SecurityInfoWatch, click to go home
Most Popular: Today | OverallMost E-Mailed: Today | Overall

The open carry gun movement and corporate security

Gun advocacy rallies raise a question for corporate security: Do you allow customers to openly carry?
BY GEOFF KOHL, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
SecurityInfoWatch.com
Updated: 03-9-2010 12:54 pm
stock.xchng/dziegener
Rallies from open carry gun advocacy groups have generated new concerns for corporate security.

On Friday, March 5, 2010, at a public plaza situated among restaurants and retail shops in Palo Alto, Calif., a group of people planned to show up with guns on their hips. It wasn't going to be a massive shootout or a group robbery or even gangland violence. The guns weren't even going to be loaded. It was, instead, an open demonstration of 2nd amendment rights supporters who were there partially to challenge the city's law banning open carrying of firearms (the state allows open carry, but the city ordinance differs). The group was affiliated with OpenCarry.org, an online community supporting unconcealed carrying of unloaded firearms; the group assists in organizing meet-ups of its supporters. The logic behind the group's actions is centered on two things: 1) to use their right of open carry, under the belief that a right which is not exercised can be lost, and 2) to advocate for better access to concealed carry permits in California.

On the surface, it doesn't sound like much of a traditional security issue, as much as it is politics/NRA/second amendment topic -- except that sometimes these meet-ups are held at private businesses, or at least private businesses are so close to these public spaces that they can be impacted.

According to a March 7, 2010, article from The New York Times titled "Locked, Loaded, and Ready to Caffeinate," the open carry movement has organized demonstrations of its principles, and a Sept. 18, 2009 memo from Sunnyvale, California's Deputy Chief of Police Mark Stivers references a recent open carry meet-up where movement members carried publically at a Starbucks in the community. The memo (view PDF of memo) notes that the demonstration was quite small (only two attendees actually had weapons on them, the other five attendees were unarmed supporters). In the follow-up memo, Stivers offers clear information on what the proper law enforcement response is in his community. The law varies state-by-state and sometimes city-by-city, but Stivers gets into some law enforcement perspectives outside of California in his lengthy memo.

For the corporate security manager, this movement has direct implications. First, the business is going to have to face questions as to whether it has policies about guns on its premises and what those rules are. For Starbucks, there is currently no rule forbidding legally carried weapons on the premises. Other businesses do have such rules; the New York Times article specifically notes that California Pizza Kitchen (a West Coast pizza chain) and Peet's Coffee and Tea (a Starbucks competitor) do disallow weapons, even those that are legally carried.

The second issue is about the impact upon the business. The role of a security manager often extends beyond simple management of guards and oversight of technical security systems like alarm panels, door access control and surveillance cameras. Today, the role of the security manager is linked with business continuity and risk mitigation. Of course, when a second amendment advocacy group organizes a meet-up on or adjacent to your premises, there often is a response from community groups who don't support the right to openly carry unloaded firearms. And that means a protest situation, which is going to impact the business. Protests and reports of openly carried firearms also will likely mean the arrival of law enforcement officers, who are there to verify that the situation isn't a potentially violent incident and to check the legality of the weapons. Again, if this is on or adjacent to business premises, security personnel have a situation to manage and one that could temporarily disrupt business.

According to Felix Nater, an IAPSC certified security consultant (CSC) who runs the consulting firm Nater Associates, the open carry issue should be one important to corporate security professionals.

"Business owners are being forced to accept legislation that allows employees to have guns in and around the workplace," explained Nater, who noted that Indiana is wrestling with this issue, especially after a shooting on Friday at a workplace in Portage. "Those that don't have a policy are going to have skirt around the law and create policies that specify what happens if those employees or customers brandish or threaten a use of gun around the workplace."

1 2 3 next

Post a Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.

Open carry retail

Having worked for a large retailer, I would think the retailer's policy on the issue should be clearly communicated to employees and posted at the door to customers. Also, to limit liability, I am wondering if retailers that permit open carry in their stores can require open carry customers to have level 2 or level 3 retention holsters and how practical it might be to enforce such a policy.

