Should Employers Require Employees to Get a Carry Permit?

By Dave Dolbee published on in General, Safety and Training

For years, the anti gunners have railed against concealed weapon permits putting law-abiding self-defenders on the defensive (no pun intended). Many businesses and business owners have followed suit by posting the places of employment or placing a negative stigma on anyone who carries. This has forced most concealed carriers to hide more than their handgun. But why?

What would happen if we flipped the script and employers started requiring employees to get their permit? That would not force them to carry, but think of the environment? Everyone you work with would have passed a background check. How much safer would you feel working in an environment where all of your fellow employees was welcomed to be armed?

Man in tan shirt and pants with his hand holding onto a gun in his waistband.

The decision to get involved in a dangerous situation is very personal. Not all situations demand your assistance.

What got me to thinking about this was a couple of stories. The first was a year or two ago when a Georgia businessman required all of his employees to get their permit. Much of his staff was women and he wanted to do his best to ensure their safety. As soon as they showed him their permit, his presented them a Taurus Judge as a reward.

Another more recent case was a success story from Cleveland Ohio. In this case the man used to work at a barbershop where the owner required the employees to get their permit and carry for their own safety as well as the patrons. Fast forward several months and the man no longer worked at the barbershop but still had his license. He was at home a little before midnight and heard a noise in his house. He was able to successfully defend himself and run off the burglar thanks to his firearm; a firearm he owned and was trained to use because of a proactive previous employer.

Advantages

The business is safer. A potentially armed workforce is a helluva deterrent against someone who looks for soft targets. We need to expand on this and get the word out. Far too many in the general populace believe guns cause the crime or there would be daily gunfights at high noon. Of course, statistics have proven just the opposite to be true.

Every employee has been through a background check. Statistics have shown individuals with a concealed carry license and far less likely to commit crimes. This is a positive message for current and future employees as well as the businesses the employees interact with.

Owning and carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility that cannot be overlooked or understated. It creates a mindset of personal responsibility as well as a common group culture and bond.

The employee is under a regular scrutiny. CCWs have to be renewed; skills must be maintained and re-demonstrated.

Disadvantages

The business may be taking on a liability of course, and the appropriate insurance coverage would be necessary. However, in some states, the legislatures have enacted protections for the business. 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.

There is some work to be done to educate the masses as to the true facts, benefits, and advantages of a workforce with the ability and training to take responsibility its own safety. However, with the increasing number of terroristic acts, random crimes, and hate crimes, this may well be the future need.

How would you feel about an employer that required each employee to obtain a CCW? Share your answers in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (26)

  • james hemmingway

    |

    This is ridiculous, it appears that only one or two people here understand that requiring a License and Fee converts our Guaranteed Right into a Privilege. Specifically, MARBURY vs. MADISON states that our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA (319 u.s. 105) states that a State Can Not require a License and Fee in order to exercise a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right. This includes all of our Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights. SHUTTLEWORTH vs. BIRMINGHAM ALABAMA (373 u.s. 262) states that if a State passes a Un-Constitutional Law by requiring a License and Fee, then the individual does Not have to obey this Un-Constitutional Law and can do so with Immunity. In other words the person can Not be punished for disobeying the Un-constitutional Law. U.S. vs. BISHOP (412 u.s. 346) states that there is No Willful Intent if a person relies on the Constitution and Supreme Court Cases. OWEN vs. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE (100 Supreme Court Reports 1398) removes the States Immunity for Not Following the Constitution and Supreme Court Cases. This means that a person Can sue the State / Judge / Court. This means that the Brady Bill is illegal, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is illegal, etc., etc. I am just an average person and I am aware of this, so what exactly is the NRA doing? Are their high-priced attorneys not aware of this? People, we have been lied to over and over again in regards to our Guaranteed Rights and we should do something to Fix / Repair this situation. It seems like a Dog and Pony show, the State wants to take X, Y, and Z and the NRA and other Organizations tell us that they will Negotiate for our behalf and we are so so happy that the NRA has Negotiated that the State only took X and Not Y and Z. This is totally ridiculous, we do not need to Compromise at all, we have both the Constitution and Supreme Court Cases that tell us we do Not need to compromise. Again, what is the State and especially the NRA doing??? They don’t want the American Citizen to own firearms, especially any firearm that they designate, “assault weapon.” As our history show us, all of the Oppressive Leaders and Dictators wanted to and disarm and eventually disarmed their populations.

    Reply

  • Anon E Mous

    |

    Required t get a concealed carry permit? No.

    Paid more if they do (even if they don’t carry daily)? Yes, since they are a more qualified employee, better able to defend fellow employees in a crisis situation.

    Reply

  • Resistance is futile

    |

    Why don’t we teach ccw in schools? We teach driver education in schools. If they want better safety why dont they implement some public training? At least this will set a standard.

    Reply

  • Tom

    |

    I believe very law abiding citizen no matter race or creed should be allowed to carry a firearm ANYWHERE in this supposedly free country that we live in

    Reply

  • CountryLogic

    |

    I disagree with the whole concept of CCW Permits. A right that requires permission ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege which can be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat. That being said, your property, your rules.

    Reply

  • Phillip Bixler Jr

    |

    I totally agree that it would be a better safer work environment if if this was allowed and encouraged no one should be shamed for being a licensed firearm owner with a Ccw and no one who doesn’t should be shamed for it it either but workplaces shouldn’t require it but they shouldn’t ban it either

    Reply

  • Steve

    |

    Back in 1985 I went to Silvertown in Winchester IN to do a Data dish install. I walked to the glass counter and looked down and there was a $10,000 bill there. All employees were required to carry. It was interesting in the variety of weapons from a snub nose 38 to a western rig 45 ( Make my day ). A sign said “We will call an ambulance for shoplifters”.

    Reply

  • barry

    |

    I will be 68 in August and I have had a carry permit since age 21 in my home state of Pennsylvania . To answer your question about everyone have and using and know how to carry , the answer is …..YES

    Reply

  • Terry Hendrickson

    |

    Well, I am in favor of responsible people carrying firearms.
    I truly think that we need a nationwide carry permit and also think, an employer has no right to bar a properly permitted individual from carrying a weapon.
    Laws need changed so people can defend themselves in a time when violence can happen anywhere and any time

    My problem is the word “require”. Sorry. No one should be required to obtain a permit. Encouraged would be great, but “required” is just wrong.

    I can really get on a rant here. Basically, I am a “liberal with a gun”. I am not a leftist. My boss or government should have no say in my personal life.

    Reply

    • Randy hammer

      |

      I own a towing co. All of my employees have permits and carry ( concealed or open ) their decision is theirs . Some of the vehicle owners have been calmer , when saying that we took their vehicle , when actually the police took it for good reason. We have been known for holding burglars at gun point . Keeps everyone on good behavior…

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: