Monday, November 7, 2011

Verily, it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Of course he'll lose his job.


Anonymous said...

The corporations see lawsuits should one of their employees shoot and miss or the bullet goes through the criminal and hits someone else.
Kind of reminds me of the farmer demeanor. Always use split rims for trucks in the field. They can be changed quickly and if the rim blows, its only an illegal who gets hurt and they are plenty.
This isn't about anything but life is cheap to the folks on the upper food chain levels when dealing with others on the lower levels.
A quick way to deal with employees who deal with cash and are subject to be victims of violent crimes over that cash. Have them get CWP's and some extra training that deals with what they do on their job and being armed. At that point, whomever they work for is out of being able to be pulled into any lawsuit.
If states were to look at making such laws. You can bet the trial lawyers groups would be behind a stampede to keep it from happening. When viewed in honest light, the criminals are giving the advantage over decent hard working folks.

Ashrak said...

I won't be buying anymore Papa Johns Pizzas any time soon.

Hey, I am fine with an employer saying that a person cannot carry their firearms on the business property if they so choose, but to say a person cannot carry while out and about in the public square is another issue altogether.

I would offer that it does get a bit sticky when the delivery driver must approach the doorstep - as they are then clearly on private property where the owner can say no to allowing carried arms.

My goodness, are we coming to a point where people will have to go out to the street to get their delivered pizzas?

Papa Johns clearly does this in order to pay less for insurance. It is why a great number of businesses make the decision to ban exercise of rights. Heck, these days, insurance companies make more "code" than government does....government requires insurance so in effect government is using NGO's to make "law" in order to avoid "responsibility'.

Sickening and quite ridiculous.

return to zero said...

Anon @ 5:02

Blame the corp and the farmer; ignore the consumer and make more laws?
We're seeing the results of that policy writ large on this nation.

Douglas said...

I will never buy another Papa John's pizza.

Bob said...

Yah, he'll get fired, since it's a corporate pizza chain. Some mom-and-pop places will give you permission to carry, but not a corporate place. It happened to me as a hotel worker.

Anonymous said...

That wasn't a burglary. That was an attempted robbery.

Ignorant people write ignorant copy.

BTW, Papa John's pizza isn't worth smelling, much less tasting. Spend a dollar or two more at the store and use your oven and you'll really like it a lot better.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, you can always get another job if you'er alive and not permanently injured.

Well, you can if you don't have a Marxist president and Senator.

Anonymous said...

Well you know he was in cahoots with the party who ordered the pizza. Unless he happens to live under that shrub?

Were I the owner/manager of the pizza shop all my logos would say "My drivers carry more than pizza." and the wage scale would reflect an amount for those who do. Maybe an ad campaign "Off Duty Pizza Delivery. A great second income."

Chuck Martel said...

It's cheaper for insurance companies to pay off a workers' compensation death claim on a pizza delivery guy than it is to possibly be tagged for a huge judgment in a wrongful death claim.

For insurance companies and employers, it's not about right or wrong or even the safety of their employees.

It's about the money.

Robert Fowler said...

"Papa John's prohibits drivers from carrying weapons, including firearms, while delivering food."

All of the major chains have this policy. A friend of mine was fired from Pizza Hut after he shot a goblin that pulled a gun on him. The goblin lived and got 17 years.

I deliver for a independent shop and my boss is fine with my carrying. He told me as long as I have a current permit it's fine. He likes the idea of someone being armed in the store at night.

pdxr13 said...

Betcha the deliveryman had FMJ rounds in that pistol, not premium +p self-defense hollowpoints. .38sp is just barely enough gun, with the right ammo, imho. This was not quite enough gun to insure the pizzaman had the only version of the incident on record, but it's good everything worked out.


1911A1 said...

Let's look at this from the opposite angle, shall we? What if delivery drivers who have been robbed (or their next of kin should the driver not survive the encounter) start suing their employer for forcing them to work in a dangerous environment without providing the opportunity to protect themselves? If a lawsuit is all they understand, maybe it's time we start speaking the language if litigation.

It works for the bad guys, right?

Anonymous said...

UPS, Fed Express, construction companies who provide vehicles, etc...all of them require the employee to sign off that they have read that the rule that they cannot have any sort of defense weapon in the vehicle. This is ignored by the drivers I know. They only signed it because if you don't you don't work. They figure rightly that the signature was coerced and against the moral law to even ask, let alone require it of them. The companies do it because the insurance Nazis impose unreasonable dictates on them. (I'm sure if the unarmed driver had to bite the assailant to fend him off, they would still lose their job or at least be given time off without pay.)

Now those same companies also require that employed drivers wear a seatbelt. Some drivers who do not normally wear a seatbelt unless they FEEL like it in their own vehicles...unlawful state laws be so while working because the vehicle is owned by the employer and the employer pays out in the case of an accident. So they wear the seatbelt out of proper respect of the employer's property. If only the companies had the same respect for the EMPLOYEE'S property...which is their bodies, their lives, their families, their futures, etc.

Yup. It's all about $$$.

Travis Lee said...

Pizza delivery, and driving a taxi are on the top ten list of dangerous jobs like working on an oil rig, and logging....

Cops and fire fighting, not on the list.

A dead deliveryman is cheaper than defending a lawsuit for injury from a robber.

Some gun owners think that an employer has the right to those rules.

Some drivers think the right to stay alive trumps that.

Anonymous said...

The real legal answer is for the CWP holders and their employers to be immune from lawsuit if the use of a firearm is determined to be justified.

In any case, as Josey Wales once said, "Dying ain't much of a living, boy." I can get another job slinging pizzas but I can't get another life.

Anonymous said...

We ran through a storm of that "organic fertilizer" here in FL when the Chamber of Commerce opposed what the press liked to call the "Take Your Gun To Work" law. I repeatedly asked why armed employees on company property were dangerous but armed customers were OK. I never got an answer. What none of the outraged business owners wanted to admit was that customers are free to take one look at the "no firearms allowed" sign and take their business elsewhere and can do so a lot faster than an employee can switch jobs.

Incidently, my employer still requires us to take online training which states that firearms on company property will result in dismissal. When called on the issue it was pointed out that the online employee handbook has been updated to reflect the requirements of FL law but the online training course has not. As this sort of reform spreads you may find that your work situation is similar.

BTW... The current FL law states that CCW permit holders may keep firearms locked in their vehicles parked on company property and that the company may not search the vehicle or inquire as the presence of firearms or whether the employees has a CCW permit.

Still galls us to be required to have a permit for this but like "shall issue", its better than what we had before. Our rights were not infringed in one large chunk and short of an outright civil war we might have to take them back one small piece at a time.

bitter clinging Texan said...

I doubt that it would be an issue here in Texas, being that as part of the castle doctrine, carrying in your personal vehicle is legal even WITHOUT a would be different if the pizza company provided company cars though

Dave said...

The mentality of this employer is familiar. Papa Johns appears to be willing to lose a few drivers in order to minimize legal liability. How is this different from the jackass Border Patrol administrator who decided to give Brian Terry a bean bag shotgun to carry out a high-risk mission? (Maybe that tactical genius will be identified in the "FBI involvement in the murder of Brian Terry and the cover-up that followed" series...)