2) I would lean towards what Mark Tushnet explains about not being able to bring a gun into someone’s household if they tell you not to. The company that owns the property is asking its employees not to bring weapons onto company premises; this includes the parking lot. Additionally, I came across an article that discusses whether or not a vehicle is an “extension of your home.’ To the federal government, it would be considered trespassing if someone decided to park their car onto someone’s property and just stay there. “You do not take your private property status with you when you leave your home with something that you store there’ (Martin 2016). Of course, at the end of the case study, the concern of companies is not property rights, it is to maximize safety precautions to the fullest extent.

3) Based on question 2, that this problem is a property issue, the National Rifles Association should not lobby legislation to make it illegal for companies to prevent employees from bringing in their firearms in parking lots. Although they have succeeded in States not requiring companies to allow workers to carry weapons; this is a matter between the companies and its employees. Additionally, this should be a matter to be handled at the State level rather than the Federal level.

4) Allowing teachers to bring guns onto the school premises would work in the same way as allowing company employees. There are many circumstances that can be deemed reasonable to allow teachers to do so. Based on question 3, this is a matter that should be determined at the State level and be between the teachers and school district board. There are already many schools that allow teachers to bring firearms. The allowance is heavily criticized by the media; however, I think they are heavily biased. In reality, those towns that allow such a culture to ensue, feel it enables teachers to be able to combat possible violent threats (Pavlich 2018).

References

Martin, Craig. 2016. Is Your Car Really an Extension of Your Home? Accessed 2018. https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/is-your-car-really-an-extension-of-your-home/.

Pavlich, Katie. 2018. Here’s a List of School Districts That Already Allow Teachers to Be Armed. Accessed 2018. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/02/26/heres-a-list-of-school-districts-that-already-allow-teachers-to-be-armed-n2454454.

Shaw, William. 2017. Business Ethics. Boston: Cengage Learning.

In response  to the questions I will Start in order and at the end of addressing  each question, iI will conclude with a summary of my arguments.

Question 2

I do believe that based on  my interpretation  of rights of citizens in the united states, that a company does have the legal  and moral right to prohibit guns from being stored in cars on company property. A person does not have a legal right to park their car in the company parking lot unless the company permission  a person or employe to do so. If a company does allow guns in cars on company property, then if employees  got into an argument and proceeded to have a shootout in the parking lot and an employee was injured on company  property then the company could possibly be held liable for not being able to protect the injured employee.

Question 3

I do agree with the NRA’s statement that prohibition of a gun on company property would be a wrecking  ball to the second amendment. I do believe that a person has a right to be able to defend them selfs, in all capacities  nessicary to ensure their safety, even in the workplace. There is no easy answer to this problem of respecting the wishes of those that do not want to have guns on their property but also allowing for personal protection from threats that may arise on private property. I have no idea how to fix this legal  conundrum.

Question 4

Guns in the workplace does not mean at all that the workplace is not safe at all. If all employees  respect local and federal laws and act in a respectful and courteous  manner I cannot see a reason why guns would be a problem in the work environment. But I know that all employees will not act lawfully and will no act in a morally and socially  responsible manner. There are definitely  places that having guns at work for protection makes sense. I would use gas stations as an example, time and time again gas station convenience  stores are robbed at gunpoint in this country and I feel that the employees  have a right to be able to defend them selfs personally  from this threat on there lives.

Conclusion

There is no magic solution that will satisfy the rights b of a property owner to regulate what is or isn’t  on their property and to also allow for the permission  of employees  to arm themselves  in the workplace. I ultimately reason that the rights of an  individual to ensure there own safety take precedence  over the rights of the property owner.

I had a debate yesterday with my roommates on what should be done about gun laws in this country. For a disclaimer, we never reached a conclusion. Gun laws are a very sensitive topic in this country and many people have differing views. I certainly do not believe I have the one answer or one solution to this problem. But to cover some of the things we mention yesterday as we discussed the topic, we mentions some interesting points. I think that the problem that many people believe is that guns cause death and violence, but to take away all guns would still not solve the problem. Yes, guns cause death, but if people still wanted to be terrorist then they will find anyway they can to do so. What I think one solution, at first, would be to better regulate who is allowed guns through a strict background check and also allowing only certain stores to sell guns. Then next, in my opinion, is to not allow the sell of assault rifles such as the AR-15. Other than that, there are many other opinions that I am currently indifferent on, such as having trained teachers carrying weapons at schools, or taking away guns from people. I think this is a very large subject that needs to be debated more within the legislation.

2. I feel like this is a little bit of a gray area to discuss because private property rights do exist for company areas, but I do believe a person should be allowed to keep a gun in their vehicle. If I were to keep a gun in my vehicle it would not be loaded, the magazine would be kept in a separate area of the vehicle, and other safety precautions. As someone who is thinking about opening a business, I would allow for the employees to keep a weapon in their vehicle if a carry permit existed with this employee. Sure, I would have reason to be worried about potential risks but that can happen with any weapon, even if it is not a weapon.
3. This is another gray area in my opinion because it is all based on values, morals, and perceptions. I believe both the NRA and the Media politized the issue as they are constantly fighting about who is “right’. I do not believe that banning weapons defeats the purpose of guns for self-defense because several objects can be used for self-defense. If a person chooses to use a gun, then that is okay with me, but it may not be okay with the company that they work for. Personally, I believe that the matter is between the company and the employees. I understand that there are federal laws and regulations that come with certain cases, but that means that it should be discussed when that point is to be talked about with state.
4. I believe that carrying a gun into a school/workplace does not violate the right of the employee to have a safe working environment because once again this is all perception. It is hard to explain why I feel safer with a gun in the area, but I have always believed it to be because I was raised on how to properly handle a gun and how to disarm one. I am also the type of person to protect others over myself. Safety is the biggest reason a person might conceal carry, or even just carry a gun openly. I believe arming certain teachers/professors/employees with guns can be beneficial in some cases. I would not want to arm a teacher who works in an environment where it is common to be getting in difficult close contact situation: Special Education Classrooms.

I still believe that all these are based on perception, but I do not find guns to be the biggest issue when we bring them to the workplace or even into schools. The biggest issue isn’t the gun that was used, but the reason it was used. A lot of the reports on shooters return to state that they were mentally unwell or that they were being bullied. Other factors do come into place and yes, sometimes people just do it to do it. There is always a bad apple, but that does not mean the whole issue needs to be labeled a gun issue or a mental/bullying issue.

