Wal-Mart Concealed Carry Policy

[jhs27275]

Originally Posted by Bigdog57

Their CCW policy is the same as most places - "concealed" means CONCEALED!

That's the State of Florida's policy.

[SgtGarand]

You need to check their policy for employees/'associates.' No CCW AT ALL or you risk being terminated.

I guess my rights as an American change depending on if I'm on or off the clock, and I'm no longer the valued "customer" but rather the "employee."

But I guess that goes for most work places.

[jhs27275]

Originally Posted by SgtGarand

But I guess that goes for most work places.

It does, and in a lot of businesses not a bad thing.

[T.Payne]

Yeah, I can't carry a gun nor a knife where I work at because I am an employee, not a customer. However, when we were preparing the store for the grand opening, and I had my Ka-Bar USMC knife and was using it to break down boxes since they ran out of box cutters.

[Tack Driver]

Originally Posted by SgtGarand

You need to check their policy for employees/'associates.' No CCW AT ALL or you risk being terminated.

I guess my rights as an American change depending on if I'm on or off the clock, and I'm no longer the valued "customer" but rather the "employee."

But I guess that goes for most work places.

It's just a matter of time before that bites an employer in the the ass and opens precedent for commerce CCW policy.

If you create a "safe zone" and then fail to provide safety for someone that could have otherwise defended themselves if you had not stripped them of their ability to do so, you should and probley would be found liable.

[jhs27275]

Originally Posted by Tack Driver

If you create a "safe zone" and then fail to provide safety for someone that could have otherwise defended themselves if you had not stripped them of their ability to do so, you should and probley would be found liable.

It's done all the time with State and County workers and has been that way for a very long time.

[Tack Driver]

Originally Posted by jhs27275

It's done all the time with State and County workers and has been that way for a very long time.

What's done all the time?

I have not seen any lawsuit from a county or state employee against said governments/departments/agencies for lack of protection in a "gun free" or "safe" zone.

I think you missed the point.

I know it's common to strip people of their right to carry, the statement was of the potential legal action against the people denying self protection.

[jhs27275]

Originally Posted by Tack Driver

What's done all the time?

Workers restricted form having weapons on their person with a CCW, or in their vehicles on State and County owned property. In most cases you would not be allowed to sue a County or State Agency you work for for not allowing you to carry a weapon and not providing protection for you to keep you safe and secure in case you got hurt.

So what did I miss?

[Tally XD]

Sure is odd, or even ironic, that the very guv'ment that gave us our right to keep and bear arms is the very agency that is most responsible for taking that right away from us

[Tack Driver]

Originally Posted by Tack Driver

It's just a matter of time before that bites an employer in the the ass and opens precedent for commerce CCW policy.

If you create a "safe zone" and then fail to provide safety for someone that could have otherwise defended themselves if you had not stripped them of their ability to do so, you should and probley would be found liable.

This was the statement

Originally Posted by jhs27275

It's done all the time with State and County workers and has been that way for a very long time.

This was your response, implying (or at least reading to the effect) that employers being found liable for not defending defenceless employees happens all the time.

Originally Posted by jhs27275

Workers restricted form having weapons on their person with a CCW, or in their vehicles on State and County owned property.

So what did I miss?

The point!

In most cases you would not be allowed to sue a County or State Agency you work for for not allowing you to carry a weapon and not providing protection for you to keep you safe and secure in case you got hurt.

Who the hell has the power to "not allow" a citizen to sue a county or state agency? The King of the Police state? That non-sense stopped in the 70's,- the 1770's

You can sue for anything you want, and people win against agencies all the time, from the city police to the U.S. Army.

If I own a building and tell you that you are not allowed to wear your shoes on my steps, you fall, and then it can be proven that wearing your shoes could have prevented the fall on the steps, do you think someone is getting sued?

Like I said, it's a matter of time, and I think any sane jury would agree that if a company creates a "safe zone" and fails to keep you safe, said company is liable.