Requiring CCW for Employees: A Smart Move

In a recent defensive gun use story from Cleveland, Ohio, a man said that he had a concealed carry permit because his past employer required it. From cleveland.com:

He said he has a concealed carry permit because he used to work at a barbershop, and the owner required barbers to get their concealed carry licenses for their protection.

I suspect that more businesses will take this approach. It brings about many benefits. Last year, we had the example of a Georgia business owner who required his employees to be armed, supplying them each with a Taurus Judge revolver when they showed him their concealed carry permit.

Here are a few of the advantages a workforce that carries:

1. Employees with a concealed carry permit are a deterrent to robbery and physical attacks on the business premises. This may seem obvious, but you will find many who claim, without support, that it is not so. Having more than one employee armed at a location makes it an extremely unattractive target. There are too many variables, and too much to go wrong for any thinking robber.

2. There is an obvious, clear screening process to limit employees to a select, high quality level. Permit holders self select as one of the most law abiding, responsible groups in the nation. Their crime rates are only a fraction of those of police officers and are many more times as law abiding as the general population.

3. Your employees are part of a group that puts a high value on personal responsibility and self reliance. This is the group least likely to blame you for personal failures, or to see your business as a potential source of a “liability lottery”. They look ahead, see problems, and do things about them.

4. The state is now doing a continuous screening process for you, one that’s actionable and clear. If an employee has legal problems (according to the state, not the employer), their permit will be taken from them, a clear red flag to the employer.

In some states there is another benefit.

Wisconsin, Kansas, and Tennessee offer immunity from lawsuit if the employer allows employees to be armed. From Wis. Stat. § 175.60(21)(b), (c):

(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

From kslegislature.org 75-7c10(c)(2)

(2) Any private entity which does not provide adequate security measures in a private building and which allows the carrying of a concealed handgun shall not be liable for any wrongful act or omission relating to actions of persons carrying a concealed handgun concerning acts or omissions regarding such handguns.

From tndefenselitigation.com:

(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting, pursuant to § 39–17–1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person’s, business’s, or other entity’s failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to § 39–17–1359.

The advantages to a workforce that carries are clear.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Mr.Savage says:

    I should send this to our corporate office, as it stands now we cant even have a weapon of ANY kind, even in our vehicles.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      Have fun changing your flat without a tire iron.

    2. avatar bobo says:

      baseball, golf?

      lots of nice sports out there too?

      lol

  2. In PA, this is a problem. Requiring employees be armed for work means employees need to be act235 certified (medical exam, psych test, 40 hours of class, and recertification), it’s a crime not to be act235 certified when required to carry for work. Then there’s the issue of your insurance carrier, the upward rate adjustment and any requirements the carrier places upon you as conditions of the policy.

    1. avatar Button Gwinnet says:

      Could an employer require a permit, but not mandate carry? Allow it, not require it?

      1. I guess so. Or an employer could just do a PSP PATCH criminal history check for $10.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      If your hoplophobic insurance company is trying to stick it to you om premiums if employees are armed, or deny you coverage outright, then screw ’em and go somewhere else.

      It’s true, lots of insurance companies will balk and providing coverage. Many are letting their politics and prejudices make their business decisions for them. Others just don’t have the experience and actuary data to price the risk properly. So they avoid insuring what they don’t understand.

      Still, there are plenty of insurers out there who will provide coverage, who will do so at no additional premium, and some who will charge lower premiums than before this coverage.

      There are dozens of school districts in Texas who have armed staff/faculty members, for example. At least one district’s experience goes back to 2007. They’ve switched providers twice over that time and reduced annual premiums by about $5,000 each time.

      Comparisons to professional armed security guards, whose liability coverage is higher than unarmed guards, is faulty because it fails to understand the nature of the risks. Armed guards don’t cost more because the guards are armed and there’s greater risk of negligent discharges or other wrongful shooting. Their coverage costs more because what they guard tends to have higher market value and increases the probability of an event.

      Remember, premiums price the risk of loss. Loss itself is a function of both the probability of an event and the dollar magnitude of the event. School shootings are exceedingly rare, despite the rhetoric out there. Armored car robberies? Oh man, last year Houston experienced about a dozen of them, most with shots fired and casualties, some with deaths.

  3. avatar Model 31 says:

    My employer pays extra to carry on the job, after sending employees to active shooter class.