I believe that there should be no problem having a gun in your car that is parked on the company’s parking lot. You never know what can happen on the way to the workplace or when you are walking into your house after parking your car at home. I don’t think that the employee’s opinion should contribute to your rights of having a gun in your own car. It would be way different if we are talking about bringing the gun into the workplace and carrying it during your work hours. For example, I don’t think that that a gun belongs in an office where you work with your ‘’team’’. The founder of the company could have a gun locked in, in case there is a shooting near the office. I think it would be a great right for a company to allow employees to have their guns in the car. I personally don’t have any experience from companies allowing you to have a gun in the parking lot. I have only worked in Sweden, and you are not allowed to carry a gun there no matter where you are.

I do think that state legislatures should be involved. I totally think that this should be something that the employee himself or herself should decide. Nobody should disallow them from bringing a gun  and to have a gun in their parked car. I agree with NRA that it would take a wrecking ball against the second amendment if companies ban guns from their parking lot. Why have a gun law that allows people to carry their gun if they can’t have the freedom of keeping a gun in their car during work. I believe that if the state itself allows people to carry a gun, they should be allowed in a parking lot as well.

I do not see the reason why a teacher shouldn’t be allowed to bring guns into the parking lot or to the school itself. There has to be some sort of monitoring if we are going to be able to decrease the amount of shootings. I believe that the extreme increase of school shootings lately already has contributed to students and other teachers feeling uncomfortable and unsafe. For example, Cnn.com states that there has been on average one school shooting per week in 2018. This life-threatening statistic has to stop, and I don’t think it matters if schools prohibit students to bring guns to school. As being said earlier, I think that if a person is committed enough to start a shooting, he or she will and it could be stopped by a teacher that is carrying a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html

Gun laws are one of the largest topics of debate in today’s society, it is an extremely difficult subject as it pertains to many laws, constitutional and personal rights and overall safety of people within society. In regard to this particular case, I would say that people should be allowed to have their firearm in their vehicle at work. If someone’s motivation to own a gun is for personal safety, having to keep it at home and not in your vehicle almost defeats the purpose of owning a gun. In terms of property rights, I think the right for employers to tell people what they can and can’t bring to work should be confined to the building itself. I understand why an employer would not want an employee to bring a gun right through the front door of the workplace, however they should have the right to at least keep it outside in their vehicle.

Considering the perspective that a “wrecking ball’ effect would take place if the NRA bans guns from parking lots, my opinion would agree with this. I think that once you start banning gun from something as simple as a car in a parking lot at work, then other rights in terms of gun legislation would start to be taken as well. One cannot take some of the right away but no other aspects, once it starts to be analyzed and changed in certain features, then the right as whole would be in jeopardy. In fighting this, gun advocates have politicized this issue, however with such a fragile issue that pertains extremely important legislation such as the second amendment, it is something that almost has to be done. In saying this, I think that legislators do have the right to get involved, as this issue is not something that only involves workers and employers, but society as a whole.

Possibly one of the largest debates happening right now in terms of gun laws involves the issue of schools and guns. This is an extremely difficult issue in my opinion, the only thing that is certain is that something needs to be done to better protect school children. Whether that is training teachers to use guns, hiring more security for the schools or simply getting rid of guns in society as a whole. It is an issue that I cannot really formulate a concrete perspective on as I do not know what the most effective solution would be. Overall, I think safety of school children is more important then anyone’s right to own certain guns or bring them to the school parking lot. Therefore, whatever solution effectively protects school children should be put in place regardless of infringing on certain rights.

2. I think this is hard because although their car is their personal property, the parking lot is the companies and therefore really it should still be up to the company what is allowed. For example smoking weed on company property is probably generally not allowed, although those who do it are most likely doing it in their cars. I personally don’t think people should be carrying guns, and especially not in the workplace. After all the shootings taking place I think it is certainly a company’s right to want to try to protect their employees, and who is to say the employee with the gun won’t fly off the handle and start shooting people (although it is unlikely?

3. No I don’t agree. Honestly I don’t know a lot about the second amendment but as far as I know when it was created it was a different time and all this violence was not as prevelent, so who’s to say they would have enacted that if this were the case? I do think to some degree people have the right to bare arms (although I think this is part of the problem we are facing as a nation) but as far as doing this on company property that is a different story.

4. I can see how bringing guns in the work place could if in the hands of the right person protect the employees, but it most likely would not make the majority of employees feel safe or comfortable. I am not sure if there are circumstances where doing so would be acceptable or in the best interest of all involved unless as I said it was someone like me who would never shot a gun to hurt someone but only to protect myself and others but that is hard to gauge and therefore not the best approach.

In the day we live in today, it is not surprising that the question is being raised as to whether or not it is okay for employees to leave their firearm in their personal vehicle while it is parked at their place of employment. I personally do not think that this should be banned. If the individual has legally obtained their firearm (and perhaps even possesses a concealed carry permit) I do not see where that is an issue to the employer. I can understand and respect the concern that an employer may have with regards to possible safety issues allowing employees to keep their firearm in their vehicle. In my opinion, though, this is not enough grounds for concern for an employer. Take for instance the case in Kodiak, AK in April 2012. There was an employee, who before work hours, entered into his place of employment and fatally shot two of his co-workers. This is an example to demonstrate that it does not matter what rules are set in place, if an individual gets compelled to use workplace violence, they will initiate it without regard to any company policy. I do not feel that employees should be prohibited form keeping a legal firearm in their vehicle on the chance that someone might choose to attack the workplace.
I do not necessarily agree with the NRA that “a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment’ would take place by banning guns from parking lots, but I do believe this ban would infringe upon an individual right to have a weapon for self-defense. As I stated earlier, the majority of people obtain their firearm legally. Many choose to also obtain a concealed carry permit. I do not understand why the majority should be limited based on the what-if chance that an individual may choose to execute workplace violence. I do believe that topic of guns has become highly political from both sides of the argument. When it comes to whether or not employers allow guns in the parking lot, this manner should be left to be determined by the company and its employees. Ultimately, if an individual does not agree with the company policies, they can choose to seek employment elsewhere.
With all of the recent media coverage regarding school shootings, I am still on the fence on how I feel about the idea of teachers being allowed to bring a firearm into the school. I understand that if a teacher is armed, he or she could potentially help save lives in the event of a school shooting. I also know that there is other training that can be provided to staff that is beneficial in school shooting situations. It is unknown if a teacher with a firearm will be able to react safely and appropriately in a deadly situation. Another thing to consider is that while teachers have to undergo background checks, it is never known when an individual might “snap.’ In my town, there is a teacher under investigation for allegedly making comments against the students of their school. If this teacher is found guilty, what would the difference have been if they were allowed by the school to have a gun and have the turn of thought of wanting to harm students. They now have easy access to a gun that has been allowed in the school to carry out the threat.
I have taken three active shooting classes in the past three years (it is mandatory for my job). I truly believe that this training is vital to our schools and the safety of our children. Currently, most kids are taught to be easy targets; hide quietly in the corner of your classroom. The trainers have studied school shootings and have determined two key ideas: if the shooter is inside, do not make yourself an easy target and to be prepared to fight back. This idea was taught to the Marysville School District in 2014, approximately two months before the MPHS shooting. The staff was not fully engaged in the training and the trainers remember the faces of some of the staff that had the look of “it will never happen to us.’ The two key points that is stressed (get out if you can or be ready to defend yourself) were witnessed by law enforcement following the terrible shooting. Those students that could safely get out and run, did. Those that could not, were found in their classrooms ready to defend themselves with objects found in the classroom. I am not anti-gun, but I understand that not everyone is comfortable with firearms. There are other resources and training available for schools that could better equip and prepare them in the unfortunate event that they are faced with an active shooter in their school.

