On gun free zones

[gemlit-eyed]

I work in a gun free zone. Recently it was determined security services will no longer be provided. Neither will I be able to arm. The men employed are expected to escort the ladies to there cars, essentially acting as unarmed security. I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around the rational for I am not allowed to protect myself or others but am expected to protect myself and others???

The ladies have asked that I post this as they are interested to how this community will answer. I want to wright the CEO a letter Seen in these forums informing the employer I will hold them responsible for any injury to myself or property in the future. My coworkers discouraged this saying they like having me around and would not like me terminated.
The current mood is don't rock the boat and make the best of it. The safety director/custodian has contracted a security firm to pass through the parking lot periodically, whatever that means.

 

[melensdad]

Before you 'wright' a letter you should run it past several other employees. If your goal is to be taken seriously by the owner of the company for which you work then you should make sure you use proper spelling, diction and punctuation; some of which are seriously lacking in your post.

 

[Eddie]

Before you 'wright' a letter you should run it past several other employees. If your goal is to be taken seriously by the owner of the company for which you work then you should make sure you use proper spelling, diction and punctuation; some of which are seriously lacking in your post.

I am in a similar situation and trying hard to get the rules changed. So far I have made a lot of headway not by making threats to hold anyone liable but by calmly and logically pointing out the irrationality of using gun free zones as a means of protection.

Start small. Speak calmly and logically to people one on one and build support for your cause.

 

[gemlit-eyed]

Good to see the gramer police are on the job.

 

[Eddie]

Good to see the gramer police are on the job.

Don't knock it. You'd be surprised how many people will quickly disregard your opinions based solely on poor grammar and spelling.

 

[indykid]

gemlit-eyed, your employer holds a stacked deck. They can terminate you for any reason they want, because in Indiana you have no rights to a job. The only reason an employer can't terminate you is the obvious sex, race, or other federally protected reasons, but otherwise if they don't like you, you can be history.

You need all the women of the place to get behind you in the idea that having you with them as they walk to the car without means of protection only allows a person intent on harming you to have two targets of opportunity instead of one. They need to make management aware that they want armed protection.

The males you work with also need to make management aware that they won't feel safe becoming a target just to make it seem safe when in fact it might not be.

You need the backing of the people you work with, otherwise you stand a good chance of sinking alone.

Oh, and if you do write a letter to management, heeding the advice of the "gramer police" (sic) and remember, a well written letter will mean a lot more than one with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and other issues. It could mean the difference between management taking you seriously and management saying "is this someone we want with a firearm on our property?"

 

[melensdad]

I am in a similar situation and trying hard to get the rules changed. So far I have made a lot of headway not by making threats to hold anyone liable but by calmly and logically pointing out the irrationality of using gun free zones as a means of protection.

Start small. Speak calmly and logically to people one on one and build support for your cause.

Critical points right there!

Good to see the gramer police are on the job.

Not so much grammar police but rather trying to make sure you are taken seriously. If your posts indicate your level of writing skills then I can assure you that your opinions will be discounted as the ramblings of an uneducated, unsophisticated rube by the senior managers. How you present yourself is often as important as what you say.

Don't knock it. You'd be surprised how many people will quickly disregard your opinions based solely on poor grammar and spelling.

Bingo

 

[Suprtek]

Is your "gun free zone" defined simply by the policies of the company in question or is there an actual statute on the books that makes it so, such as a school or government building?

If it is the former, know that there is no force of law behind a company policy. They can fire you, but they can't have you prosecuted for anything. In fact, there was a law passed recently in Indiana that makes it illegal for an employer to prohibit keeping a firearm in your vehicle. Although I must say I have mixed feelings about this law because I don't like the idea of the government telling private property owners what they have to allow on their property.

If it is the latter, your options are somewhat limited. However, it is still your choice to continue putting yourself in this situation.

 

[gemlit-eyed]

I don't want to be specific about the facility. But yes there is a school and there are other restrictions that apply. Bottom line is there will be no on grounds security. I am a respected member of the organization in spite of my spelling skills. My secretary usually cleans up official correspondence but I don't bring her home. It was my hope that my reputation may pull some weight in this matter.

 

[melensdad]

... It was my hope that my reputation may pull some weight in this matter.

Because of the fact that you mentioned a school on the property the reality is that you are limited by state law so your weight will not apply to your ability to protect yourself.

If you are very lucky, and you can get past the budget cut issues that seem to be everywhere, you may be able to convince someone that security is a REAL issue and should be appropriately addressed. I would concentrate on the liability issues involved with not having appropriate security. If it was supplied in the past then what threat level was reduced so that it is no longer needed? If none then why is it reduced? If "men" are supposed to escort "women" to the parking lot then are not men being sexually discriminated against because they are not offered protection? And if men are to provide the security for the women then has there been any background check to insure the men are trustworthy?

 

[sparky241]

Good to see the gramer police are on the job.

i have seen some posts so bad i refuse to answer it. proper english is a big part of life and makes conveying a message alot easier.

I AInt the bets speler buts i done tried harde

 

[sparky241]

wrong button

 

[gemlit-eyed]

OK,OK. I get it. Good by.

 

[ATM]

wrong button

luks liek U done tried a little 2 harde their.

 

[ATM]

I don't want to be specific about the facility. But yes there is a school and there are other restrictions that apply.

If the property falls under the definition of school grounds, you would need more than a company rule lifted.

You would need to be exempted from IC 35-47-9-2.

 

[rambone]

OK,OK. I get it. Good by.

Gemlit-eyed,

These guys aren't making fun of you. They want to see your letter be successful and I bet that they would even help you edit the letter if you asked. This will already be a tough thing to convince the boss about -- you need to send them a very thoughtful and well-written letter if we are going to achieve a victory against the gun free zones.

 

[melensdad]

Gemlit-eyed,

These guys aren't making fun of you. They want to see your letter be successful and I bet that they would even help you edit the letter if you asked. This will already be a tough thing to convince the boss about -- you need to send them a very thoughtful and well-written letter if we are going to achieve a victory against the gun free zones.

I thought that my posts in this thread were written in a constructive manner. My goal was to help, not to hurt. I believe that I gave reasoned replies indicating that language (not just spelling, but also diction and grammar) convey a level of integrity and legitimacy in and of themselves that go beyond the message used.

Those of us who advocate gun freedoms are often stereotyped as back country bubbas or uneducated goons. The proper use of language can eliminate the ability of our opponents to stereotype us and force them to address our cause.

 

[ATOMonkey]

In a situation like this, you need to determine what your priorities are.

Is it more important to be armed and safe, or employed?

You can do both, but it does increase the risk that you will be terminated if your weapon is found.

This is not any advice, just telling you what I would do.

I would carry my weapon off my person in a bag. I would holster the weapon in the bag so it was easily accessible, but still remain hidden from prying eyes. This is because my personal philosophy is that it's better to be fired than dead.

In the mean time, you should continue to advance your case that an armed workforce is a safe workforce.

Security and locked doors don't mean much if the security people are easily compromised. An example that is near and dear to my heart is Navistar - Chicago - Feb 5 2001. 4 dead before the shooter took his own life. The building had unarmed security, security fencing, and proximity badge auto locks on all the doors. The security gaurd at the main gate gave the shooter his badge and let the shooter in when his life was threatened.

 

[zombiehunter]

Wow, so people try giving some positive feedback on the subject, helpful criticism, and he ups and says he's not coming back and wants to get rid of his account.....doesn't seem like someone I would want protecting me! (or even my kids tricycle)