Do you always follow the rules?

[Skiprr]

I think this thread has gone way off topic and it's now a thread about my personal beliefs and how they are apparently not welcome here. My apologies to the OP. I won't be posting again.

No, hkshooter, that's not it at all. You've been nothing but civil and soft-spoken, and I think I speak for all of us in saying that we value your membership and participation. We absolutely don't want to run you off!

Strong stances force people to think about their own personal philosophies. That's a good thing. Without questioning, there is no discourse and no learning.

I don't think anything has been a personal attack, or meant as such. I know txinvestigator well enough, for example, to know that his own strong stances are not directed as individual assaults. And I meant my question only as a Socratic "what-if" scenario.

There are far too many Internet Forums related to guns, martial arts, and self-defense that are uncontrolled and sink quickly into a useless swamp of personal insults and name-calling. That's why this is the only one I frequent. And we need you to stay.


This may not work, but I'll try to get us back on the Topic headline.

My Fortune 500 company--which will never be named--has a very noxious (to RKBA CHLers) weapons policy. I say "weapons" because that's the wording in the HR policy, and it includes not only firearms but any type of knife (every time I use my letter opener in the office, I wonder if that's in violation).

The buildings themselves are all posted 30.06 compliant. The parking lots are not posted, though most of them could be (they are private, secured, and guard-access controlled). The HR policy (to which we must signify our notification, understanding, and agreement annually) does not use strict 30.06 wording, but does state the parking lots and any company-controlled property are included in the policy, as are all customer company premises. This means that if you travel to a customer location for sales or delivery, etc., you are considered under the absolutely-no-weapons policy. Company-controlled property includes vehicles, and is extended to include your personal vehicle if being used for company business.

No firearms, no knives (unless part of your job description: e.g., electrician), no weapons of any kind. The policy includes a statement that, by employment, the employee grants permission to search.

Can I be charged with a criminal misdemeanor because I carried my 3-inch Spyderco into the building once to open boxes? Nope. Can I be fired for it? You betcha.

If I carry my Kimber into my office, can I be charged with a criminal misdemeanor? You betcha. If I drive into the parking lot with it but keep it locked up in the car, can I be charged with a criminal misdemeanor? You betcha, because our annual acknowledgement of the HR policy includes a statement that we have been "told" about the policy. Can I be fired for either of these infractions regardless of criminal prosecution? You betcha.

In my case, I've been with this company a long time, the longest tenure of my 30 years in the full-time workforce. I never breach this, or any other, 30.06 posting. However, I do carry a pistol (two, in fact, and extra mags and two knives) in my car, and keep it locked in a Center of Mass lockbox while in a company or customer parking lot. I have no real option but to park in the company parking lot; nothing else close by.

So I follow most of the rules to the letter. All but one.

[brewster]

Interesting topic, I appreciate all points of view and think this can be a constructive dialogue. Skiprr, nice points, and I agree that our fellow poster should not feel attacked or that he needs to run off. There IS a difference between laws and rules. In this context, breaking laws with get you in trouble with the cops. Breaking rules will get you in trouble with HR. Let's start from there, because we are talking about both.

To be fair to hkshooter, we probably learn more by asking questions in the context of the "difficult hypothetical". This allows us to discuss and think ahead. Since life doesn't happen "inside the box", why should all of our questions be inside the box? That's a good way to remain ill-prepared. I have learned so much from this site just by reading and discussing; much more than any CHL class. With that said, let's salvage the merits of the original question without implying that we are above the law or want to break it.

Now for my two cents, which may raise more questions thans answers. I am an HR professional with an advanced degree and two HR certifications that weren't easy to get. With that said, I'm no smarter than anyone else on here, but I'm no dummy in my field either.

Today I received a package in the mail from the largest HR organization in the US. I get them about once a month, and they are filled with everything from newletters, to magazines, training materials, etc. While flipping through it, I noticed an article that basically stated "Laws passed in 13 states render company anti-weapon policies unenforceable" (very paraphrased). It went on to say that this particular HR organization has helped lobby against the same legislation being passed in 12 other states successfully. I assume this is referring to the castle doctrine, but it did not say. Interesting read, though.

I am not advocating breaking the law, nor am I advocating violating any company policy. But I will say this - if an HR organization (which almost has to be anti-gun by nature of its trade) puts out a bulletin like this, then obviously its no longer as cut and dry as it used to be. I'm not talking about violations of law, I'm talking about policy violations. The waters are obviously muddied to the point that in several states, the RIGHTS of citizens (some of which are expanded into an additional priviledge with a CHL) may trump company policies. The answer at this point is we really don't know until it goes to court a few times, gets appealed a few times, and we find out ultimately who has the trump card by the highest court. I claim to not know who will win this one.