2. The idea of parking lots is intriguing. I do not understand why someone would feel they need a firearm in their car at all times. Workplace violence killed 403 individuals in 2014 out of the 4,679 fatal workplace injuries according to the  Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  You are more likely to die from an accident at work, than from someone else. I feel that we should respect other’s property rights and refrain from bringing a firearm to work.

3. I do not agree with the NRA. Our school district in Fairbanks forbids firearms on the premises, but it has not endangered our rights to bear arms. Gun advocates have been very guilty in politicizing the issue, but some of it comes from the other side as well. I feel this is an issue between the company and their employees because it directly effects them and their daily choices. Depending on how the company views things, you can choose not to work for them.

4. I can understand both sides of the argument, and it something I have struggled with myself lately. While there probably several teachers and other faculty members in Alaskan schools who know how to safely handle firearms and are willing to use them, that is not the case everywhere. I do not think the presence of guns automatically violates the rights of students or other teachers because guns themselves are merely tools. Heart disease and obesity are a greater risk to people than gun violence. According to an  NBC News article, “Heavyburden: Obesity may be even deadlier than we thought,” by Maggie Fox in 2013, almost 598,000 people are killed every year due to heart disease. This is contrasted with a  BBC News article relaying how many people were killed by firearms in 2015 as 13,286. The food we eat is more dangerous.

This does not dispel the fact that gun violence towards children seems to becoming an alarming norm. Arming teachers in Alaska may prove to be effective because our view towards guns is different from someone in a big city area. I would like to think that people who use them safely consider them tools, and not weapons. There are several different variables to consider when discussing guns. Unfortunately, all it takes is one person to misuse it to cause massive destruction. I do not think we pay our teachers enough for the ever increasing amount of responsibility they have. We expect them to educate the nation’s future leaders, teach them life skills, and social interactions, as well as protect their lives. Police officers get several months of training, and hours of experience before they are “qualified” to look after others. What are we doing to assist teachers in this manner.

Based on this argument, I would discourage the idea of arming teachers. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and experiences. With so many different aspects at fault in school shootings and other areas of violence, I believe a multi-faceted approach is required.

2. I do think that we, as employees of any company, have a moral and a legal right to park where we please and to keep in our cars what we need to be safe. If I deem it necessary for me to need a gun in my car to be safe driving back and forth from work, then who are they to tell me otherwise? As far as property rights go, sure they could walk around and ask if anyone had guns in their cars but that wouldn’t be in their best interest to do so, which leads me into safety concerns of employers. As an employer, your job is to keep everyone safe. If your staff isn’t bright enough to know that they need to keep their guns out of sight and put away, then I would say they need to go anyway. If someone started shooting up your place of business, you would be happy to know that someone there can stop them within a few minutes. When it comes to your staff, they can park 10 feet outside your gate and be legal and just as close to their gun if they wanted to come in and shoot the place up. I do not at all think that companies should be concerned about this.
3. I do believe that by telling people that they can’t have guns on company property, they are taking away the rights of their employees. In Alaska this isn’t a big issue but what about the guy that lives outside of Chicago and commutes two or three hours a day? Why should he not be able to have a gun to keep himself safe to from work? The NRA may be guilty of politicizing the issue but why not let your voice be heard? Every day someone thinks up new ways to slowly take away our second amendment rights. Each state should step in and say one way or the other if it is ok or not ok in these states. We have whole city’s doing it right now and those without guns are primarily gun free zones with the highest crime rate. Coming back to our own state, we have far less people but we also have far less crime. People will also think twice about pulling their gun if they know 61% of the people behind them are possibly carrying a weapon as well (cbsnews, 2018).
4. I do not believe that we should open this up to schools in general, but with that said, I do not believe it is a bad idea at all. No teacher should be forced to carry a gun but if there are teachers that would like to carry and have the proper training (whatever that might be) that I feel that would be okay. They should have one 4-hour block of instruction per year for a refresher as well as to qualify in order to be able to carry and all of this should only be able to happen after the school administrator has okayed each teacher on a case by case basis.

cbsnews. (2018). “Gun Ownership by State’. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/51/

1. If companies were to ban guns from vehicles on their lots, how would they know someone is not still hiding them? Would they search through every car? That right there would be a violation of our rights. Like I said, my car is my portable property it takes me everywhere I need, and I put a lot of money into it. I am very particular about the people ride in it. Even with nothing to hide I would not allow my car to be searched. Heck, I am not even okay with the property owners coming through for realtor inspections. It has nothing to do with what I do or do not have in my vehicle. It is the fact that I feel that I have no privacy if someone were to just search throw my things. If they want to do that, then they are more than welcome to pay for the vehicle. Do not have me slave away from my possessions only to have some stranger tear it apart. That is not freedom, that is not American. I believe that everyone has a moral right to protect themselves and guns are one of the best ways to do it. It provides distance between the attacker, the weight can be used to knock someone out, and it is not as harsh as say, a knife. I understand someone being uncomfortable with them and I would respect their wishes to keep a gun off their property. If a business strongly believes in no guns and I really felt unsafe without my gun on me, then perhaps I should find a different workplace. However, when you own a vehicle you are driving your own little property around. So, by allowing someone to park on your property, you are relinquishing the rights to that person to then control their own property. If the gun is kept hidden in the car, who will ever know it is there? Who really is at danger? If someone really wanted to shoot up a place, they can park across the street and walk in with the same damage.
2. I just watched a video on Facebook recently (sorry I did not catch a title) and this woman pointed out that people are against the Second Amendment because it does not add up to their personal expectations. She brought up how gun supporters are demonized on the same level as the murderers who do shoot up schools. There are people who love guns and there are people who want to kill. There is not a direct link in owning a gun and being a killer. If these were school knife stabbings, would we be advocating to ban knives? Or any kind sharp object that could potentially harm someone? It is unfortunate to say but there will always be the sickos who find pleasure in taking a life. If you have watched any kind of crime show you would know this. Perhaps instead of banning all guns, we should look at our media and what our youth is being fed and reflect on that. Recent generations have grown up hearing up wars, seeing people strategically kill someone of their favorite show, and being able to shoot someone on their video game. We are always absorbing things, especially our media, so why don’t we make steps to make those things we absorb less violent?
3. I recently watched a statement from President Trump on his solution to school shootings. Trump proposes to employ teachers with proper training (previous military or gun training experience) to be employed in every school. These teachers should be properly evaluated at regular intervals. Trumps thought is that shooters know when they walk into a no gun school that they have a bunch of open targets. But with teachers who are armed, shooters will be deferred because they know that they will most likely be gunned down. It takes four or five teachers surrounding the shooter at once, and dozens of lives can be saved. Trump also instigated a pay raise for the teachers who sign on to do this. I think that this is a great way to at least stick up for ourselves. What good does it do when all the good people are defenseless against the bad?

