Concealed Carry Research Paper

Concealed Carry in the Work Place
Donald L. Bowles
ENG 215
Chris Swindell
Strayer University
February 27, 2014

Concealed Carry in the Work Place
With the increase in violent crimes over the past few years, employees should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on their person if they are licensed to do so or at a minimum in their privately owned vehicle. This is a complex topic with many factors which may affect one’s freedom or employment, and possibly one’s life. Through an examination of articles and peer-reviewed journals this paper will attempt to describe the handgun laws of West Virginia, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, Article III 3-22 of the West Virginia Constitution, and some of the reasons for and against
carrying concealed at work from an employer’s perspective.
In the current climate of today’s political system, both in West Virginia and the United States in general, the topic of concealed carry carries with it an air of horrific events, scare tactics, and an entire myriad of other emotions. By looking at the facts presented in law, the West Virginia Constitution, and the United States Constitution one can surmise various meanings of the documents, but through referencing the thoughts and ideas of those who wrote them one may understand the intended meaning. Articles, both peer-reviewed and those written by subject matter experts, give another basic view of the issue and, possibly, alternate views one may not normally consider. Finally, by looking at the sum of the information presented, a fairly accurate guess may be determined for the reasons an employer looks at to determine the justification to approve or disapprove the carrying of concealed handguns on the property of the business to include the parking lot.
The case for an armed citizenry has been debated and fought for since the beginning of the fight for the dream of the United States of America. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, “Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped” (Hamliton, 2014). The provision for armed citizenry has been enshrined in both the West Virginia Constitution, Article 3-22 (Bastress, 2010); then in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (Congress, 1789) solidifying the preservation of ones’ Creator, or God given, right to both self-defense and defense of the State.
Defending one’s self, it seems, has become a very large topic in the societal prospective. During the tragedies in Aurora, Colorado, and again in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, brought to the forefront the topics of gun control and gun rights. In Aurora, Colorado, a man by the name of James Holmes was alleged to have murdered 12 people and wounded 70 others in a movie theater, which prohibited the carrying of concealed firearms. Then, on December 14, 2012, a 20 year old Adam Lanza is said to have entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and “murdered 20 children and six adults” (Faria Jr., 2013) in a “Gun Free School Zone.”
These horrific events, as tragic as they may be, may have been prevented by armed, licensed personnel had been present. This is the theory behind legislation being proposed by Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) (Bannister, 2014). Representative Stockman has introduced a bill to repeal the “Gun Free School Zones Act” of 1990 and its amended version the “Gun Free School Zones Amendment Act” of 1995. House Resolution 35, or H.R. 35, is designed, “To restore safety to America 's schools” (Stockman, 2014), and is based on the research for the duration of time, 22 years, the “Gun Free School Zones Act” of 1990 has been law and the preceding 22 years of information on gun violence in and around schools. With this information in mind one, as an employer, must consider the probable benefits and costs of allowing employees to carry concealed firearms at work, or at a minimum in their privately owned vehicle.
In West Virginia, a resent piece of legislation, House Bill 317 or HB317, has been passed by both houses of the legislature and awaiting the Governor’s signature. In HB 317 it states that, “…all relating to municipal firearm laws; removing firearm provisions from the Municipal Home Rule
Pilot Program; prohibiting ordinances from being enacted under the Municipal Home Rule Pilot Program that are in conflict with certain other state law; clarifying municipal authority to arrest, convict and punish individuals for certain firearms offenses authorized by code and federal law; removing the grandfather clause excepting certain municipal ordinances limiting the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, transporting, selling or storing of guns or ammunition from the general provision prohibiting such ordinances; defining terms; clarifying municipalities’ authority to regulate possession and carrying of firearms; permitting municipalities to enact and enforce certain ordinances relating to limiting possession of firearms in municipal buildings and on municipal property; permitting persons to store firearms in vehicles on public property under certain circumstances; creating absolute defenses to a violation of municipal firearm ordinances; requiring posting of certain signs; specifying that private redress for violations may be brought under chapter fifty-three of this code and may include reasonable attorneys fees and costs; excluding municipalities from the use of section fourteen, article seven, chapter sixty-one of this code; and clarifying that municipalities cannot prohibit the otherwise lawful carrying of firearms on municipal streets and sidewalks except when a street or sidewalk is temporarily closed to traffic for purposes of municipally authorized events of limited duration”
(Unger, 2014) from the bill text. This bill puts more powers of decision and choice into the hands of private citizens than into government rule and law making.
As a society, people must look at the available information on crimes committed with firearms, the number of background checks conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, and the relationship between those figures from the last six years of reported, available data. When looking at the information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime reports, one must keep in mind; the information validity must be addressed. The Uniform Crime Reporting Program, or UCR, represents crime which has been reported to law enforcement agencies and some law enforcement agencies do not report all crimes in an effort to make the location seem less susceptible to crime. There also exists a problem in the NICS, in which a single background check maybe done at one location, but the purchaser may be purchasing more than one firearm. In the words of the FBI on the NICS website the NICS, “…ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers,” (Federal Bureau of Investigation (c), 2014).
