South Dakota State Employees Allowed to Carry Guns at Work

[TexasTowelie]

SDGOP spin blogger thinks the new South Dakota Bureau of Human Resources policy allowing state employees to carry concealed weapons on the job is “well thought out” and protects employees and the general public. As usual, Pat Powers is mistaken.

The state says employees can carry concealed weapons on the job and on state property unless specifically prohibited by federal or state law or by executive order of the Governor. As your next Governor, I promise to issue an executive order on Inauguration Day telling state employees to leave their guns at home.

BHR claims that “The State is not liable for any wrongful or negligent act or omission related to actions of persons or employees who carry a concealed pistol.” Um… really? If an employer allows employees to carry deadly weapons in the workplace, and if one of those deadly weapons goes off and injures someone, doesn’t the employer bear some responsibility for creating a hazardous work environment?

BHR does at least require these Nervous Nellies to keep a tight grip on their guns:

An eligible employee must comply with all requirements of the law when carrying a concealed pistol. The employee must always keep the pistol completely concealed, except for those instances where necessary for self-defense or transferring to locked storage. Pistols must always be in the immediate control of the eligible employee in a Level 2 holster (or higher) or in locked storage, and the employee cannot leave his or her pistol unattended in or on his or her workstation or in a purse, bag, desk, filing cabinet, or other storage container left behind at the employee’s office [South Dakota Bureau of Human Resources, “Conceal Carry Policy,” retrieved 2019.07.09].

Read more: http://dakotafreepress.com/2019/07/10/south-dakota-state-employees-allowed-to-carry-guns-at-work/

[hlthe2b]

1. Good gawd...

Imagine working in that environment.

[underpants]

2. What, all 200 of them? Actually this brings up a point that I hadn't realized until recently

There is so much clamor about "Gun Free Zones" (I know it's BS) that it skips over something I hadn't considered until I read it recently. Forgive my ignorance but it's hard to see what isn't there or in this case not put in front of you.

First, guns in any environment increase the risk of something happening. The same can be said for mousetraps and rakes, the presence of them greatly increases the chance someone steps on one.

Second, workplace shootings become far more likely or possible if guns are there. Weird trivia - in 1993 or 1994 more people died in Post Offices than in electric chairs (capital punishment). The USPS ended Guns in their workplaces shortly thereafter.

Lastly - here's the point that I'd simply missed previously- when there is an incident and the police have to respond the fact that guns are banned greatly decreases their risk. Yes, they are hyper aware that other guns may be present but banning guns in that environment means that it's highly unlikely that someone has a gun in their desk or stuck away somewhere and that they might come out guns a blazing trying to be a "good guy". In that situation police have to assess and react not knowing who is who - thy are just going to get the situation under control. The sloppy handling and poor marksmanship elements of the "good guy" comes into play too.

But if that was brought up in any of these discussions we'd have more of the story and that would not make for TV news drama.