I have used that expression in the past and I now officially hate the damn phrase. Where once it was used to indicate the care that we should have about using the right equipment and the right clothing so we don’t give away a tactical advantage, it is now the banner of those who are trying to convince others that carrying concealed where not allowed by the law is OK because you won’t be caught…because it is concealed.
I am sorry. I am a realist by nature and I regularly pray in the Church of Murphy’s Law. I don’ snort Rainbow Unicorn Farts and hope the fumes will protect me from my own wishful thinking. You can tempt Fate so many times before she decides to do a tonsil probe via your rectum. Don’t take chances that can end your right to own a firearm just because a slogan sounds cool.
And the next person who use that phrase in that contest, ask them if they will cover the cost of bail and lawyers if anything should happen to you, and get it in writing. I figure a good $250,000 advance for your legal fees would be a great starting point. I reckon they will backtrack rather fast.
It’s always people who would have zero consequences if they were “made” who say that kind of stuff.
LEOs, gun writers, professional trainers, people who own their own businesses, etc.
Not folks who would get fired and arrested for incidental exposure.
I am legally not prohibited from carrying at my office. I am prohibited by company policy, and HugeMegaCorp would absolutely ruin me professionally if I violated that policy.
Concealed is concealed, and unemployable is unemployable. I can’t risk having a medical issue at work and then being fired afterwards because the emts found a keltec in my pocket.
The flip side to that is what happens if you get caught NOT carrying at work? At the end of the day, it is a risk/benefit analysis. What are the chances of being caught, versus the chances of being attacked. Compare that to the consequences of being caught versus the consequences of being a victim.
To me, there are two types of places:
Prohibited: The LAW says you can’t carry there
non-Permissive: Where the property owner/manager says they don’t want you to carry.
Now in some states, the two can overlap. Texas has its 30.06 signs, for example. This can mean that a non-Permissive location can put up a sign and become a prohibited location. Here in Florida, the two do not overlap.
Many people do not, for whatever reason, understand this seemingly minor distinction.
The calculus for me included things like how much life insurance I already have, the likelihood of being randomly attacked in the parking lot, and the tactical capabilities of most “mass shooters.”
I’m very well-paid and well-respected in my field, and my employer is….large. Very large.
Were I to get fired for carrying a weapon at work, I could at best expect to make about half my current salary doing similar–but not the same–work in my field. The dozen or so companies where I could actually do what I do today, for a similar salary, wouldn’t dare touch me after a violation like that.
I’ve personally witnessed 3 people get blacklisted to the point where they had to move across the country to find another job. That’s over a 15 year period, but, still, its precedent.
It’s also part of the reason my blogging dropped off….
(And if you’re about to respond with “Man, you need to go find a different company to work for” I’d run in to the same problem just at a different place)
This sounds all too familiar.
Being a specialist has pros and cons.
I used to tease my boss & HR person that I was openly carrying a weapon; a Pentel P205 mechanical pencil. I recently discovered that I was in fact in violation of state law and company policy should I ever use it as a weapon.
Tennessee has a weird thing where, technically, carrying a walking stick (or, in your case, a pencil) is exactly the same crime as carrying a firearm or a sword or a flamethrower….if you INTEND to use it as a weapon.
I imagine it goes back to Reconstruction and charging Freedmen for using tools in their own fields.
The phrase originally was tied to retarded jurisdictions where having a visible gun (even if only barely visible, like a momentary flash or just printed) was a violation of a ban on open carry. This actually is the best reason to insist that open carry should be legalized. (An alternative would be to require that unintentional exposure of a weapon intended to be concealed is not an open carry violation.)
I agree that using it as a way to carry when the law forbids it is reckless and stupid. Concealed won’t do you much good if you get stopped for some random mistake and the cop decides to frisk you, or the EMT example that Wizard mentioned. The law may be an ass, but obeying it even so is generally good practice.
It’s a cost-benefit analysis paradigm.
As @Divemedic noted, in effect, better to have and not need than need and not have.
I will continue to conceal where and when necessary.
And as @wizardpc noted, part of the cost-benefit algorithm must include the possibility of finding fruitful employment after being fired for a violation … which is far more likely than having to face down a violent threat.
My employer is government. For anonymity, I won’t say which level or which agency. I am barred by policy from carrying in the workplace. This policy — in my “IANAL” opinion — directly conflicts with the law (it’s a longer explanation than is appropriate here) and there are people who agree with me, but nobody is willing to be the “test” case; the courts here are filled with bat-shit-crazy Leftist activists, who’d almost certainly side with the employer even though the policy says the exact opposite of the law. (They have on other, non-gun issues.)
My “carry/not-carry” calculus includes the cost of potentially being black-listed in my field. I normally agree with “better to have a gun and not need it than vice versa”, but I have to ask that same question about my income, benefits, insurance, etc.
The key difference is, my family and I do absolutely need my income, benefits, and insurance. There is no “have it and not need it” side to that one; it’s a sure thing that I’m not willing to risk over a low-probability “maybe”.
(My calculus also includes details of my actual workplace — the cover/concealment available, the number and direction of various exits, the amount of forewarning we’re likely to have, etc. — and unless we’re invaded by a 12-man death squad executing a coordinated attack on all doors at once and systematically clearing all areas, I’m pretty confident I can get myself and my teammates safely out of the building without being seen. And, policy allows me to keep a gun in my car in the parking lot, just not in the building, which opens up possibilities of bringing a LOT “more gun”.)
Neither @Divemedic nor @wizardpc are wrong. I just happen to agree more with @wizardpc on this one. YMMV, and that’s perfectly fine.
Ccwsafe.com
My favorite it’s concealed story is the bosses daughter going on and on about how scary and bad guns are. Me explaining that carry is legal in our state.
She asked “do you think there have been guns in the office?”
I pretended to think about it and said “well, at do have clients visit, so yes.”
She was upset and was trying to figure out to to ban guns and lose clients.
All the while I was carrying and had been since my first interview.
Same ish story after a school board meeting, teacher going on about how dangerous it was too allow parents to carry concealed in the school, but she parent might get mad at her at a parent teacher conference and start shooting…
And I was standing 2ft away with a 1911 on my hip and 16 rounds in two mags on the other hip.
If we were as violent as they say we are there wouldn’t be an issue
Corporate policy versus state/federal law?
Guns are banned from our particular corporate facility by Federal Law. It is a felony if you get caught. They are banned by our corporate parent from all corporate facilities by policy.
Our facility actually screens everyone at the entrance using magnetometers and x-ray machines to screen belongings. Someone left his handgun in his briefcase one day. AND he got caught.
The feds interviewed him, decided it was a simple, stupid fuck up with no nefarious intent. They didn’t prosecute him. They didn’t even void his clearance and access to our facility.
Did Not Matter. Corporate said he violated corporate policy, not federal law, or even our site policies, rules, and procedures. Fired, out on his butt. No severance, no unemployment insurance.
Exactly what Archer is afraid would happen to him.
Not criticizing. It is a decision that each of us has to make for ourselves.