Unauthorized Firearms At Work

[Trunk Monkey]

on a different note, I hear that if you DO have gun permit it isn't illegal for you

to 'carry' (if your company has the required insurance?), it is just a 'policy'.

In Colorado your permit status is irrelevant. you are either a licensed armed guard or you are not.

[tanko]

If you are unable to abide by a company's policy, why should a patron give a damn when you try and enforce a client's policy?

+2

Not only that, but I could imagine the lawyers would argue that point as well.

[rumarudrathas]

Funny I stumbled upon this thread this late at night.

Guess who's taking over an unarmed post from an Officer, who had a bright idea to show off his personal side arm inside the client's office building without a license to carry (Professionally AND as a civilian)?

*points at me* This guy. I love show offs and idiots like that; it gives me a measure of job security.

Then again, there is a famous documented story of the same Officer pulling a 12 gauge on a drunkard who happened to be 'relieving himself' all over the Officer's truck.

[Trunk Monkey]

Funny I stumbled upon this thread this late at night.

Guess who's taking over an unarmed post from an Officer, who had a bright idea to show off his personal side arm inside the client's office building without a license to carry (Professionally AND as a civilian)?

Just to clarify on duty or not unless you are a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a sworn peace officer you are a civilian

Then again, there is a famous documented story of the same Officer pulling a 12 gauge on a drunkard who happened to be 'relieving himself' all over the Officer's truck.

IDK, if some one was pissing on my truck I'd be tempted to respond in a similar fashion

[WVGuy]

Actually a "sworn police officer" is also a civilian.
Law enforcement, fire, and EMS all use "civilian" to depict non members but it is inaccurate.

Now as to being armed when not supposed to be...
One of my posts is an armed remote patrol.
I mean checking places back on top of hills and other remote areas.
Every now and then I come across a guard from some company or the other
that has been assigned to guard some equipment or other in these areas.
Most of them have in mind about bears and such which you do see them often.
Several have mentioned they have thought about carrying a gun because of the bears.
I advised them not to but see about getting pepper spray, better lights etc from their companies.
(One guy didn't even have a flashlight).

just my 2 cents

[rpmacmurphy]

My company lets our guards carry whatever they want. They are all issued 9mm Glock 19's and we have FN 2000 Tactical rifles in our cruisers just in case we need them. However, very few people carry the Glocks. Usually after the first week of carrying it, our guys bring their own instead.

Lately, I've been carrying an FN Five Seven USG. Right now, I know guys who are carrying a Glock 17, a HK MK23, an Ayoob Signature 1911, a Beretta 9mm, a Bren-Ten, and two guys who carry Walther PPKs. Some of our guys even carry multiple weapons. I guess it all depends on company policy and state law.

[SpecialAgentKC]

Actually a "sworn police officer" is also a civilian.
Law enforcement, fire, and EMS all use "civilian" to depict non members but it is inaccurate.

Now as to being armed when not supposed to be...
One of my posts is an armed remote patrol.
I mean checking places back on top of hills and other remote areas.
Every now and then I come across a guard from some company or the other
that has been assigned to guard some equipment or other in these areas.
Most of them have in mind about bears and such which you do see them often.
Several have mentioned they have thought about carrying a gun because of the bears.
I advised them not to but see about getting pepper spray, better lights etc from their companies.
(One guy didn't even have a flashlight).

just my 2 cents

Wrong. Duly commissioned, deputed or sworn law enforcement officials are not considered civilians. Non-members and police former members who do not have police powers are considered civilians. This is consistent with dictionary definitions and is rooted in reality, not opinion. The inaccuracy is yours.

At any rate, I'm of the belief that guards who carry unauthorized weapons should be summarily dismissed. If the carrying of a specific tool such as a firearm at particular post is impermissible, then one should find a new post. They should not carry them despite a prohibition by law, policy or post orders. Otherwise, they expose themselves, their employer and potentially their client to unwanted civil liability. I've sent at least one guard home (permanently) for such an egregious violation. --K.

[SecTrainer]

Wrong. Duly commissioned, deputed or sworn law enforcement officials are not considered civilians. Non-members and police former members who do not have police powers are considered civilians. This is consistent with dictionary definitions and is rooted in reality, not opinion. The inaccuracy is yours.

At any rate, I'm of the belief that guards who carry unauthorized weapons should be summarily dismissed. If the carrying of a specific tool such as a firearm at particular post is impermissible, then one should find a new post. They should not carry them despite a prohibition by law, policy or post orders. Otherwise, they expose themselves, their employer and potentially their client to unwanted civil liability. I've sent at least one guard home (permanently) for such an egregious violation. --K.