Legally and morally, I do not think employees have a right to keep guns in their cars. As Case 8.4 stated, the workplace is private property and thereby the owner of the land, in this case the employer, can determine legally whether or not guns maybe allowed on the campus. With an employment at will contact, the employee is agreeing to adhere to company policy. While firing someone for simply having a gun in their car in the parking lot seems not quite right, if it was explicitly stated that it was against company policy, it is not unjust for them to be excused. Companies are right to be concerned about guns on work property. A locked car is not a vault. They are broken into a robbed frequently and to have the liability of a stolen gun is much worse than most other thing that would be left in a car. A weapon so easily accessible would not be safe. If a company did determine that their employees were significantly safer going to and from work with a gun and allowed guns on in the parking lot, I could see the value in that as well. Ultimately, the employer should get to determine and uphold a gun policy because it is company property and there are many employee’s safety to consider.

The Second Amendment states the right to bear arms is to form a militia to ensure a free state. A militia is a citizen made army for the purpose of either supplementing the national army or to protect the people from it’s own government if that government abuses it’s power. In either case, there would more than likely be advance notice to forming this militia. I would not expect people to have to leave their work place at a moments notice with their weapons to defend the people. The NRA has construed the Second Amendment to mean that citizens should be able to have a gun anytime and anyplace. They are definitely guilty of politicizing most gun issues. I think the state is right create restriction on guns in terms of purchasing and things of that sort. But in this case of guns in parking lots, it should be left to the companies and employees to determine themselves individually.

Allowing any guns, even or especially   handled by teachers, into a school of defenseless children does not make any sense to me. Guns are deadly and unpredictable. Just a few week ago, a gun-trained teacher’s fire arm accidentally went off and injured a student. If teachers had gun, there would be a greater opportunity for a untrained student to get a hold of one and create damage. Claiming that these teachers would be highly trained in impractical. Most of the teacher I know barely have time for themselves between classes, lesson planning, and grading assignments. To expect them to fit enough training and practice time with a gun to be proficient enough to only shoot an attacker is unfair. In a video I recently watched (and can unfortunately not find to reference it) a reporter from a well know new agency visited a facility where teachers were being trained to use guns in schools. In a simulated school shooter situation, one of the teachers shot a fake innocent student. When the reporter asked to trainer about it, he said that was expected and acceptable because it would save the lives of the other children. Do we really want to put teachers in the position where they are shooting students, even if it is in the crossfire with an attacker?

Post your initial answers by Wednesday at 11:30 PM.  Then be sure to reply to a classmate by Saturday at 11:30 PM.

Be sure to backup your argument with facts, references and sound reasoning.

Read Case Study 8.4 “Have Gun, Will Travel….to Work’

Answer the following questions in your post:  Questions 2, 3 and 4 at the end of the Case. For question 4, since it is being debated at the state and federal levels, answer it in relation to schools and teachers.  Question 4 could be as follows:

2. In your view do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot? If so, what about the property rights and safety concerns of employers? If employees don’t have this right, would it be good policy for companies to allow them to stow their cars anyway? Do companies have good grounds for being concerned about weapons in their parking lots?

Provided there are no regulations against doing so, employees do have a legal right to park their cars in company parking lots with their guns in them. If there is a restriction against doing so then the right is up to the private property owner. If an employer says no guns on property, then the employee must abide by the policy or face discipline and/or terminated for just cause. Morally I am of the opinion that a firearm should be under lock and key so if the vehicle is locked I don’t perceive this to be a problem. As far as property owners, they have the right to ask that employees not have firearms on their property especially with concern for the safety of others. If employees didn’t have this right it would not be good practice to allow employees to stow firearms in their cars anyway. If a company has a policy, they need to adhere to the policy or change the rule. Companies do have cause for concern for weapons in their parking lots; if the wrong person knows that employees have firearms in their vehicles at certain places of business, and that criminal decides to break into the vehicle to steal those firearms, the business is now partially on the hook for what happens with that firearm, since the firearm was stolen from private property. If the business did not provide adequate security, then they may be held liable in court for any bad deeds that occur.

3. Do you agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would take “a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment’ or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self defense? Explain why or why not. In your view, have gun advocates been guilty of politicizing the issue? Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left up to companies and employees to settle?

I do not agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots they are somehow nullifying the second amendment. If an employer owns private property and does not want firearms on their property this their legal right to limit themselves from the exposure of having firearms on their property. The second amendment gives us the right “to keep and bear arms’ but it does not give us the right to carry a firearm wherever we want. I believe that gun advocates are guilty of sensationalizing and politicizing the issue of gun control. This is evidenced by a recent article in the New York times that displays how gun control laws are ar hot topic in this year’s midterm elections. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/politics/parkland-gun-control-politics-midterms.html Politicians are trying to distance themselves from their previous views and association with the NRA to gain votes for re-election. This is a direct assault on morality, they are merely doing and saying whatever it takes to get re-elected and not holding to the ethical code. Dishonest representation is what the electorate across the country is facing. I don’t think state legislators should get involved in the process of gun control because this is a business and private property issue. Employers should have this issue handled on their own and do not need to get the government involved.

4. A school could choose, if it wished, to allow teachers to bring guns not only into the parking lot but also into the school itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of students or other teachers to be guaranteed a safe learning environment?  Feel free to comment on other aspects of having controlled guns in schools.

