#1
|
|||
|
|||
Handguns in the workplace
My wife's workplace received a threatening phone call from an individual recently. Her boss knows that she is proficient in the use of handguns and rifles so he went out and bought here a handgun safe to keep at her desk and told her it's OK for her to bring her handgun to work. My question is if she used it to protect herself or others in her office and shoots someone, does the Castle Doctrine (i think that's what it's called) still apply to the workplace? Sorry in advance if this is a re-post but i couldn't find anything on the forum regarding this.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
She should validate if the workplace has a firearm policy.
She should get approval in writing, regardless. Can she CCW? I'm no fan of leaving a "ready" handgun around. Does she have insurance (CCW)? |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
There's no "Castle Doctrine" per say, but everyone has a right to defend themselves or others from unlawful GBI or death assuming that it was justified and not an imperfect self-defense case.
Businesses may carry or allow firearms. Think gun range or FFL. Since the boss allows it, his insurance sure as heck better cover it. Yes, get it in writing. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Get approval in writing. Any defense costs will be a reasonable business expense the company will have to reimburse her for under labor code section 2802. Very unusual for the company to expressly encourage carrying firearm for defense of office but they did (even without written approval, company buying desk safe is probably sufficient evidence) so she will likely be able to successfully argue she was carrying on behalf of the company.
Same as mileage for driving personal vehicle, or defense costs for a manager personally sued for harassment for disciplining a subordinate. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
From time to time there are discussion about the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. IMHO it is foolish to rely on either of laws, even if they exist in your state. Because, the bottom line or ultimate question will always be whether or not the use of a firearm was justified because a reasonable person in the same circumstance would have reasonably been in fear of immediate death or great bodily to themself or others in their immediate vicinity. I like to phrase it this way. It is never may you draw and use your firearm but whether or not you must do so to prevent immediate death or great bodily injury. Anything short of must to avoid an immediate threat is asking for trouble and prison time. The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground only relate to presumptions and what evidence can and must be presented. They do not alter the ultimate question which I have set forth above.
Sounds like the boss it trying to get a free armed guard. If you wife has her CCW, I would encourage her to carry while at work because of the purported threat, but only if there is no company policy prohibiting such conduct. I would want my firearm on my person, not in some safe that may be some distance from me when the threat materializes. In her situation, I would also ask the company to proved me with proof that their liability insurance would provide coverage in the event I used my firearm to protect persons present as requested by the boss. If they do not provide this I would not put my firearm in a safe provided by the boss or the company. Carrying a firearm at the request of the boss or company may require her to be licensed as an armed security guard. Carrying for her own protection because she has a CCW is a different mater. I have CCW Safe because I feel it best meets my needs. If she carries, she needs some kind of insurance or prepaid legal services agreement such as CCW Safe. Hope this helps. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
PC 198.5 which some consider California’s “castle doctrine” applies, by its terms, only in one’s residence. So no, it would not apply in one’s workplace.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Is the boss is the owner of the business?
__________________
Originally posted by Kestryll: It never fails to amuse me how people get outraged but fail to tell the whole story in their rants.... |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
highly dependent on the IA. Here, the permits have specific exclusion for "course and scope of employment". They don't want CCW folks playing security guard.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
It sounds great until things go sideways and your wife ends up facing legal liabilities and the boss and company leave her out in the cold because it is in there legal best interest to do so or their insurance policy excludes providing an attorney to defend your wife or the company has an official not guns in the work place policy. Even if the boss provided the gun vault, your wife could also suffer some legal liabilities for violating company policies. She could easily have signed paperwork upon being hired stating she was aware there are not guns in the workplace without realizing it. It would be part of the stack of paperwork we all sign as new employees.
The rules for guns at a business are different depending if where she works is open to the public or not. She really needs to speak with an attorney to become fully aware of the liabilities involved. Really, the boss and or company is liable and responsible for security and need to take reasonable steps to put security measures in place. If the boss believes the threat is credible, he needs to take reasonable actions to mitigate the threats and this does not include having your wife provide free security. She is not trained for that and does not have the proper credentials and the legal protections that come with those credentials. Her gun is for her protection and not the protection of others.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians. A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun. Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)? --Librarian |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
If the boss feels a need for armed protection for himself, his employees or business due to a direct, credible threat, why would you or her even want her to be on the premises, let alone volunteer to put her life at risk? Tell the boss to hire armed guards and she will return to work when it's safe to be there again.
__________________
Originally Posted by OCEquestrian View Post Excellent! I am thinking about it as well and I only have 4 points and an unfortunate "match bump" up to expert classification where I am far less "competitive" with my peers there. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
--------------------- "There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why assume bad faith? He's probably unaware of the issues. He probably thinks he's being nice - he's letting a gun in while many places ban them.
As for the threat, lots of places get empty threats. He could be thinking "it's probably nothing, but let the gun girl bring hers, just in case." He may not be taking it seriously enough to think it through. That wouldn't be smart, but it'd be human. Talk with a lawyer, if carrying is worth that cost. If the threat is credible, then ask for professional security. If she wants to be security, she can get credentialed and ask for a raise to go with the extra responsibility and risk.
__________________
1st Generation Gun Owner After all the times I've been wrong when I thought something was illegal, I sure hope I'm right when I think something's legal! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|