The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution which deals with the legal right of American citizens states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The general consensus regarding the interpretation of the amendment is that it grants the legal right to any citizen of the country to own and carry weapons. However, given the broad scope of the amendment, it is difficult to determine the limits of what the law allows and disallows. What is clear however is that the law does not bar anyone from purchasing a licensed weapon and carrying it on their person .
Personally, I am a strong proponent of the right to bear arms. Given the law and order and security situation that has emerged post 9/11 within the United States, I believe that every individual has the right to protect himself/herself from potential threats. It is nearly impossible to either expect or rely on the law enforcement agencies to provide security to every citizen at any given time of the day. Therefore, if every adult with the means and inclination of purchasing arms does so, they equip themselves with the tools of ensuring their own well-being. Therefore, even from a moral perspective, I strongly believe that people should carry weapons if they consider is a necessary safety precaution .
However, when it comes to leaving a loaded weapon in a parked car within the premises of a privately owned parking lot, the legal and moral context changes. As per the current legislation, it is the prerequisite of the owner of the parking lot when it comes to the question of whether he/she wants a loaded weapon on their property. Laws governing property rights distinctly state that it is the owner’s discretion when it comes to allowing weapons to be present on their property. If a private owner puts up a sign board outside or within the parking lot that states that no weapons are allowed, then all vehicles entering the premises are required by law to comply with the condition. The law does not consider this an infringement of a citizen’s Second Amendment Rights .
Just as I am a defender and advocate of the Second Amendment that allows me to carry a weapon if I want, by the same principle, I also respect the right of another individual who wants to maintain a safe distance from all kinds of weapons and armoury. Since a parking lot is a privately owned asset, therefore, the owner should, I believe, have complete authority in terms of deciding how the asset is utilized by others. Hence, if it has been publicly stated that weapons should not be left in a parked vehicle at a certain location, then it is my ethical responsibility to ensure that if I am aware that I will be leaving my car parked there, then either I leave my weapon at home, or carry it with me on leaving the car .
Guns at the Workplace
When it comes to taking weapons to work, the existing legislative framework clearly favours the employers in terms of being the final approving authority. If the parking space that employees use is owned and controlled by the company, then there is no choice but to comply with the regulations specified by the company. Most organizations have a strict policy of not allowing weapons or even sharp objects of any sort, such as knives or daggers, on their premises, which in this case includes not just the company building but the parking lot as well.
However, there are also instances when there is no designated space that is allocated to employees by the company and consequently, employees use public parking spaces or parking lots owned by private owners. In that case, whether loaded guns are or not allowed to be left in the vehicle depends on the regulations stated by the owners .
At the end of the day, ensuring the well-being of the staff is the overriding concern for all businesses and it is that concern that is at the heart of weapon-barring regulations that are implemented by companies, more than their property ownership rights. Since violence in the workplace and among colleagues is on the rise, most organisations have a blanket prohibition on permitting any object that can be used as a weapon. As stated earlier, a parking lot is a privately owned asset and hence the owner exercises absolute control over its usage. Therefore, if there is a policy against leaving weapons in parked cars then employees have no legal recourse except to comply with it .
However, in my view, it seems slightly unfair that people have no way of safeguarding themselves during their commute to and fro from work. This specifically holds true in the cases when factories and/or offices are located in remote locations, such as the suburbs, where employees feel more threatened than if they were travelling to the city centre. Also, there are several business operations that are located in areas where the crime rate is higher than average. In such cases I believe companies should allow, and in fact, even encourage their employees to get training for weapon usage, apply for a permit to carry and purchase a firearm for their personal protection.
I disagree with the notion that the mere presence of guns on the premises poses a safety threat for the workforce. If individuals feel safer carrying weapons given the location of their office, then it is not a rational policy decision to disallow weapons on site. It is understandable that certain people are uncomfortable knowing that they are in proximity of loaded firearms, so those employees who may be opponents of the Second Amendment may feel unsafe .
A more efficient way of addressing the issue is to institute Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) regarding how employees are required to carry and handle them. I agree that having loaded guns in parked cars are a security threat as this creates a situation in which gun powder is in proximity to petrol, so in case there is a gas tank explosion, it might cause a significant explosion and lead to injuries and casualties. A more secure place would be to have a holding safe at the entrance of the organization where all employees are required to check in their weapons before entering the building. The designated personnel can then ensure that the weapons have their safety checks on and have a documented and time stamped log for each weapon that is deposited .
Having such institutional safety checks will serve a two-pronged purpose. First, it will allow all employees to bring their weapons to work, thereby calming their fears of being robbed or worse during their journey. Secondly, the management will put itself in a position of controlling the whereabouts of the weapons which in turn will ensure that firearms are not mishandled and accidents are prevented, and also, people who are uncomfortable with the idea of seeing weapons around them, will have their fears assuaged as well .
At the end of the day, the law considers all organisations as separate entities with control over their assets as well as the right to devise and implement their own policies. Needless to say, policies that discriminate or in any way violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens cannot be formulated, but other than that, the law allows a great degree of leeway to companies to operate with a certain level of autonomy when it comes to handling their operations. I believe this state of affairs should be allowed to continue instead of the state legislative systems becoming entangled in the business mesh.
Depending on the management philosophy and organizational culture, I believe it is best if organizational policies regarding gun control are left to being resolved and decided on a case to case basis, with no government or judicial involvement.
References
Martinez, J. M. (2004). Have Gun,Will Travel: The Dispute Between the CDC and the NRA on Firearm Violence as a Public Health Problem. In Politics & Policy (pp. 312-339). Massachussets: Cambridge University Press.
