Wednesday, February 24, 2016

GA: Business Owner Requires Employees to be Armed

Image from

In Georgia, a business owner has taken a pioneering step in employee relations.  He is requiring his employees to obtain a concealed carry permit and to carry guns openly in his places of business.  I have been predicting that this would happen for a while. There are so many advantages, and so few disadvantages, that it is hard to see the idea failing to be adopted all over the country.  The only refinement that seems likely, is to require job applicants to have a concealed carry permit *before* they apply. From
An Atlanta business owner with several offices in Georgia is now requiring all of his employees to get a concealed carry license and be armed.

Business owner Lance Toland said after hearing about recent home invasions and violent crime in the metro Atlanta area, he came up with the new office mandate.

“They all had their conceal carry permit within three to four weeks of me announcing that this was something you had to do,” he said. “With the presentation of their license, they all got a 410 Judge Pistol.”
It seemed likely that this would start in Wisconsin or Kansas.  In both of those states, but particularly in Wisconsin, allowing employees to carry guns gives the business a clear competitive advantage.  In Wisconsin law, if the business allows the carry of guns, the business is immune from torts that rise from an employee carrying guns in the business.  If the business does not allow guns, no immunity.  The Kansas law is similar, but not quite so clear.  The advantage in tort immunity is obvious, but there are several other advantages.  Now that Toland has broken through the wall of innovation, others see them more clearly:
Toland says several high-profile business owners who have private planes he insures may follow his lead.

“A lot of my clients are high fiving when they hear this. They think it's the best things for a company to mandate gun ownership and be responsible,” he said.
Here are a few of the not so obvious advantages.  They have been hidden behind a smoke screen of media misinformation and stereotypes.

First, employees with a concealed carry permit are a deterrent to robbery and physical attacks on the business premises.  This may seem obvious, but you will find many who claim, without support, that it is not so.  Having more than one employee armed at a location makes it an extremely unattractive target.  There are too many variables, and too much to go wrong for any thinking robber.

Second, there is an obvious, clear screen to limit employees to a very select, high quality level.  This is where requiring a permit for application become critical.  Permit holders are self selected to be one of the most law abiding, responsible, and forward thinking groups in the nation.  Their crime rates are only a fraction of those of police officers; they are many more times as law abiding as the general population.

Third, the giving of a gun is a brilliant management move by Lance Toland.  It speaks volumes about his leadership skills.  He is boldly proclaiming to his employees that their lives are important to him.  He is whispering to them, "I trust you so much, I am putting my life and the life of others in your hands."  A clear subtext is "We are a team.  We take care of each other." This is the sort of thing that builds loyalty that money cannot buy.

Fourth, your employees are have shown themselves to be in a select group that puts a high value on personal responsibility and self reliance.  This is precisely the group least likely to blame you for personal failures, or to see your business as a potential source of a "liability lottery".  They are likely to see a failure in your business as part of a personal failure on their part.  They look ahead, see problems, and do things about them.  Who does not want employees with that attitude!  In the 15 years that I taught concealed carry in Arizona, I never had a bad check.

Fifth, the state is now doing a continuous screening process for you, one that is actionable and clear.  If an employee becomes likely to have problems (according to the state, not the employer), their permit will be taken from them.  The employer then has an obvious and clear reason to dismiss the employee.  They can no longer fulfill one of the stated requirements for the job.  It is a good reason to have the employees open carry on the premises.

There are other advantages.  I leave those as an exercise for the reader.  Here is a prediction.  We will see more of this.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.  Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

Well to be fair, I am always taking up for the second amendment no matter what the issue. this case flips the coin. No one can deny your right to carry bur also no one can force you to carry. I think this business man is in error and is actually violating the second amendment. Al rights are a choice to the individual when to exercise them. If I want to say something I will say it if I do not what to say something nobody can force me to say it. every coin has two sides and this is a case of where the other side has its place.

F T said...

This business man is an idiot. Its NOT his right to demand that anyone carry a gun while working for him. I am sure there are some people there who are NOT comfortable with carrying and are NOT trained well enough for a close quarters gun fight.He is endangering the lives of these people. He does not have that right.
If anyone of his employees was to get shot in his business and killed, the family would have every thing going for them to sue this moron for being responsible in part for the death of their family member.

Dean Weingarten said...

To F T:

Your comments exactly apply to business owners who prevent people from being armed in their business. If they apply to one situation, they apply to both.