As a footnote; I would always suggest always playing it safe when carrying. It's easy to get so paranoid that you think you are going to get attacked the minute you disarm. Not saying anyone here has said that, but I have caught myself feeling that way and then think to myself that I didn't carry for three decades and everything turned out okay. Kudos to the point above where there is a difference between defending yourself and not breaking a law. As such, we should all recognize and control any temporary paranoia that may result from complying with a 30.06 sign. With all of that said, let's continue to discuss this...it's a worthy topic and it will help us all at the end of the day to hear each other's input.

[frankie_the_yankee]

For me, the job is too important. I follow the rules, even though I am not happy about it. I was really hoping that the parking lot bill would have passed this year, but no such luck. Maybe next time.

Today I received a package in the mail from the largest HR organization in the US. I get them about once a month, and they are filled with everything from newletters, to magazines, training materials, etc. While flipping through it, I noticed an article that basically stated "Laws passed in 13 states render company anti-weapon policies unenforceable" (very paraphrased). It went on to say that this particular HR organization has helped lobby against the same legislation being passed in 12 other states successfully. I assume this is referring to the castle doctrine, but it did not say. Interesting read, though.

I actually think the article was referring to some version of a parking lot bill rather than Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine does not say anything one way or the other about anyone's right to carry, times, places, etc. It only refers to the actual use of force in self defense.

[brewster]

I actually think the article was referring to some version of a parking lot bill rather than Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine does not say anything one way or the other about anyone's right to carry, times, places, etc. It only refers to the actual use of force in self defense.

Agreed. The job pays the bills, and it's way to important to toss away.

I have amended this reply after re-reading the bulletin today. Frankie, you may be right. It might be the premesis issue, I dunno for sure, as it doesn't say. I can only imagine that the waters are muddied whether it's the castle doctrine or the premesis battle, or a combination of the two.

I do not disagree of your interpretation of the Castle Doctrine, except that I would add that it does reference places. With that said, without a 30.06 sign, carrying is a internal policy issue and not a legal one.

I think this group might be thinking that workplace shootings will go up if laws are passed that allow guns on a work premesis, regardless of justification. Perhaps that's a strategy of workplace sterilization, hence the lobbying efforts.

We'll see. As we all know, the anti-gun people are so level-headed and logical in their thought process.

[kyreb]

I am in almost exactly the same boat as Skiprr except I only have 28 years in with the company.
Would like to add to please beware of the lock box in the car on company property. My company employs a contractor who uses search dogs to go through parking lots and office buildings looking for drugs and firearms. These dogs can pick up a single .22 round or just one pill from well outside a parked vehicle.
Once the dog hits on something, you must submit your vehicle,office or person ( or all three) to search or you are dismissed on the spot.
They searched our complex here in houston a few weeks ago...then put on a demonstration of the dogs in our auditorium just to prove their capabilites to the misguided few who believe in self defense.

[brewster]

They searched our complex here in houston a few weeks ago...then put on a demonstration of the dogs in our auditorium just to prove their capabilites...

Jeez, now those diehard CHLs working for unreasonable companies will have to start lining their lockboxes with coffee beans to throw off the dogs!

Eventually somebody will try that....just watch.

[Afff_667]

I don’t have the background, experience, and training that many of our esteemed forum members have accumulated, so I am grateful for their continued generosity in sharing what they know. I learn something each and every time I am able to check in and spend some time reading. This discussion about following the rules provides good insight and food for thought.

While I will not quibble with txinvestigator’s comment that those who violate criminal laws are criminals, I think his question, “Who are we to decide what laws to obey and what laws not to?� is important. Since this is a forum related to guns and, by extension, self-defense, maybe we can think of that question in terms of the 2nd Amendment.

In short, I would hope that all of us as Americans would decide which laws to obey and which to disregard. Understand that I am not offering that as an incitement to anarchy but suggest that it is the correct “big picture� answer based on our history and traditions as a nation. After all, this country was founded by “criminals� in revolt against laws and practices that they decided for themselves were oppressive and unfair.

By show of hands, how many of us here would become criminals as a result of, God forbid, our 2nd Amendment rights being revoked? There may sometimes be more important considerations than what is enacted by a legislative body. That’s nothing to be ashamed of.


Flame away…

[Venus Pax]

I tend to not go where a business doesn't want me to carry, a legal sign or not.

If I feel like patronizing that business anyway, its a rarity. (The only one I can think of offhand is AMC)

I don't feel like spending my hard earned money where i'm not wanted.

Which AMC are you going to? We occasionally use the one at Deerbrook (Humble) and I've never seen a sign.

When we lived in Clear Lake & Pasadena, I never saw one at the Gulfpoint 30 either.

I wouldn't really want to be w/o my gun at the movies anymore. Saturday evenings are take-your-gang-to-the-movie-night, and from the looks of it, I think they get a group discount.