Teachers bringing guns to school has been an idea thrown out there since the Columbine shooting and after every other school shooting in the country. I work at a high school in Fairbanks and, personally, I think the idea is beyond ridiculous. I own firearms and I wouldn’t have a morale issue with ending someone’s life in the defense of myself or my family, however; I sure as hell wouldn’t bring a firearm to school. I would be terrified of the possibility of a student getting ahold of the gun, thus creating more of an issue. Thankfully our school board refused the vote that Fairbanks Assemblyman Lance Roberts presented to allow teachers to carry at school.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/us/politics/parkland-gun-control-politics-midterms.html

I believe having guns in school would be more dangerous because it would make the kids more fearful and may put ideas in their heads that they may otherwise not think of. Earlier this school year the high school I work at had a note delivered to the front office warning of a gun attack. The next day, with FPD on site with their own AR-15’s in tow, the kids were more freaked out about the cops than anything else.

https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/lathrop-high-school-students-stay-home-after-shooting-threat/article_6351f986-c468-11e7-bfdb-a37998bdec08.html

School is supposed to be a safe place and adding more guns to a crowded high school just seems backwards to me. I do however believe that schools need to bring back the school resource officers – police officer in schools – which allows students and police to form a bond that is positive rather than assuming the police are the bad guys all the time – which is exactly how teeenagers act these days. I have had several conversations with coworkers at school and not one person said they are in favor of bringing guns to school. A safe learning environment happens when parents, teacher and students take a part in the community that is a school, we don’t need guns at school we need human connections.

This one is just funny:

https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/more-fairbanks-students-stage-walkout-over-gun-violence/article_0ac499c6-32fa-11e8-9547-371329d63e48.html

“Have Gun, Will Travel….to Work or School’

When looking at gun control in different scenarios we need to ask ourselves if we have a moral or legal right to own them at all. Moral rights give all people the basic right to life, liberty, and protection whether the law recognizes them or not. If we have these basic moral rights then we must have a moral obligation to protect these rights. If this is true then we all must have a moral right to own guns for self-defense. Owning or using a gun can be morally wrong if someone has bad intentions or does not use it with Kants “Good Will’ but would not always be illegal. Our 2^nd Amendment gives all US citizens a legal right to bear arms, a self-defense way to keep the security of a free state.

Employees have a moral and legal right to leave guns in a parked locked vehicle on company property since everyone has the basic right to physical security when moving about including to and from work. Private land should not override citizen’s basic or legal rights unless those companies can provide physical security for them. Nothing is going to stop a person or animal that wants to cause unjust harm, they have no regard for human life, laws, or rules set by companies.

In a meeting at work this topic was brought up, we were looking into ways for employees to work safely in rural areas after last years bear attack at POGO mine. We found that allowing workers to carry guns for personal security and the security of coworkers outweighs the rights of other employee/ community views. Although not implemented yet, I realized the only way to stop the threat of an attacking bear immediately is by using a gun. This scenario shows that there are certain threats that require guns for self-defense, when the threat of immediate harm is to great for any other action. Moral rights and legal rights allow self-defense if the force used is the same as the threat is to you, people or animals.

The NRA has a good claim that this action is a direct attack on the second amendment. This attacks both the moral and legal rights of gun owner’s personal security as mentioned above. Companies should have the right to not allow employees to bring guns into their building if they can provide equal security for them.

Gun owners should be held liable when left accessible to people that cannot legally obtain them, especially kids. This would limit the ability of a school shooting to happen. If teachers all carried a gun these school shooting would not exist or end very quickly. But without proper training no one knows how teachers will react in that situation. Not to mention the liability on the school districts if an accident occurred or an innocent bystander was hit. A better solution to this would be gun safes in strategic areas in the school that are only accessible to a few qualified employees, keeping students and other teachers safe and protected.

These school shootings are happening more in modern society. Why is this? Students used to have guns hanging from window racks in vehicles at school, older people tell stories of storing guns in lockers to go hunting after class. Society, parenting, mental stability, and the underlying causes for such violence needs to be addressed before our freedoms are further restricted. Teachers, media, organizations, marketing, technology and people of influence change moral fibers in society, our outlook on life, how we think and act. This can be good or bad depending on the intentions of those making the decisions that can lead society one way or another. Modern society has so many distractions that disconnect human interactions and a child’s basic needs. As I look around I see parents including their children on their phones at restaurants, kids acting up for attention and parents hand them technology to keep them distracted, broken homes or both parents working seems normal, these kids are being ignored by the people closest to them. When teens are going through chemical changes as well as trying to find themselves and fit in, any act of aggression or stress is looked down on or medicated but the underlying reasons why is never discussed with them or in the community. These teen shooters didn’t just wake up one day and decide to shoot up the school. Their cries for help in an uncaring society went unheard and forced them to reflect their internal pain, hate, and anger.

2. In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot? What do you believe should be the property rights and safety concerns of employers?

Ans: After careful examination and research I arrived at the decision that employees have neither a moral nor a legal right to park their cars in a company’s parking lot with a gun inside it. Some areas are even classified as “Gun Free Zone”. Places such as schools, prisons..etc. This was a really though question for me the wrap my brain around, because I like most Alaskan like to know or have the peace of mind that a weapon is close by for safety purposes if necessary. On the other side of the token, if such a vehicle is broken into by a deranged or malicious individual that aims to cause havoc what then?  This would be a liability for any employer simply because if the weapon is used and the employer knew about the weapon being there in the first place, they could be subjected to lawsuits and other legal consequences.

3. Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle?

Ans: I think personally that the state legislatures should not get involved unless it’s completely necessary. I believe that employers and employees such be able to accurately develop and implement certain rules and or conduct concerning this issue.

4.  Because the workplace is the company’s private property, the company could choose to allow employees to bring guns not only into the parking lot, but also into the workplace itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of other employees to be guaranteed a safe working environment?

Ans: I belief that under certain conditions and work environments it could be feasible for companies to allow employees to carry weapons not only in their cars, but also into the facilities. Also employees who decline to do so should not feel like it a violation of their “Guaranteed safety”. Because there is no such thing in the world.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p13o8v9p/For-the-safety-of-others-gun-owners-should-think-of-the-repercussions-of-having/

I believe employees do have the right to have guns in their cars because at the end of day how can you really stop it. If you pull security checks and 24hr security, now you have to pay out to another group of employees that work. If the amendment states we have the right to bare arms then that’s what it is. We just have to pray for safety and security at all times and not just at work. If they don’t have it their cars then there is a tempting need to have it in the workplace where the violence usually occurs with not protection available.

