Concealed weapons in the workplace have been a legal issue in the business field for quite some time. Besides the dangers it will cause, on the cilivain side there are also liability issues that have arisen concerning employee rights and workplace safety. There are laws passed at both the state and federal levels that allow United States citizens to carry concealed weapons as long as they retain a permit to do so. However, many businesses do not allow their employees to carry weapons on their persons, in their vehicles, or in their offices. The purpose of this paper is to state why citizens should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons in their workplace, the regulations that allow both employees to obtain weapons at work and the laws that refrain them from doing so. The majority of the research was gathered from secondary sources mainly articles on the Strayer campus site ,elibrary and the internet. There are many states in the United States that have enacted laws to allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons in public but not in the workplace. However, the employer may not prohibit the employee from carrying a concealed weapon in the employee’s own motor vehicle, even when the motor vehicle is driven or parked on the employer’s property or while the vehicle is used in the course of employment. For employers who choose not to prohibit their employees from carrying concealed weapons, the law includes a provision granting immunity to the employer for liability arising from such decision. There is not a corresponding grant of immunity in the concealed carry law for employers who choose to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons by employees. A question arises as to whether an employer could potentially face liability if an employee is unable to defend himself as a result of a policy barring the carrying of weapons. However, most commentators agree that workers compensation insurance should usually cover the employer’s theoretical liability to the employee if the incident occurs during the course of employment while the employee is at work. Businesses have the right to prohibit visitors, customers, etc. from carrying weapons onto their premises. For employers who choose not to prohibit their employees from carrying concealed weapons, the law includes a provision granting immunity to the employer for liability arising from such decision .There is not a corresponding grant of immunity in the concealed carry law for employers who choose to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons by employees. A question arises as to whether an employer could potentially face liability if an employee is unable to defend himself as a result of a policy barring the carrying of weapons. Workplace homicides average about 500 a year in the U.S., according to studies by ASIS International Foundation, an Alexandria, Virginia-based security professional association, and by the U.S. Justice Department. Shootings accounted for 80 per cent of workplace homicides between 2005 and 2009, with most involving robberies and 21 per cent stemming from employee disputes, according to the 2011 Justice report.

Guns-to-work legislation has failed in 12 states in the past two years, including Alabama, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, where lawmakers say they'll push the measures as legislatures convene next year. However, most commentators agree that workers compensation insurance should usually cover the employer’s theoretical liability to the employee if the incident occurs during the course of employment while the employee is at work. Looking at this from the weapon-carrying employee's standpoint, consider an employer forbidding employees from carrying weapons to work. What if an employee is subsequently attacked and beaten at work? Can that employee then file suit claiming his ability for self-defense was impaired by the employer’s action? The injured employee would claim that he incurred bodily injury and that the employer was legally responsible for those injuries. The Workers’ Comp exclusion and the employers’ liability exclusion in the General Liability policy have to be considered, but if the injury to the worker is not work-related—that is, not arising out of and in the course of employment—the exclusions are not going to be applicable. In that case, the General Liability policy of the insured employer would respond with a defense since there is no clear-cut unambiguous exclusion in the policy to prevent such a response. But, of course, the duty to pay the claim would depend on the liability of the insured being established in a court of law. Unfortunately, there is no end to the potential problems concealed-weapon laws pose for employers. It is not enough for insured employers to count on General Liability for insurance coverage under most circumstances. Sound risk management calls for preemptive action as well. An employer can try to get an exemption from the scope of the concealed-weapon law (if one does not already exist) for the workplace, so that he has the authority to forbid weapons in the workplace. The employer can make it abundantly clear to all employees and potential employees that company policy forbids bringing weapons onto the premises. The employer can also conduct careful pre-employment screenings to make sure stable, sensible people are hired who do not try to settle disagreements with force. Violence in the workplace is a growing trend among American businesses that needs the prompt attention of individuals, governments, and corporations alike The United States has the highest percentage rate of gun related deaths and injuries I believe allow citizens to carry weapon will just make this matter worse and more dangerous. The increase can be contributed to gun related shootings at schools: elementary, secondary, and our universities and colleges. Gun violence statistics has rising in the workplace. Also, there is an extremely disturbing rate of mortality statistics involving guns