[TX Rancher]

I believe the original question posed was do I obey all the rules, but as TI pointed out, some of them are laws, not rules. So it seems both should to be addressed.

First the laws, have I always followed them? The short answer is yes…I don’t go into 30.06 posted locations, I carry a legal weapon, I identify myself to LEO as CHL when ID is requested, etc.

Why do I abide by the laws? It’s a simple decision based on risk assessment…I’ll give an example. A couple years ago the Southwestern Cattleman’s Associations get together was in a location in the Dallas/Ft Worth area that was posted 30.06. I could go unarmed, I could go armed and leave my weapon in the truck, or I could leave my weapon in the hotel room safe.

I looked at the probability of a situation arising where I would need a weapon while at the convention or on the way to the convention and decided they were unlikely.

I also decided the possibility of getting the weapon stolen out of my truck was much higher than the likelihood of needing it on the way to the convention which was just a few miles away.

I also looked at the possibility I would be “caught� if I carried, and the odds were very low I would. But based on the risk assessment of needing the weapon, I decided against carry.

The net result was the weapon stayed in the room safe, and I went to the convention. As anticipated, I was not attacked and did not need the weapon.

Would I blindly follow the laws even if the risk assessment went the other way? The short answer is no. If I believed I had need for the weapon that outweighed the risk of discovery, I would have carried.

The same holds true for “Rules� like those of employers. An income is very important to me and my family so the risk assessment, so far, has lead to me not carrying. Would I carry if the assessment went the other way, you bet I would!

[brewster]

Rancher, that's about as balanced of a viewpoint as you can get. Everything in life is about making decisions, weighing options, and assessing risks. While none of us would advocate breaking the law (I think), the way you explained yourself is refreshing. I haven't carried past a 30.06 sign (that I know of), but I have made risk assessments like what you described and gone unarmed. As I said in a previous post a while back, we should all be careful to guard ourselves from unnecessary paranoia if we have to temporarily disarm to comply. I can also understand taking the risk not to disarm if you see a greater liklihood of being in real danger. It's all about weighing those factors out, and making a reasonable, well-thought decision. You should feel naked without your seatbelt on; not so with your gun. I think there's a big difference between being prepared and aware, and being so paranoid that you can't even check the mail without thinking that you're a soldier behind enemy lines without your weapon. Life is all about B-A-L-A-N-C-E.

[Jason73]

I have a couple of questions for those of you who said you would NEVER break the law regarding 30.06 signs, etc. Please note this is not an attempt to bash anyone, just my attempt to get people to think before they criticize / critique others. When reading BE HONEST.

How often do you speed? Drive without your seatbelt on? Change lanes without using your turn signal? Follow the guy in front of you too closely because he's not going fast enough for you?

Those are all examples of breaking the law, not bending the rules - yet otherwise "law abiding" citizens break them all the time. (Granted they're not a felony but you get the point)

One thing comes to mind when I think about this topic: Suzanna Gratia Hupp/ Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen TX. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon and as a result her parents as well as 22 other innocent people died.

Granted we can carry a concealed weapon now, but with restrictions that mean we may as well just leave the gun at home. Im not going to leave a firearm in my vehicle for some scumbag to steal. 99.99% of the places posted 30.06 do not have facilities to secure my weapon when I enter their free victim zones, and my employer does not provide security to keep me safe from lunatics who threaten to blow up the facility I work at.(Don't laugh, its happened 3 times in the past year).

I make it a point to stay away from intrinsically unsafe areas such as Fair Park in Dallas - I'd rather walk thru downtown Fallujah, Iraq wearing a shirt that says something negative about the predominant religious figure there than walk thru that neighborhood.

However, I do find myself at times required to go places that I deem unsafe that restrict my ability to carry my pistol. Do I carry past 30.06 signs on occasion and ignore my employer's no-gun policy? YOU BETCHA! Does this make me a criminal? No it does not.

I know, your sitting there thinking "surely he jests, he breaks the law, that makes him a criminal!" That's the beauty of our legal system and that nifty document known as the United States Constitution - until Ive been found guilty in a court of law I am INNOCENT, and therefore not a criminal. I'll take my chances in the court room before I will with my life.

Just my 2 cents

Jason

[KBCraig]

A quote from Heinlein seems appropriate here:

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

[brewster]

Do I carry past 30.06 signs on occasion and ignore my employer's no-gun policy? YOU BETCHA! Does this make me a criminal? No it does not.