I think the right should be left up to the companies and employees to settle. Depending on your location and where you work, protection in the manner of self-defense is needed. I mean, schools are in need of better protection due to recent events of gun violence in the schools, so you know its needed in the corporate sector.

I view it from this standpoint that if teachers were allowed to have guns in the school how many kids lives would be saved right now. I believe it should be allowed from the perspective of having safety classes and legalize the right to carry the firearm in school. I know there may be concerns of more violence in the schools may occur due to staff confrontations or maybe a staff member losing it, but we will never know the statistics of it if we don’t try. I’d rather give it try versus to continue to lose lives of the young and innocent.

2. As I do quite frequently, I will use my beliefs in classical liberalism to justify my position.   A person’s right to do something stops when it violates the right’s of another.   This assumption is necessary for rights to be equal for everyone.   If this equality does not exist, then rights do not exist, only privileges.   In this case, a company has owners, even corporations.   To use Mark Tushnet’s analogy, the owners of a company have the right to autonomy over their property, just as one would for a house.   Whether or not it would be a good policy to allow guns should depend on the situation.   A logging company in which workers have to commute to an area populated with dangerous animals should allow guns.   A company in a city environment may also justify guns if it is located in a high crime area.   However, if crime is likely to happen on company property, then the company is also obligated to implement measures that would increase safety (no different than minimizing risk for other hazards).   There definitely should be no concern about employees keeping guns on property in regards to employee-sourced violence since the employee can simply choose to ignore policy if they feel the urge to act out.

3. The NRA is wrong simply because they are misusing the Second Amendment, as they often do.   The Constitution, most especially, the Bill of Rights, is intended to limit government behavior in order to maximize liberty.   Employers, not including government agencies, are not part of the government and therefore are not bound by the same rules.   Of course, this is assuming a society in which all interaction is voluntary.   Being an employee of a company is voluntary.   If they don’t like the policies, they can quit.   However, society has devolved to the point were many things are not voluntary, which probably violates one or more of the other rights laid out in the Constitution.   For instance, education is a lawful requirement.   This leads me to answering question 4.

4. Since education is an involuntary interaction from the perspective of students, I would consider it a violation of the Second Amendment to not allow students to carry guns.   The same does not apply for the teachers due to the already mentioned concept of voluntary employment.   However, it would be good policy to allow teachers to carry due to the fact that the increased risk of gun violence from teachers is minimal compared to the risk of students already carrying.   The presence of guns in school cannot violate a right to a safe learning environment because the right to safety does not exist within the confines of liberty.   The concept of safety has such broad coverage that making it a right would inevitably violate everyone’s rights to everything.   Simply leaving the house is less safe than staying home, after all.   I should close this paragraph with a potential necessary clarification.   I am suggesting that students have the right to bear arms in school only in the context of forced education, since the government is involved.   Ideally, everything would be voluntary including school, which would make for only private schools.   In such cases, just like my argument for company autonomy in #2, schools would be free to establish a ban on guns just as students could choose to boycott the school whose policies they disagree with.

2.

My opinion is that employees have a legal right to keep guns in their cars that are parked in a company lot. On property rights of employers, I have to wonder how employers plan to regulate non-employees that visit their business. If a customer or client has a gun in their vehicle, is the employer willing to lose that client to enforce their property rights? If they aren’t, then if non-employee guns are not an issue why are employee guns?

The safety concerns of employers are somewhat valid in my opinion. Firstly, the 700 workplace homicides per year is too vague. “Occupational homicides by selected characteristics, 1997—2010,’ reports a total of 8,666 occupational homicides. Only 894 of those homicides were committed by co-workers of former co-workers (unfortunately these are not split). This also does not specify if the worker usually kept a gun in their vehicle or if was a planned event. So yes, it reasonable that employers are concerned but there are other things for them to be more concerned about.

I think it would be good policy for companies to allow employees in their cars simply because the overall feel I got from this chapter was that companies that are accommodating (within reason) to their employees wishes do better in the long run because employees are happier.

3.

I think a “wrecking ball to the Second Amendment’ is an exaggeration, but I do have concerns about people’s right to self-defense. I personally have never been concerned about walking to my car from work, but that is because of when and where I work. I can understand people being concerned who work late or work near a dangerous area. It is not uncommon for people to have errands or plans after work, and it often is likely inconvenient for employees to return home to retrieve a gun if they weren’t allowed to keep one in their car. I don’t really feel confident commenting on whether gun advocates are guilty of politicizing the issue; I don’t follow the news that well. If necessary, yes I think state legislators are right to get involved.

4.

This is a tricky question. My first thought was, as a student would I have been uncomfortable knowing that any of my past teachers had a gun in the school? My answer is no, but I could understand parents and different students having concerns. I do have concerns about students getting a hold of said guns. Even if there were restrictions on how the guns were stored in the school, accidents happen.

“Occupational homicides by selected characteristics, 1997—2010,’  https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/work_hom.pdf.

2. I think this is more of a legal concern than moral. I can’t see a moral issue with having or not having a firearm at work. I believe more in right to property than to own a firearm (anyone want to get into the militia debate with me) and your ability to control (to a certain degree) what happens on your property. A business is made up of many people, not just one kind of person, so I can see that an employee may want to arm themselves, but that leads to another issue for me: what is going on at the company? If the company is in a high crime area, they should invest in security for their employees, if not, than the employees may want to reconsider why they are working there at all. Also, since most people think background checks are full of loop holes, the employer may not know who is legally allowed to own or who has done enough training to carry safely (taking a concealed carry class is a minimum class, knowing how YOU react in shooting situations is completely different). Companies have other concerns about firearms as well, such as accidental discharge. Whose liability is it if an employee is accidentally shot? Does your insurance cover it? How will other employees feel if someone is accidentally shot at work?

3. The NRA over react to something? Wrecking ball to the Second Amendment? Hyperbole much? As if often said: if you don’t like it, you don’t have to work here. In my mind, if you feel so unsafe at work that you need a firearm on you or in your vehicle, you may want to choose another profession or at least a new employer. It’s not anything close to a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment as each person has, in some regard, the ability to look for a job with a company that is inline with their own beliefs.

For my next argument, I am going to assume that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA is a hardened conservative. Hard right wingers have usually fall back on the Constitution and personal rights. This seems to be a sticky area for conservatives as what is more vital than right to property? Without you, the State can take anything or dictate what occurs on your property (which already happens, but to varying degrees). Essentially, the NRA’s view is: We don’t care whose property you are on, you must allow everyone to carry a firearm. Your right to property is subordinate to my right to carry a firearm anywhere I please.

