'Multiple people' dead in shooting at MolsonCoors campus in Milwaukee

[Kutnupe14]

So I think we can agree on "litigation" as it combines insurance and lawyers.

Right, and any lawyer worth his snuff is going to try and convince a business owner to reconsider allowing the employees of his huge company to carry firearms on property? Agree.

 

[cbhausen]

I think it's more about the insurance. A company the size of Coors/Molson would be INSANE to allow their employees to carry. The costs associated with extending such a privilege would be prohibitive.
A few of the things you need to worry about:
-Mental cases
-Accidental/Negligent discharges
-Intimidation/Threats
-Horseplay
-Unintended victims/wrongful death
-Proficiency of use
-Condition of the weapon

Too many variables that make it seem like a really bad idea.

In other words, break the rules at your own risk or go unarmed, again at your own risk. Or get a gun-friendly job.

In my fantasy world employers with anti-2A policies would not be able to do business because nobody would work there. I can dream, right?

 

[Kutnupe14]

In other words, break the rules at your own risk or go unarmed, again at your own risk. Or get a gun-friendly job.

In my fantasy world employers with anti-2A policies would not be able to do business because nobody would work there. I can dream, right?

Exactly. It sad but that’s the business. If I owned a business, the only one that would be carrying would be me.

 

[bwframe]

The simplest company weapons policy is to not have one. Quite simply, the "rule" could be...

"There is no company weapons policy. DO NOT give us ANY reason to have to discuss this with you. Discussions such as this will be handled on an individual basis."

The other end of the spectrum is what we see so often with these gun free murder zones.

 

[churchmouse]

My employers became so freaked out at being sued if we (service techs in the field) had to defend ourselves that the absolutely no gun policy was invoked. One of my employers called this the (insert my name) rule because I carried. We worked in areas a lot of folks avoided in daylight let alone after sundown.

It got contentious with my last employer so I blew off working for idiots and became a subcontractor. My truck. My tools. A lot of my customers. Magnetic sign on the truck in the company name and a uniform shirt. I did this for the last 4 or 5 places I worked before striking out on my own. They all told me no guns. I told them to basically **** off. If you are sending me into the swamp (25th and Sherman) at midnight to run a refrigeration call at the 7/11 I am armed. Period.

It is the legal aspects. Lawyers and dip****s ready to sue. And courts ready to let the dip****s do it.

 

[Wstar425]

Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway.



They have some dumb laws up there. You can't carry within 1000 ft of a school. If you do enter school property then the gun must be unloaded and locked in storage or you risk a Class 1 felony.

You can open carry without a license, but if you enter a vehicle the gun must be carried or stored above the window line so it's visible from the outside.

I’m from Wisconsin and haul beer out of Miller a couple times a month. Was not in there after this incident, could have just been coincidence. It’s all marked no guns, and signs do carry the weight of law in Wisconsin.

Pretty sure the 1000 foot rule is Federal. You can carry within 1000 feet of a school if you have a Wi CCL, in fact I walk on the school side of the street facing traffic, while open carrying a Sig 226 a couple times a week. I don’t think the 1000 foot rule is enforced by itself, but could be an add on charge if they got you on something else. If your house was within 1000 feet, you could have a gun on your property, but if you stepped on the street or sidewalk without a CCL, you would be technically breaking the law. (I believe it is that way everywhere, I could be wrong and won’t argue it as fact) This might have been changed, I know the original law was found unconstitutional, then they came out with a slightly different law, not sure where it stands right now.

You are correct about carrying a gun on school property must be unloaded and locked, even then I would not recommend it. There are 7 exceptions that allow one to carry a loaded firearm on school property, the only one that would apply to a non LEO is that you can carry and hunt in a school forest, with permission. My wife is a School District Administrator, and could “technically” give me permission to carry, but won’t. It would likely have to go to the board, where it would be squashed anyway. Ive offered to provide security and even pay $1.00 a year, and got shot down!!!!

We do have no license open carry, and have since 1848. We can open carry into a bar, but you can’t be drinking alcohol. You can conceal carry in a bar, and drink, with the owner’s permission. You are correct about open carrying in a vehicle. (Current standing court opinion, not the law) A gun laying on the seat is considered to be concealed, while drugs laying on the seat are considered to be visible. Go figure. (There is some legal contention on this opinion, but that’s the way I read it anyway) I have my CCL partly for driving and cold weather, if it’s nice I’m OC.

i open carry into my bank regularly. I take my Mom out to lunch once a month at a micro brewery popular with lawyer and business types in Wausau , Wi. and open carry. I don’t drink alcohol, so not an issue for me. If it’s a nice day, I’m OC.

It’s Wisconsin, there’s a bar or two on every corner.

 

[Libertarian01]

What gets me from reading the article is that there were some serious red flags going up about this guy. He was constantly getting into arguments. Then he became severely paranoid. A company this size should have had a good HR department that could have intervened before anything this severe occurred.

I worked one time with a coworker who allegedly had a drinking problem. There was an intervention by her manager and the executive director. She was helped with counseling and abuse treatment. She wasn't fired, although eventually she left her job, but they still helped her afterwards. Looking out for your employees doesn't just mean the ones that are always good, it means those who may be falling down in a variety of ways. Perhaps the company has the means to help, or maybe not, but just showing the concern and offering to help in some way can greatly diminish the chances of an event such as this.

Yes, lawyers will get involved and they SHOULD get involved! Two (2) critical questions come to mind in just a few minutes, what did the company know and when did they know it? They ARE responsible for what happens to folks on their property whether it is from a mental health breakdown or an employee failing to observe lockout procedures. Without the lawyers these questions will never be asked in a way that may hold someone accountable. We may well be too litigious in some ways but without litigation a great deal of suffering could continue unabated.

Regards,

Doug

PS - Please don't flame on my use of "red flags," I am using it metaphorically and not legally.