Posted on 08/30/2012 6:45:33 AM PDT by marktwain
Wisconsin’s new concealed-carry law, while heralded by many gun-rights advocates, has created some confusion for employers and property owners.
The new law specifically provides immunity for employers/property owners that allow persons visiting their property to carry concealed weapons. There are however, some interesting issues presented by the law that should be discussed.
The concealed-carry law allows properly licensed persons to carry concealed weapons in most places. Specifically exempted places include: county, state, or federal courthouses, police stations, schools and airports after the TSA checkpoints. Some of the potential weapons that could be carried by a license holder include: handguns, electronic tasers, and knives.
-------------------------cut------------------------
Here is the standard hypothetical being discussed in the legal circles about this issue: An employee is properly licensed to carry a concealed weapon, but his or her employer prohibits its employees from bringing their weapon to work and posts proper signs to that effect. An angered employee who was just fired walks out to his or her car and comes in with a shotgun and starts shooting. Under the new concealed carry law, the business is not immune from liability.
Has this employer made itself subject to a lawsuit for failure to properly secure the workplace? Must the employer/property owner do more than post signs prohibiting concealed weapons?
Pragmatically, most employers/property owners are not going to set-up a secure checkpoint with metal detectors or body scanners. Because this scenario is likely cost prohibitive, what prevents someone who has a concealed weapon from entering the premises? The answer is: nothing.
Given the difficulty in maintaining a “secure” workplace, I think all employers and property owners should allow the carrying of concealed weapons if for no other reason than to avail themselves of the immunity afforded to them under the new law.
(Excerpt) Read more at wislawjournal.com ...
No, this employer has made itself subject to a lawsuit for failing to allow OTHER employees the means to defend THEMSELVES.
Nice, this will certainly give employers something to think about. Over time, it may well come to pass that employers who prohibit employees from carrying personal weapons will face higher costs for things such as liability insurance, etc. It will be interesting to follow this over time.
If I sign on some place where I can neither defend myself, and no alternate provision is made to ensure my security, then in my stupidity I deserve what happens next...
I am of the opinion, that if an employer prohibits firearms, they then automatically assume the liability to keep the employee safe as they have deprived the employee of the basic right of self defense.
This liability would be offset by providing reasonable deterrents to illegal activities such as, access controlled perimeter, security guards and etc.
Exactly! It will only take one or two such lawsuits that are successful for insurance companies to price the market appropriately. You can bet that the days of employers refusing to honor CC permits will be numbered once it starts hitting directly to the bottom line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.