4. I’m not going to take the ‘rights’ angle with my response, but rather discuss how making a teacher into a soldier is not an ideal solution and who owns the ‘school’. After school shootings, it is often stated that a teacher with a gun could have stopped the shooter. Ok, what kind of teacher are we talking about? Someone who just bought a gun? Someone who was in the military or law enforcement prior to teaching?
   In an article written for the New York Daily News, MICHAEL DECILLIS who is a retired SWAT Medic, speaks about the massive amount of training required to react to a shooting. He speaks of his massive training and how it would be near impossible to train huge numbers of teachers to be calm, cool, and collected while under fire or engaging a real person. Not just any real person: “Oftentimes the shooter is a student, and we are asking teachers to hunt them down and shoot them. Many times the shooter is armed with military-grade firepower such as the AR-15, and we are asking teachers to confront them with handguns. Handguns that are concealed, so that they hold few rounds of ammunition-perhaps at most 10.’Another thought is who owns the school? The original #4 was about businesses, which I agree with the American Bar Association in that the company’s property should be subject to “the traditional property rights of private employers and other private property owners to exclude’ people with firearms (p322). If public sentiment is to arm teachers, than it should be done district to district, not from the Feds or State governments. Schools can be very localized and trying a one size fits all method may anger some and dissuade others to attend public schools. Public schools are just that, owned by the public and should act in accordance to the publics wishes.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/retired-nypd-rips-trump-proposal-arm-teachers-article-1.3843545

2. I do think that employees should be able to keep firearms in their car, and while suspicion by their employers may be warranted, that means that there is probably an employee who they feel unsafe around. Maybe firing the individual who is being confrontational and impulsive would be a better way to handle the situation rather than have them stay on and continue creating issues. I think guns should be kept in the vehicle, and if the companies have hired stable individuals than there should be nothing to worry about.

3. No. The NRA is a cancer on the gun community for politizing EVERYTHING related to guns, then barring the CDC from doing any research that may cast guns in a bad light. They completely blew the issue out of proportion, and the ultimate decision  should lay with the individual on whether or not there should or shouldn’t be a gun in their vehicle. If a company has an issue with an individual having a gun in their car, then they should look into what makes them feel that way.

4. A parking lot is fine, again as long as the vehicle remains secure. However, I would be concerned about a child getting his hands on a weapon, or accidental discharge of the firearm injuring a student. I think the presence of a gun within the walls of a school should not even be considered due to the HIGH potential for mishap. If a gun were to make it into the school, it would need to be by the hands of a professional.

This topic of guns is a very sticky conversation. We have people on the extreme of each side and some smack dab in the middle. The Second Amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.‘ Well these words seem to be pretty clear; we have a right to bear arms. Seems easy, but it’s not. For one, the meaning of this amendment is much debated. People take it to mean that we as individuals are allowed to have “arms’. However, if you take into consideration what the meaning were back then, it sheds a different light.

“Militia:  During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities.  Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns.  The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities.  These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.’ https://kids.laws.com/second-amendment

Today our Militia is our National Guard; and it is well regulated, as the 2^nd amendment states. You must join, be trained, and follow all rules. We no longer consider all males to be a part of our militia. This changes the meaning for who has the right to bear arms.

That being said, I agree that all citizens have the right to have guns. But they should be regulated for everyone’s safety. There are so many arguments for both sides of this coin. One is that, as with all laws and rules, they are only for the honest. If I person has ill intent, they will do what they will. This leads to arguments that if a person has a gun, they can defend against those who wish to do harm. To me this does make sense. There have been studies that claim that in areas where people are allow to carry — whether concealed or open, that the crime rate surrounding crimes of individuals, has decreased. So this would mean that personal crimes such as rape, muggings, and other crimes directed at a person — not their property, are lower in areas where you never know who is packing. This possibility would make a “bad guy’ think twice.   These studies, much like the discussion of guns, have been controversial. Some say they are skewed and not properly researched. I personally think that if you are in an area where everyone around you could be licensed to carry, and probably are, then the bad guys would be less likely to mess with you; as they never know if they are going to meet the barrel of a gun. In a state that does not allow concealed or open carry, they know the chances of a person carrying a gun are minuscule and they can do what they please; because again, rules are for the honest, so the bad guys have guns. In the link below, you will see, that while the study is said to be skewed, they do make note that “scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared.’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html?utm_term=.663f22a210a0

As far as an employer’s property and the right to ban guns; again this is sticky. The property is private, and they can ban guns on that property, but then the person’s car is private property as well. So banning a gun ON the property, such as the parking lot and in the building, would be their right; but is it their right to say that we cannot have a gun in our car, which is OUR property. Here again, rules are for the honest. An honest, well-meaning person would have a gun in the car for their personal protection and never bring it out onto the personal property of the employer. But a person with ill intent will do it no matter what the rules and laws say. Then there is the consideration that if you have a gun in your car, and that is allowed, what if someone steals your gun. We can say that bad guys do what they want, and good people should not be punished for it, but what if we are the reason bad guys get guns; either by stealing them from or buying them from law abiding citizens who mean no harm. Again, it is so sticky and has so many sides to consider, how do we know what is the right answer to the problem. The only way to make everyone happy is to make rules to manage both sides of that pesky sticky coin.

As far as the NRA, I am not so sure about their methods and if they are right. I will admit, I was leaning more to their side on this matter; that is until I spoke with someone who made a really good point. We do need the discussion about regulation to happen. On one side you have a growing fight for regulation and on the other the NRA minded folks who will not entertain the notion of regulation at all. We saw a similar fight with prohibition. One group wanted liquor gone for good and one wanted it to stay for good and there was no middle ground. Due to the majority of public vote, the government had no choice but to add an amendment to ban alcohol. We then saw a lot of bootleggers crime, and mob growth that surrounded alcohol. People had the liquor rather it was legal or not.  It was not until the crime and death tolls reach a peak that they revisited the idea of allowing alcohol, but with regulation, and abolishing the amendment; making both parties happy and decreasing alcohol related crimes.

I do not think that we should have guns in our workplaces or schools. Here is why. You may train them, license them, and make it all good on paper. But, what happens when someone snaps, takes a teachers gun, and shoots several kids before anyone can stop them. Now you have put the weapon right in front of the person will the ill will; and they will find a way. What if a teacher loses control and out of anger shoots a student? What if an armed coworker gets angry and shoots someone? So while I agree in regulation, and that regulation will put the responsibility into the hands of the gun owner, I do not think there is enough regulation possible to risk guns in schools with kids, or at work.

