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