  4. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    Not to play Devil’s advocate, but do we really want to require people to have a CCW? Like, you can run background checks on people without having them get a CCW, and there’s a lot of good people that don’t or shouldn’t get a gun, let alone carry it.

    That said, guns are a really good indicator for the kind of person you’re dealing with.

    1. avatar Timothy says:

      I feel that an employer gets to pick the requirements for their employees. Some require background checks, good credit, some jobs only go to parents. This isn’t much different.

      Obviously it ALL jobs required a cc, then a large portion of the population would not be able to get a job. But I for one can’t fault an employer for trying to make their place safer and their ensuring their employees are more reliable

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      That’s not a bad point. We talk a lot about how law abiding abd upstanding concealed carry license holders are, ans as a group they may well be.

      However, that’s a self-selected group. The traits wr admire about these people pre-existed the holding of the license, though in some cases carry a firearm can reinforce those existed good qualities.
      Simply taking someone who can pass the license requirements and instructing them to obtain one, may not yield the same results because they did not have the other traits that drove them to obtain one on their own. They’re just following pre-employment instructions.

  5. avatar The Duke says:

    All in all a good list and excellent points I hadn’t fully considered before

    I didn’t see explicitly stated in the list but sort of danced around. People with a CC permit are generally more proactive and responsible, makes them more likely to be more productive to the business as a whole

    A very positive quality to have in any employee these days

  6. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    My employer pays for the licensing class and the license itself. It’s not a lot but it is way better than banning carry on the job.

  7. The question mark is missing from the title.

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    I have problems with this. First of all, someone should be able to get a job in a barber’s shop without undergoing the sort of background check mandating for carry permits (which is a whole different issue). The extension of big brother into all areas of life is disturbing and someone who had a drug conviction years ago or a DUI shouldn’t have to explain that to every potential employer.

    Second, this strikes me as employers trying to turn their employees into armed guards without providing the benefits, indemnities or training. Allowing employees to carry should be more than sufficient if the motive is for them to be able to keep themselves safe.

    1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      “First of all, someone should be able to get a job in a barber’s shop without undergoing the sort of background check mandating for carry permits”

      Someone can – just not THAT barbershop, if that’s a policy you disagree with. Or THAT Stop-n-Rob. Or THAT cab company (which, BTW, sound like a couple jobs that could really benefit from a policy like this one…) Those are the choices people make in the job market – I mean, you wouldn’t catch me dead working for PETA, the Brady Bunch, or Mike Bloomberg. It’s simple – if you don’t like an employer’s policies or ethics, work somewhere else!

      “The extension of big brother into all areas of life is disturbing and someone who had a drug conviction years ago or a DUI shouldn’t have to explain that to every potential employer.”

      I fully agree with your assessment of creeping big brotherism; but this isn’t the government intruding into people’s lives, it’s a single private business. Or a few businesses, or even a growing trend – it’s not like this will take over a huge segment of the job market, or be implemented at large corporations based in large cities. So people won’t have to explain that to EVERY potential employer, just a small percentage… what, 10 or 15% tops?

      I don’t mean to sound argumentative, just my thoughts regarding your thoughts.

    2. avatar Button Gwinnet says:

      Yes, you SHOULD be able to cut hair without a background check. Guess what? The barber’s union made sure you can’t. They pushed the Ohio Legislature to pass a law requiring a criminal background check to cut hair. This, of course, provides a barrier to entry to the profession, keeping provider numbers low and fees high. http://barber.ohio.gov/Forms.aspx

      This occurs in many professions and many states. It’s ricockulous, and it is why we need to vote in legislatures who have the courage to repeal bad laws.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Voting is great, but it’s not the only battlefield. The courts are another. An amazing group doing heroic work in the area of economic liberty litigation is the Institute for Justice. IJ.org

        Check them out, then cut them a check. They haul governments into court all over the country to get these unconstitutional incumbent-company-protecting laws voided. And they win.

  9. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I am in a situation where a particular law in this state requires that certain of our employees receive the equivalent of a CHL background check through the State Police except for the fingerprints. I laughingly but somewhat seriously said that maybe we should just have them get CHL’s (shall issue state) and there is the proof of responsibility and compliance with the other law.

  10. avatar TroyBilt says:

    Can one not carry concealed in a private business in Ohio without a CHL? Why not just require thy carry while on the job?

  11. avatar Kbthepb says:

    I am an older female working at a gas station all hours of the night, alone. When i asked if i am permitted to carry my gun for self defense, the answer was no, even though i do have my permit. If something happened to me, i think they should be held accountable. Am pursuing other employment!