This article makes unfounded

This article makes unfounded assumptions about the potential for violence from open carry supporters. It tries to link them with domestic terrorism incidents and there is no evidence these people represent a terrorist threat. It also fails to point out that increased crime and mass shootings historically tend to occur in gun free zones, such as the von maur shopping mall. If rights of self defence are denied to patrons it becomes the responsibility of the establishment to provide security sufficient to protect them. Patrons and relatives injured in a gun free zone should be able to recoup damages if the establishment did not provide sufficient security to protect the disamed patrons. Remember that establishment of gun free zones have been completely ineffective and in fact seem to attract gun violence, where shooters are less likely to be stopped by an armed victtim.

Liability issues? A company

Liability issues? A company that demands legally carrying individuals disarm does not accept liability for their safety if someone illegally goes on a shooting spree. Why would they have liability for allowing people to obey local laws in their establishment?

Forget about the law abiding!

Forget about whether or how you should prevent law abiding citizens from coming into your place. Figure out how to keep criminals out! Signs and policies only matter to people who obey rules and laws. And since they obey rules and laws, you have nothing to fear from them. Figure out how to keep those who commit crimes from hurting your customers!

Open Carry by employees and visitors.

Security is mistaken in presuming that armed employees and visitors will be belligerent. It is overly aggressive and ill-informed. Security needs to take a defensive loss mit position, of course, but not a mistaken one: the professionally sophisticated one. As with LEO's, armed employees and visitors are allies on the Security Mission, just as certainly as First-aid and CPR training (employees and visitors, again) are an alliance with the FD mission; it is all about prior to your arrival in the first moments of the incident. Frustrating this asset because it is not you on scene is dangerous for all. This would be part of the pleading in litigation for gun rights.

The concept of 'safe workplace environment' is not workable when you interfere with something which would make workplace safer and a plantiff gets wind of that exposure. The litigation would not come from 'allowing guns', but from disallowing them when they could have de-escalated a violent act in your absence. To a plaintiff, it would be the same as not allowing First-aid or CPR that could have saved a life.

Gun owner employees are your best allies in this.

Open Carry

Although I have a permit and an armed security license, I still prefer to carry mine covered. If the bad guy sees you are carring then you are the first target he sees. If not and the bad guy does what he intends to do with out noticing you are armed then you still have the upper hand to defend yourself.

Assumptions

When I read an article on a topic like this, I always cringe when authors or experts make illogical assumptions or lack proper research. For instance, the OSHA issue, a claim that an unsafe workplace exists because somebody might have a gun is complete conjecture and not based on facts or law. I could easily make the claim that an unsafe workplace exists if I am prohibited from having my firearm. Another issue is when people say that a protest of gun rights supporters and gun control supporters is a volatile mix. The assumption is that the gun rights supporters, being armed, will suddenly decide to become murderers and start killing everyone. I am always insulted when an author lumps me into this category. Not only that, there is no evidence of this happening in thousands of gun rights protests. I could go on.....

Double Standard??

So if a corporation creates an anti-gun policy, should it not apply equally to all employees?
Then why would RETIRED law enforcement persons acting as Directors or VPs of corporate security departments be the lone exemptions and allowed to carry a weapon?
The reality is that these 1 or 2 people are not there in times of trouble or are trained against engagement. The weapons policy in a corporate environment should apply equally to all employees.

You do a disservice

You do a disservice to your readers when you conflate "brandish" with simple carry.

Brandish is a technical term, meaning to physically wave it about, or in many states to even refer to the firearm in a threatening manner.

Merely wearing a firearm is NOT brandishing, and it is wrong to conflate those terms.

One another note:
If you are not already SEARCHING (either physically or electronically) those entering your premises, then you are merely sticking your head in the sand to pretend to have a "policy on open carry" when you already have any criminal who wishes entering with a concealed, loaded, firearm.

It is silly to lose business -- and lose business you will - when no gun control laws have any useful effect on violent crime. None. Not one.

None of the CDC, DoJ, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.

mountain out of nothing

First, open carry folks aren't a threat. Starbucks is correct, along with many other companies, in deferring to state law and not alienating customers. In states where they're allowed, it's really been a non-issue.

As for employees, "rules" won't stop one from shooting the business up if that is their goal. However, being neutral or "pro" gun for employees has the benefit of happy employees who don't feel disarmed, often to include the parking lot. If you're terribly worried, require them to obtain a CCW and carry concealed, or leave it secured in the POV.

The open carry group is not harmful. They're quite peaceful and are open about what they carry. Transparency would be the word.

Banning weapons isn't security. It's the illusion of security. Big difference.