CT executive order no carry at work?

[GLOCK.Perfection]

This might get moved to CT law section, but technically its not a law, and not too many people would see it there.....

Anyways, In the never ending battle for concealed carry on campus, I was having a conversation with a UConn police captain. He brought something to my attention that I have not heard anything about, and that was a workplace violence prevention executive order signed by governor Rowland. After looking it up this is what I found ...

That all state agency personnel, contractors, subcontractors, and vendors comply with the following Violence in the Workplace Prevention Policy:

The State of Connecticut adopts a statewide zero tolerance policy for workplace violence.

Therefore, except as may be required as a condition of employment¾

o No employee shall bring into any state worksite any weapon or dangerous instrument as defined herein.
o No employee shall use, attempt to use, or threaten to use any such weapon or dangerous instrument in a state worksite.
o No employee shall cause or threaten to cause death or physical injury to any individual in a state worksite.


This doesnt hurt the case for Students carrying on campus, but looks like it would definitely affect faculty and staff. Anyone familiar with this???

 

[Pilgrim]

o No employee shall use, attempt to use, or threaten to use any such weapon or dangerous instrument in a state worksite.
o No employee shall cause or threaten to cause death or physical injury to any individual in a state worksite.

you mean that wasn't a law before?

 

[Windwalker]

Interesting. CT uses an executive order. MA uses a security policy, established by the Bureau of State Office Buildings(BSB) (http://www.mass.gov/bsb/bsb_policy_man.htm#27). I wonder, does an executive order carry the weight of law? Would a violator be asked to leave, or arrested?

In MA, a couple of years ago two of us tried to petition the BSB to provide secure firearm storage for employees and visitors to the McCormack Bldg. There was an existing security upgrade project underway at the time and the project manager was willing to include all necessary equipment and modifications to make it happen. The security director for BSB denied the request (and the money for the improvements). At the time, the security director said they were pushing for a law, rather than a policy, that would enforce prohibition of firearms/dangerous articles. It didn't happen (yet).

 

[Jaxon]

I suppose the LE are exempt?

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

I suppose the LE are exempt?

yea later in the order it states unless carrying a weapon is required (or something to that effect)

 

[Pilgrim]

Therefore, except as may be required as a condition of employment¾

o No employee shall bring into any state worksite any weapon or dangerous instrument as defined herein.
o No employee shall use, attempt to use, or threaten to use any such weapon or dangerous instrument in a state worksite.
o No employee shall cause or threaten to cause death or physical injury to any individual in a state worksite.

..

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

haha ya, that

 

[Jaxon]

duh...

 

[calsdad]

Sounds like what they are trying to say is that if you want to go to work and beat the snot out of people (legally) - all you have to do is get this law repealed.

I always thought that assault and violence against others was already against the law. Why do they need to pass another one specifically making it illegal at state run workplaces? Is it still legal if the workplace is not run by the state?