Iowa employer offers cash bonus to concealed carry workers

[Baccusboy]

One from near home:

http://kwqc.com/2015/03/18/davenport-employer-offers-cash-bonus-to-conceal-carry/

 

[Half-cocked]

Awesome! The paralegal should not have revealed she carries in her purse, though. The problems with purse-carry aside, the whole point of "concealed" carry is that nobody should know you're carrying. She not only revealed that she carries, she just told potential thieves where she keeps it, making her a lucrative target for a purse snatching.

 

[Baccusboy]

Awesome! The paralegal should not have revealed she carries in her purse, though. The problems with purse-carry aside, the whole point of "concealed" carry is that nobody should know you're carrying. She not only revealed that she carries, she just told potential thieves where she keeps it, making her a lucrative target for a purse snatching.

Exactly what I thought.

I would probably set some strict terms for employees, and only allow certain weapons and methods of carry, but I'd encourage CCW, for sure. Only quality weapons and holsters, which would require approval. Only revolvers, or certain guns with a longer/heavier trigger pull of at least 7 pounds (like a Ruger LC9), Glock with a NY trigger, etc.

I just don't trust the average person with ND's, but I'd be happy to allow carry under such restrictions.

 

[Inigoes]

Exactly what I thought.

I would probably set some strict terms for employees, and only allow certain weapons and methods of carry, but I'd encourage CCW, for sure. Only quality weapons and holsters, which would require approval. Only revolvers, or certain guns with a longer/heavier trigger pull of at least 7 pounds (like a Ruger LC9), Glock with a NY trigger, etc.

I just don't trust the average person with ND's, but I'd be happy to allow carry under such restrictions.

Then you are no better than a gun grabbing politician, limiting the free exercise of a fundamental right!

 

[rbird7282]

Then you are no better than a gun grabbing politician, limiting the free exercise of a fundamental right!

Exactly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

Exactly what I thought.

I would probably set some strict terms for employees, and only allow certain weapons and methods of carry, but I'd encourage CCW, for sure. Only quality weapons and holsters, which would require approval. Only revolvers, or certain guns with a longer/heavier trigger pull of at least 7 pounds (like a Ruger LC9), Glock with a NY trigger, etc.

I just don't trust the average person with ND's, but I'd be happy to allow carry under such restrictions.

Why do NYPD officers hit every bystander, but none of the criminals?

You would too with a 15lb trigger...

 

[Baccusboy]

Then you are no better than a gun grabbing politician, limiting the free exercise of a fundamental right!

I'm sorry you see it that way.

The fundamental right is to bear arms. In my place of business, I would allow you that right, but I'm not going to "trust" everyone, and potentially several people with little or not experience with handguns, to just carry whatever they want and potentially injure myself or others. Would you want someone with barely any shooting experience, training, or understanding of trigger discipline, to be carrying something like a stock Glock around you 9 hours out of the day? Maybe pulling it out now and then to brag, and show his buddies? Or jamming it into a purse sans-holster?

I sure as heck wouldn't.

I would offer more trust to individuals with certain levels of training, allowing them to carry certain weapons after proof of training, but certainly not before. No problem letting them carry a weapon with a heavier trigger and true safety mechanisms (not the "trigger is between your ears" crap) until they do get more training. Consider it encouragement to train, train, train. Until they get additional safety instruction/training from a qualified instructor, I'd limit what they'd be carrying to my above-mentioned post.

The NRA began as an organization to promote safety with firearms. I'm all for that, and I feel that too many people lose sight of the importance of safety and training, because they're too upset about not being able to exercise their 2A rights at all.

Everyone has to ask themselves... is you personal need/desire to carry driven by a belief in a fundamental right of protection, or a fixation on a certain cool toy you want to brag about, or fee "special" having in your pocket? I'm all for 2A and carry, but there need to be common sense (non-Demcrat politician common-sense) rules about training and safety.

 

[Inigoes]

I'm sorry you see it that way.

The fundamental right is to bear arms. In my place of business, I would allow you that right, but I'm not going to "trust" everyone, and potentially several people with little or not experience with handguns, to just carry whatever they want and potentially injure myself or others. Would you want someone with barely any shooting experience, training, or understanding of trigger discipline, to be carrying something like a stock Glock around you 9 hours out of the day? Maybe pulling it out now and then to brag, and show his buddies? Or jamming it into a purse sans-holster?

I sure as heck wouldn't.

I would offer more trust to individuals with certain levels of training, allowing them to carry certain weapons after proof of training, but certainly not before.

Do not go outside, in a shall issue state. Someone might be carrying in a manner you do not approve.

Yes, anyone should be able to pick up a firearm and use it for protection, regardless the level of training. This goes especially for the young mothers who do not have any money to pay for said "formal training"

 

[Half-cocked]

Then you are no better than a gun grabbing politician, limiting the free exercise of a fundamental right!

If I have an employee on MY property, I have every right to decide even IF they carry.

 

[Inigoes]

If I have an employee on MY property, I have every right to decide even IF they carry.

Are you going to disarm your customers also?

Disarming employees is usually left up to the insurance company, in how much liability you are going to assume in your monthly premiums.

 

[Baccusboy]

Do not go outside, in a shall issue state. Someone might be carrying in a manner you do not approve.

Yes, anyone should be able to pick up a firearm and use it for protection, regardless the level of training. This goes especially for the young mothers who do not have any money to pay for said "formal training"

Actually, I do carry in a shall-issue state (for the pitiful few weeks I'm home each summer) and it does bother me how some people carry. I've seen Glocks carried bare inside of a purse, shoved in a pocket with no holster, etc... by people I know. Then, I wonder how many people I don't know are walking around like that.