Jason, you have some very valid points. People bend the laws everyday, and the magnitude and/or consequences of those laws will vary. Traffic offenses are commonplace, but I would temper that comparison with the notion that few traffic offenses would result in a felony charge (usually that means you are up to something else and were too dumb to know your tail lights didn't work when they found the 10 pounds of crack under the seat, etc). The fact of the matter is that there IS a consequence to having a felony charge brought against you, the IS a risk of you losing your CHL and not getting it back, and there IS a risk of that decision to carry past the 30.06 sign haunting you 20 years down the road when I run your background check after you've sat across my desk and told me that you are the best man for the job. Whether you are the best man for the job will be irrelevant; the guy with the clean record with get the job, and not you (all other things being equal). That's good advice from a gun-loving HR professional. Take it or leave it, but you'll be wise to take it.

Does violating an internal policy make you a criminal? No. It might get you fired, but not a criminal. But, an internal policy and a 30.06 are two different things. One is an internal policy, and one is a statute that has a legal consequence. Will carrying past a 30.06 sign make you a criminal? You're right, it does not. You getting caught for doing it and getting convicted makes you a criminal. Good luck with your defense on that one. What will you say? Saying "I didn't see the sign" is like "my dog ate my homework". What will be your next defense? "The guy in accounting was looking at me wierd; I felt threatened". Neither will be justifiable. Assuming the sign is compliant, you WILL LOSE. You can even go dig up Johnny Cochran to defend you if you want, things won't be as good for you as they used to be. Your best bet is to hope to get off on some technicality.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the point at which you choose to violate the law....for whatever reason. Rancher put it well that you need to assess the risk vs. consequences...which is what life is all about anyway. Should you choose to risk it, make sure the circumstances are warranted...make sure you have taken into account everything you could lose before saying to yourself..."I have to carry here". Should you choose the quick, testosterone-filled ideology that the second amendment plus your CHL gives you carte blanche to do whatever, it's only a matter of time before you lose it. Don't join that trash heap. It's one thing to take a calculated risk, and another to say that you have no regard to a 30.06 posting. Most of the 30.06 postings are at hospitals and Taco Cabanas anyway, so what about the 99.9% of places you CAN carry? Those signs are in a very low percentage of businesses.

Please don't take anything I've said as harsh....just calculate your decisions carefully, and know when your potential exposure to harm outweighs the consequenses of a felony conviction before you do it. We may need you one day to be the guy who was in the right place at the right time, and was trained to do the right thing. You have something Suzanna Gratia Hupp didn't have...the power to carry almost anywhere. Treasure that. What if the next Luby's incident happens and you are there, powerless to change the course of history because you were stripped of your privilege to carry years before at some dumb job? Regrets are all you will carry from that point forward. I look at CHL holders almost like an invisble army, blended into the crowds, with the choice (not an obligation) to intervene if the situation is serious enough. I esteem my privilege as not just for self-defense; but one where I can defend the innocent if I were to be at the next "Luby's incident". While we all may get our CHLs for different reasons, I can say that I would die trying to save you or anyone else if that were to happen again. You may not be that way, and that's ok. But ask youself...are you prepared to be kicked out of the invisible army also? Maybe you have your CHL strictly for yourself or immediate family, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there is such a thing a doing right by your fellow man...and to me, that includes taking out shopping mall terrorists, or whatever you want to call them. I take COMFORT that there may be people like me walking around the mall, and that some nut won't be emptying his ninth clip before the cops can get there to intervene. That's a GOOD thing.

A lifetime of being smart and careful will preserve your options. Quick decisions and reckless abandon will take them away. Preserve your options for the future unless you are facing a direct threat. This will prevent you from joining the heap of those who lost their options and can't get them back...stay in the invisible army, we need you!

[KaleS]

I have a couple of questions for those of you who said you would NEVER break the law regarding 30.06 signs, etc. Please note this is not an attempt to bash anyone, just my attempt to get people to think before they criticize / critique others. When reading BE HONEST.

How often do you speed? Drive without your seatbelt on? Change lanes without using your turn signal? Follow the guy in front of you too closely because he's not going fast enough for you?

Those are all examples of breaking the law, not bending the rules - yet otherwise "law abiding" citizens break them all the time. (Granted they're not a felony but you get the point)
Jason

This is the exactly what I was talking about... No being a criminal, but just breaking the law. Just as Jason described, speeding, seatbelts, and failur to singnals... all breaking the law, but doesnt make you a crinminal.

[brewster]

That's still not a good comparison. You could lump murder and jaywalking together if you took that rationale far enough. Both are technically a legal infraction, but different. What would it take to make you jaywalk? What about kill with justification? How about without justification? You should have three totally different answers for those questions. I find the argument (if it has been put this way) "since nobody is perfect, we'll do what we want" rather absurd, no offense.

Sure, running a stop sign won't make you a criminal, but try not taking care of the ticket and watch it escalate into the start of your criminal record. Any law you break has a consequence if you're caught, some more severe than others. Choose your battles wisely.

I think every person on here would understand taking a chance and violating a 30.06 sign when threatened, but the "cuz i can" attitude in the absence of that threat is a bit reckless in my opinion.