The harsh fact is that we live in a different world today than the forefathers who wrote the constitution and its amendments. We have to have regulation to protect people and try to avoid problems. We also know that to some extent, where there is an ill will, there is a way. We have to reach a middle ground. I feel that I have a right to have a gun to protect myself and my family, but with every right comes responsibility. I have a right to drive a car, which could kill others if I do not use it properly, so I have to have a driver’s license that says I have been taught how to use it and I accept responsibility. I also have to have insurance that covers death or damage to others if I do not use it correctly. There are also laws that say if I abuse my rights and I cause a death, in an illegal manner — this means there is regulation involved, that I will be tried for the crime and pay for it or go to jail. We have many aspects of our modern lives that have been regulated to keep us and others safe. We have not raised the roof and tried to have those regulations stopped. No one is fighting to stop all the many regulations and law that surround the operation of a vehicle. How is your gun any different? You have a right to it and a responsibility to it; and therefore in order to uphold your responsibility there has to be regulation.

I understand why people are upset, it is a huge deal the amount of violence that this country sees. Both sides advocate strongly for their position because of these events. My opinion (and I say opinion because I have no statistics to back me- which is true for all of us discussing this issue) is that businesses should have a right to control what is within their walls just as they have a right to enforce uniforms and menus, and literally  every other aspect of what their employees can do inside their building. When we sign a contract to work for someone, we sign on to adhere to their rules- however strict they may seem. I believe though, that what happens inside an employees car, is the property of the employee regardless of whether they park on the companies property. The employer may require a right to know whether the employee has a gun in the car or not, just as a cop has the right to know when you get pulled over, for the safety of the people involved, but they should not be able to fire employees for carrying a gun in their  vehicle or ban them from doing so.

8.4 case study questions 2,3,4

2. I believe employees have a moral right to store firearms in their vehicles while at work. I think it can be argued well enough that a vehicles count as private property, so while the car is indeed parked on a company’s private property of a parking lot, the gun is still contained within the owner’s property. As long as the firearm does not LEAVE the car, except in case of dire emergency, they should be able to store it there.

However, I also think the company should have the legal right to ban guns on their premise, within vehicles or not. The company should have the final say, legally, about the subject, as any incident with firearms would be on their property or in their facility. Because of this, I believe their concern is warranted, as an armed conflict on company property would lead to a large amount of legal concerns.

3. If companies ban firearms from their parking lots, I do not believe it would be “a wrecking ball to the second amendment.” The company is not the government, and private policy is not gun-restricting legislature. It is a park of the work environment, and should be left to a case-by-case basis for each company to decide how to approach the issue. I believe, slightly, that gun advocates have politicized the issue, which can lead to absolutes or wild accusations about the government.

“Corporations are not individuals, they argue, but artificial legal entities, whose ‘rights’ are entirely at the discretion of the state.” (pg322)

If it is true that anti-gun agendas are being pushed through corporations by the government, then I would be willing to agree about the whole wrecking ball thing. But as it stands, I would like to think that companies have enough independence that they are allowed to decide workplace policy on their own.

4.The topic of guns in schools is a hot button issue. However, I do not think arming teachers is a correct answer. Kids, especially ones in younger grades, can hurt themselves in many different ways. And, in these early grades, it can be a valuable lesson. “Don’t run with scissors.” “Don’t try to balance on the exercise ball.” “Tie your shoelaces.”

I don’t believe having a firearm in the classroom is a safe idea. Negligence is a common mishap, and regardless of how well these teachers are instructed, accidents are bound to happen.

Someone could easily state that any mishaps would be overshadowed by the benefit of deterring potential shooters, and it’s a fair point. Whether or not having firearms in a school increases or decreases the safety of the working environment is a tricky question, and one without any past precedent. It is something that could go either way.

Read Case Study 8.4 “Have Gun, Will Travel….to Work’

Answer the following questions in your post:   Questions 2, 3 and 4 at the end of the Case.   For question 4, since it is being debated at the state and federal levels, answer it in relation to schools and teachers

2. Moral or legal right to park cars w/ guns in them in company parking lot?   If so, what about the property rights and safety concerns of employers?   Would it be a good idea to let them stow guns in their cars?   Do companies have good grounds for being concerned about weapons in their parking lots?

I don’t really think it is a moral right that employees can have a gun in their car in the company parking lot, it seems to be a much more legal issue.   Morally, it seems okay, if the employee(s) can be trusted, then they should have the right to have this weapon in their vehicle, in case of self defense, of course considering if they have the license to carry a firearm.   Legally it is kind of scary as it can apply to a variety of employees and companies.   I think it is all up to the employer, but it also depends on what kind of business the people are in.   Location may also be a factor.

If employees don’t have this right already, I think it would be good policy to let companies allow them to stow guns in their cars.   First of all, the weapons are in their cars, not on their person.   The risk that this comes with though would be car theft/break-ins on the company property.   I think that would certainly concern some employers.   Factors taken into that would be how tight security is on their property.

3. Would banning guns from parking lots actually “take a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment” or nullify the right of people who have weapons for self-defense?   Does the state legislature have the right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle?

I don’t think banning guns from parking lots would actually take a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment.   It would be legitimate to ban guns from some parking lots, like universities, grocery stores, etc.   Those kinds of places with lesser security should be where the law is stronger, and that could have some potential in bringing some prevention of issues with guns.   It might bring up some questions for those people that do carry a firearm wherever they go, but even that still seems almost crazy.   If it were left to the companies and the employees, that might be the better way to go, and maybe the easier way to solve the problems.   Companies and people that work for those companies might come to a solution easier than the state legislature.   Also, it could be better for just the companies and employees to settle it, as the rules for the guns in parking lots could vary easier from location to location.

4. Are there circumstances in which bringing guns not only into the parking lot but also the workplace itself might be reasonable?   Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of other employees that are guaranteed a safe working environment?

Similar to the previous questions, I think it all depends on the location, type of business, or workplace, to determine whether it would be reasonable or not to bring the guns onto the parking lot or inside the buildings.   But, in relation to just schools and teachers, it shouldn’t be lawful that the teachers bring firearms into the premises.   People might say that it would be best if some or all teachers were allowed, and it would be secure if teachers underwent background checks, or took gun safety classes, but the thing is, that won’t make it 100% safe.   Who is to say a teacher won’t commit a school shooting?   As awful as it sounds, it could certainly happen.   All it could take would be a student or anybody to cross the line, and a serious injury or death is just a trigger pull away…   So yes, bringing firearms into the workplace, or having armed employees, would likely violate the rights of other employees, or even customers, a guaranteed safe environment.