the murder of employees and customers should create an astronomical liability….for negligence if nothing else.

          The best data we have points clearly to how to mitigate risk from ‘active shooters’ in public areas. They are ignoring that data with policies like they have.

          Workplace violence happens. If the company is not willing to spend the moolah to provide security, then the least they can do is allow employees (and customers) defend themselves…not get in their way and increase personal, and corporate, risk.

      • I have a question. If someone were to carry a concealed gun at work, on private property, and company policy dictated “NO guns” and an incident happened where you were forced to use your weapon to defend your life, exactly what could be done to you. Of course, the company could fire you, and very possibly you could loose your permit. Could charges be brought on you for violating company policy. The shoot would be justifiable. Just wondering.

        • Excellent question!

          My non-lawyer answer is to say, yep, they can fire you. Perhaps they could try to seek some sort of civil action against you after the fact. But unless there is a specific statute defining carrying at work against company policy as a crime, you cannot be criminally charged.

          For example, in my state, if you worked in some private location (ie, not one that is statutorily excepted as right to carry place) AND they don’t have the property posted “No Guns” prominently posted at the entrance you use to access the property, there would be no statute with which to charge you.

          There’s always some kind “Breach of Peace” deal, but that would perhaps be a stretch.

          Civil suit? All kinds of ways they could try that, though.

          My guess…again – not a lawyer. Welcome the input from those that have passed the bar.

  20. FedEx self insures it’s packages and refuses to pay claims, that’s why I don’t do business with them any longer. They must figure things will work the same for this “little problem!” PLEASE SHOW THEM THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS?

    • OT, axe grinding. But why the heck wouldn’t they write their own policy. They know the damage risk pool, and any premium they pay would be at least that amount, PLUS transactions cost to another firm. What’s the market for package damage insurance? Maybe three companies. Learn something, sometime.

      P.S., Every parcel carrier in the U.S. is a gun free zone. You can be outraged all you like, but you CANNOT take your business elsewhere without putting significant mileage on Mommy’s minivan.

      The real story here is that the guards were unarmed. That’s the liable issue. If the company peacefully disarms employees using security on casual and friendly entries, that same security MUST necessarily be able to hostilely and aggressively be able to disarm unfriendly entry. If you create a disarmed zones, you have to defend it. That’s the issue.

      • “P.S., Every parcel carrier in the U.S. is a gun free zone.”

        Maybe that’s true behind the scenes…for employees and drivers and such.

        But, local UPS Store has no “No Guns” sign posted. It’s a private business that has not posted it’s property, so not a “Gun Free Zone.”

        Or, did I miss your point?

  21. I don’t even know if my company has a policy on firearms in the workplace. Don’t ask, don’t tell, that’s my philosophy. Doesn’t work if you’re an underwear model, but for those of us who get to keep their clothes on, it works just fine. (I mean no insult to the underwear models among us. I really liked your work in the Sears catalog.)

    • The company where I sit and do engineering consulting is pro-gun AND smoking permitted!

      To paraphrase LtCol Kilgore: I love the smell of cigarette smoke in the morning – smells like Freedom!

      • Smoking permitted in the office? I had thought that was pretty much universally banned by now.

    • Maineuh, You’d be surprised how easy it is to conceal a NAA mini revolver, or maybe not so surprised if you read the posts a few days ago about the female who had a mini concealed in her man hole.

  22. I once worked for a business with a No Guns policy that applied only to employees — there was no signage prohibiting carry by customers. Clearly, then, the policy reflected a liability issue, which as an attorney I understood. Oh, and most of the employees, even executives, carried box cutters issued by the business. Go figure.

    I carried my handgun anyway, right into the store. Snubbies are made for this.

    • Box cutters can be deadly (911) but there’s an old phrase: “Don’t bring a knife to…………….oh well, I think you know the rest.
      If I had my choice, I’d bring a snubbie too!

  23. Breaking
    Workplace Shooting
    Foreman defends himself against fired employee, both wounded
    Austin TX UT

    • Yep and that would probably be the end of it too, instead of over a dozen wounded because no one could defend themselves. carry concealed or open, you have a better chance at living.

Leave a Reply

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