People like you and me, and a great many on here, know what it means to be safe, have a decent holster, practice proper trigger discipline, etc. The general public needs guidance and a proper path to receive certified training from an experienced instructors.

I'd love to see the NRA get back to being the gatekeeper on this.

 

[Baccusboy]

Yes, anyone should be able to pick up a firearm and use it for protection, regardless the level of training. This goes especially for the young mothers who do not have any money to pay for said "formal training"

Then they should have no trouble choosing a $300 Ruger LC9 over a $550 Glock 19. Or a Taurus .380 instead of a much more expensive Sig .380.

And a young mother working for me would not have enough money for proper training, I'd kick in the $50 to $70 to get it. No problem with seeing an organization like the NRA providing a fund to train said ladies for free... we're talking about a very tiny percentage of people.

 

[Baccusboy]

And the NY Trigger was just an example. I would be OK with 7.5-ish pound trigger being allowed in my biz. Would rather see people carry something like a revolver or an XDM.

 

[Inigoes]

Then they should have no trouble choosing a $300 Ruger LC9 over a $550 Glock 19. Or a Taurus .380 instead of a much more expensive Sig .380.

And a young mother working for me would not have enough money for proper training, I'd kick in the $50 to $70 to get it. No problem with seeing an organization like the NRA providing a fund to train said ladies for free... we're talking about a very tiny percentage of people.

Most young people afford, what a family member gives them (like a concerned parent or sibling).

Not everyone has money to burn. They have to work with what they have, until a opportunity presents itself for them to upgrade.

 

[Brooklyn]

And the NY Trigger was just an example. I would be OK with 7.5-ish pound trigger being allowed in my biz. Would rather see people carry something like a revolver or an XDM.

Sounds like a great idea... free guns and training for your employees...

 

[john_bud]

Sounds like a great idea... free guns and training for your employees...

Where do I sign up for the free guns? Ammo too? Gear bag?

 

[traveller]

The more you get involved with setting training or equipment standards, the harder it will be to defend yourself against a negligence claim if one of your employees does something dumb.

 

[Baccusboy]

The more you get involved with setting training or equipment standards, the harder it will be to defend yourself against a negligence claim if one of your employees does something dumb.

And I suppose you have a link showing precedent?

 

[danb]

Actually, I do carry in a shall-issue state (for the pitiful few weeks I'm home each summer) and it does bother me how some people carry. I've seen Glocks carried bare inside of a purse, shoved in a pocket with no holster, etc... by people I know. Then, I wonder how many people I don't know are walking around like that.

People like you and me, and a great many on here, know what it means to be safe, have a decent holster, practice proper trigger discipline, etc. The general public needs guidance and a proper path to receive certified training from an experienced instructors.

I'd love to see the NRA get back to being the gatekeeper on this.

I drive in a shall-issue state and it bothers me how some people drive. I've seen people put make-up on in traffic, eat their breakfast, read the paper, all while on the phone. Pretty sure on a Fri/Sat might around here I can spot 1 or 2 DUIs.

Even worse, next time you are on the highway, look around. At least one car around you is driving without a license or insurance.

There are like 11 million people who carry. Know who you should worry about? Police. They are protected and shielded from liability. When their gun "goes off" because they show their buddy their shiny new Glock 43, oh well.


On the other hand, if Ms Single Mom with her $150 high point has a ND which injures someone, she may even go to jail. Kinda a stupidity deterrent.

If you think she has poor judgement and a bad firearm, give her a raise and take her to the range Mr Nanny.

 

[Baccusboy]

I drive in a shall-issue state and it bothers me how some people drive. I've seen people put make-up on in traffic, eat their breakfast, read the paper, all while on the phone. Pretty sure on a Fri/Sat might around here I can spot 1 or 2 DUIs.

Even worse, next time you are on the highway, look around. At least one car around you is driving without a license or insurance.

There are like 11 million people who carry. Know who you should worry about? Police. They are protected and shielded from liability. When their gun "goes off" because they show their buddy their shiny new Glock 43, oh well.


On the other hand, if Ms Single Mom with her $150 high point has a ND which injures someone, she may even go to jail. Kinda a stupidity deterrent.

If you think she has poor judgement and a bad firearm, give her a raise and take her to the range Mr Nanny.

I didn't say a $150 High Point was a "bad firearm," nor did I say I would not allow a $150 High Point. Those are words that are being twisted in an attempt to default my argument by stating that some mothers out there cannot afford anything but a $150 gun, (or some gun that was handed-down to them).


First of all...

If you can afford a $150 High Point, then there are some reliable older revolvers that I would allow, in that price range. I'm not familiar with the trigger weight of a High Point, but my main worry would be the trigger weight and length of the trigger pull. Although cheap, the High Points are not unreliable, from what I've heard.


Second...

The argument that I am somehow being just like the liberals for not allowing some poor woman, who cannot afford a gun, to not use her family heirloom gun, is a sad argument. If the gun meets my criteria, she could use it. If it doesn't then either get something that does, or don't carry it at my place of business. If someone cannot afford a $150 Taurus revolver, or a police trade-in revolver, or similar (that does meet my criteria), then she's got far worse things to worry about than buying a gun for her safety in a workplace where several others would likely be carrying. Next, you'll be you're trying to make the same argument that Obama does for why everyone deserves health care.

If she wants to carry a gun, she can sell that heirloom gun and buy a used $150 Taurus model 82, or similar. The only thing I'd have against a High Point would be a lighter trigger, if that is the case with a High Point.