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      Unless carrying on the job is illegal, not just against company policy, get yourself something small enough to disappear inside a pocket and carry it. What your boss doesn’t know won’t hurt either of you. If ever you do need to defend yourself. losing a job isn’t as bad as getting crippled or killed.

    2. avatar Button Gwinnet says:

      It’s easier to apologize after you’ve shot an armed robber than to ask permission to carry. My employer has the same rule. And I say, concealed means concealed.

  12. avatar Katy says:

    While pleasant to consider, these types of actions I have a hard time foreseeing outside of small businesses and those who carry high theft items.

    Working for a global-scale company based out of CA, we are unlikely to ever see that happen, even in our TX offices. On the other hand, I was pleased to hear how upset our CA-based labor lawyer was when she learned that TX HR was telling employees that they couldn’t leave firearms in their vehicles. Actually demanded that they stop the misinformation and provide accurate information to all who had been given the bad info.

    1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      Excellent! Glad to hear they got slapped for it. I’m sure corporate legal departments really hate dealing with all the wildly different, even conflicting state laws they’re forced to comply with. But unfortunately, that’s the price of doing (interstate) business.

  13. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

    After left-clicking the first hyperlink within the caption (under the image), and reading the report, there is no mention of the perp being in possession of any weapon.

    Additionally, my interpretation of the perps’ subsequent actions, once confronted by the owner/renter, was an action of retreat. Please help me with this, granted there was a ‘break-in’ or ‘invasion’, but once the perp/fleeing-felon has begun to retreat, where is the justification to shoot?

    OK, let’s say the first shot was justified; due to intruder in the home. The perp retreated into the bathroom and locked the door. How is the owner/renter, at this point, justified to fire multiple -or any amount of additional shots- into and possibly through a locked door, an obstacle separating the perp from the owner/renter who has stated the perp retreated into the bathroom?

    Let’s also not forget the owner/renter left the possible imminent threat to a safe area to retrieve his weapon of choice, then returned to the possible imminent threat -instead of barricading and remaining in the bedroom while dialing 911–; yes ‘castle doctrine’ is in effect. Is there not a strong possibility that the owner/renter will face criminal charges? Not to mention the repairs he now has to deal with.

    Seriously, enlighten me.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “However, effective with the passage of SB 184, in 2008, under what is known as the “Castle Doctrine,” if the lethal force was inflicted against a person in your home, temporary place of residence, or occupied car, you are now entitled to a presumption that you acted in self-defense. In this situation, the burden has now shifted to the prosecution to prove that you did not act in self-defense.”

      The home owner is presumed justified because he was in his home. Also, there is some sort of provision for the use of force in “defense of residence.” I’m not sure what that means. Ohio laws are harder than most to figure out with a simple google search.

      Furthermore, the threat isn’t over until you know it’s over. The guy in the bathroom could be buying time getting ready to attack.

  14. avatar BobProg says:

    Hmm, sounds brilliant. Business owner essentially put the burden of a criminal background check on the employee and the government. Considering the Democrats have started to argue and submit legislation that declare it discrimination to reject a candidate based on their criminal past, this is a brilliant move.

  15. avatar peirsonb says:

    Our parent company is French. This idea has about as much chance as me getting the last chicken wing while standing behind Rosie O’Donnell in the buffet line.

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      It could be worse…like one chicken wing left with her standing behind you.

  16. avatar DWIGHT says:

    When I was working as a Flight Instructor and Commercial Pilot in Waterford, MI the owner of the FBO offered a CHL course from a Detroit SWAT officer and encouraged carry since we were largely a cash business and our aircraft are quite the desirable asset. There was even an unofficial rule that all charter flights would have at least one armed crew memeber, it went well until we lost a turbo over Lk. Erie and almost had to divert into Cananda. The rest of the time it was never an issue and sent the right message.
    Ironically, except for one CO in Texas, I had to stop carrying when I started flying in the Navy. You can have 2000lbs of HE and 150rds of 20mm but we can’t trust you with a 9mm.

  17. avatar Aramaki says:

    I imagine those state law immunities will be all for naught when OSHA declares that allowing people in a business who are not licensed as armed security guards or private detectives violates the General Duty Clause.

  18. avatar fishydude says:

    It is one way to weed out bad job candidates too; those with criminal records or just too much SJW in them.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email