Correct. The terms "officer" and "civilian" are quite properly used to distinguish between sworn (commissioned) and non-sworn (non-commissioned) employees of a police department, for instance. Quite commonly, a third term - "citizen" - is then used in conjunction with these to refer to non-employees. Yes, one can argue, for instance, that they are all "citizens", but within the context of this usage each of these terms has a special connotation beyond the mere dictionary meaning.

At any rate, I'm of the belief that guards who carry unauthorized weapons should be summarily dismissed. If the carrying of a specific tool such as a firearm at particular post is impermissible, then one should find a new post. They should not carry them despite a prohibition by law, policy or post orders. Otherwise, they expose themselves, their employer and potentially their client to unwanted civil liability. I've sent at least one guard home (permanently) for such an egregious violation. --K.

I agree with your premise, but I'm not a big fan of "summary dismissal" for legal reasons, including lawsuits for wrongful termination, etc.

Just like other egregious employee offenses such as stealing, gross misrepresentations in DARs and reports, etc., carrying an unauthorized weapon on post is cause for summary *removal* from that post and suspension from duty while a disciplinary determination is made, which in such cases would ordinarily be dismissal from employment and, in some cases (e.g., theft) referral for prosecution.

SUSPENSION WITH PAY:

If you really want to cover your behind legally, suspension from duty for reasons of resolving matters of potential employee misconduct should ALWAYS be WITH PAY - meaning that it behooves you to get your act in gear, gather the facts promptly, and dispose of the matter expeditiously. In other words, it's top priority to get this matter resolved one way or the other.

I've known outfits that suspended guards without pay and then dragged their feet on taking any further action, believing that sooner or later the guard would have to quit voluntarily if he wanted to eat and pay his rent. This "wait-them-out" approach is definitely *not* the way to do things. Often, this philosophy seems to be connected to a lot of mistaken ideas about a terminated employee's eligibility for unemployment. (Prolonged suspension without pay to force a "voluntary" resignation will most likely be treated as "constructive termination" anyway so you gain nothing by this approach, and would in fact make it more likely that the employee will collect precisely because they were NOT terminated for cause but merely "terminated" from a legal standpoint.)

In many cases, you're looking at a day or two of pay because the case will be very straightforward and easily documented, but if it takes a bit longer to line up your ducks even a $few hundred in suspension pay is excellent, cheap immunization from certain legal claims that can vastly increase your liability for the ultimate dismissal if you do still get sued and if the employee prevails - which they sometimes do even if you have them dead to rights.

Such added-liability circumstances include "malicious intent", "recklessness", etc. As mentioned, such claims of "employer misconduct" or "bad motives" can increase an award by many, many times, or trigger "punitive damages". On the other hand, suspension with pay, prompt disposition of the case (and maintaining confidentiality about the matter) all make it very difficult for an employee to prove employer misconduct - and will make your insurance carrier much happier with you.

Never shoot from the hip or fire someone "on the spot". I don't care if you come into the guard shack and catch them downloading kiddie **** on the company computer or taking target practice on the wall calendar with an unauthorized weapon. It is completely sufficient and adequate - at the MOMENT - to remove them immediately from the post and suspend them from duty with pay while you collect the facts, document the case and THEN take any disciplinary actions - assuming that discipline is warranted by the facts - or return them to duty if it turns out that they did nothing wrong.

And that last phrase is important. Employers do make mistakes, and there may be a time when the investigation turns out in an employee's favor. If that should happen (and if you manage others long enough, it WILL), you'll have a much less resentful employee when the dust settles if you suspended them with pay and also if you handled the case promptly, because "justice delayed is justice denied" - whether it's an employee wrongly accused of misconduct or someone wrongly accused of a crime. You might even be able to salvage a good employee who actually had done nothing wrong - because you treated them fairly. No loss of pay and prompt resolution of the case are two critical elements to fair treatment. The third element is that the investigation is kept in strict confidence, known ONLY to those who have a NEED to know, so that the employee's reputation is not damaged in the workplace.

[buck]

Where I work it is illegal to have a firearm unless sworn law enforcement. There is a state licensing for armed work but it is NOT easy. Where I live, if you want to be an armed guard all you have to do is have a CCW to get that extra ability (as of the last time I looked into it many years ago). Carrying here outside of orders isn't a crime unless you are at a hospital, school, government building, etc.. The state where I work, it is a felony.

[FireEMSPolice]

When I worked at a mall, our Security Manager was a retired State Trooper. He carried openly, while on duty, in the Security Office and it was reported to management. When he got in trouble, he made life hell thereafter for everyone else. When that was reported, HR came down from corporate for an investigation. HR quickly determined the Security Officers were the problem, not the tyrant Security Manager. From there, moral just bottomed out. Terrible!