Assuming that your friend has some leverage in this matter, I think the easiest thing to do is to remove firearms language from the policy handbook altogether. It's easier to convince them to write NOTHING, than it is to convince them to write an affirmative support.locke_n_load wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:50 am Hey guys, long time no post. But I have an old friend of mine who needs some help. The company she works for has a 3rd party HR department, and they don't like carry. However, the CEO does approve of license holders carrying in the building. The landlord company of the building also does not prohibit carry. Her company/HR are updating their handbook, and my friend is trying to put together an argument to get carry "passed" in her building. I need statistics, good points, etc. to help her out. We are in Houston and the area that she works in, Greenspoint (aka Gunspoint if you are from Houston) does have frequent crime. I could put arguments together for her but I am kinda swamped at the moment and my data is probably out of date. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
With a supportive CEO, then the absence of banning is a de facto acceptance - for now, until the CEO moves on. Then, after a year or so, when all is going well, then take the next move to get an affirmative acceptance of LTC carry into the handbook to act as a stopgap for when the next CEO comes in and may-or-may not provide cover for those who wish to carry..
Baby steps is easier than a 'one and done' approach.
That's just my 2 cents...