Over the last six years the overall crime rate has been on a downward trend from 2007 until 2012, when it encountered a slight increase of 8433 more reported over 2011 numbers (Federal Bureau of Investigation (b), 2014) and depicted in Figure 2. Then examining the number of background checks completed through the NICS during the same time period, 2007 through 2012, there has been a progress increase in the number of background checks completed, though not all completed checks resulted in a firearm transfer (Federal Bureau of Investigation (c), 2014) and depicted in Figure 1. Based on this information this information an average person should be able to conclude there is a relationship between violent crime and perceived civilian firearm ownership.
As an employer, the single biggest factor in allowing employees to carry a firearm in any manner is cost. Cost in this context refers to the monies paid for training, licensing, and insurance. The largest of these costs is generally in the realm of insurance. With this in mind, the use of standardized training and licensure may bring down the price paid for insurance. Other factors which may influence an employer’s policy on firearms in the workplace are local and state legislation regarding firearms (Haygood, Rice, & Norris-McCluney, Fall2008).
An example of legislation regarding firearms at work is the State of Oklahoma’s law stating the employer is not liable for incidents which occur on their property, as long the employer is not committing a criminal act with said firearm (www.handgunlaw.us, 2014) (Steines, 2008). Oklahoma’s law was enacted due to the National Rifle Association, or NRA, “lobbying for passage of what have been called bring-your-gun-to-work or parking-lot laws” (Witter, 2010). In addition to Oklahoma, “many states have enacted laws that permit employees to store their guns in their private vehicles parked on an employer’s property” (Haygood, Rice, & Norris-McCluney, Fall2008). In West Virginia; however, based on the research conducted, employers are left with the decision to allow or prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearm. With West Virginia allowing the employer to decide additional factors must be considered, such as the type of business, type of merchandise stored or sold, and response time of law enforcement in the event of a crime.
Throughout the course of the research conducted on this topic many factors influence an employers’ decision for allowing or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. They must look at all available research; the cost in insurance, lost revenue through public opinion or theft; and laws at the local, state, and federal levels concerning firearms and their storage and employment on business property.
Lastly, the employer must consider their own personal beliefs regarding firearms, their safety, and the safety of their patrons. Based on these afore mentioned points, it is the firm belief of this researcher that the carrying of a concealed or openly carried firearm deters the potential for criminal elements, in society at large, from committing criminal acts.
References
Bannister, C. (2014, February 06). Bill Introduced To Repeal 'Gun-Free School Zones Act ' Because Deadly Mass Shootings Up Five-Fold Under It - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/bill-introduced-repeal-gun-free-school-zones-act-because-deadly-mass-shootings#sthash.jjQWhSRA. Retrieved from CNSNews.com: http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/bill-introduced-repeal-gun-free-school-zones-act-because-deadly-mass-shootings
Bastress, R.
M. (2010, October 25). "The Constitution of West Virginia.". Retrieved February 06, 2014, from e-WV: The West Virginia Encyclopedia: http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/1558
Congress, U. S. (1789, March 04). Bill of Rights. Retrieved from The Charters of Freedom: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Faria Jr., M. A. (2013). Shooting rampages, mental health, and the sensationalization of violence. Surgical Neurology International, 85-92.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (a). (2014, March 13). Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics. Retrieved from FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
Federal Bureau of Investigation (b). (2014, March 13). Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics. Retrieved from UCR: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm
Federal Bureau of Investigation (c). (2014, March 13). National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Retrieved from FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
Hamliton, A. (2014, February 05). The Federalist Papers. Retrieved from The Library of Congress - THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html#skip_menu
Haygood, R., Rice, C. M., & Norris-McCluney, C. (Fall2008). Employees ' right to keep and bear arms ... at work? Employment Relations Today (Wiley),
67-77.
Steines, S. L. (2008, March 01). Parking-Lot Laws: An Assault on Private-Property Rights and Workplace Safety. Iowa Law Review, 93(3), 1171-1205.
Stockman, S. (2014, February 06). Bill Text 113th Congress (2013-2014) H.R.35.IH. Retrieved from The Library of Congress - THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.35:
Unger, J. R. (2014, March 13). Bill Status - 2014 Regular Session. Retrieved from West Virginia Legislature: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=317&year=2014&sessiontype=RS
Witter, D. (2010). Individual Gun Rights, Gun Laws, and Franchising: Why Franchisors Cannot Ignore the Controversy. Franchise Law Journal, 29(4), 239-252. www.handgunlaw.us. (2014, February 06). Oklahoma. Retrieved from Handgun Law: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/oklahoma.pdf

Tables
Table 1
United States Violent Crime Figures

Note: In the table above, the “Gun Related Crimes” section only has listed 2011 and 2012 as these are the only two years data has been recorded in the National Incident-Based Reporting System or NIBRS for short.
The column labeled “NICS Total” is gathered from “The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers” (Federal Bureau of Investigation (c), 2014). The column labeled “Total Violent Crime in the US” data was retrieved from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, or UCR, and as stated from the website, The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation” (Federal Bureau of Investigation (a),
2014).
Figure 1

Figure 1. This represents the trend of firearm background checks completed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Figure 2

Figure 2. This represents the trend of trend of violent crimes committed in the United States from 2007 through 2012.