An Ethical Analysis of the Second Amendment: The Right to Pack Heat at Work

• Published date: 01 March 2014
• Author: Helen LaVan,Charles E. Naquin,Yvette P. Lopez,William M. Martin,Marsha Katz
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12023
• Date: 01 March 2014

An Ethical Analysis of the

Second Amendment: The

Right to Pack Heat at Work

WILLIAM M. MARTIN, HELEN LAVAN, YVETTE P. LOPEZ,

CHARLES E. NAQUIN, AND MARSHA KATZ

ABSTRACT

We examine the issues concerning the legality and ethi-

cality of the Second Amendment right to bear arms bal-

anced by the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace

for its employees. Two court rulings highlight this bal-

ancing act: McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago et al. and

District of Columbia v. Heller. “Stand Your Ground” and

“Castle Doctrine” laws in the recent Trayvon Martin

shooting on February 26, 2012 are also applicable.

Various ethical frameworks examine the firearms debate

by viewing the Second Amendment from three perspec-

tives. These include a pro-gun perspective drawing upon

libertarianism and fundamental rights; a moderate gun

perspective drawing upon consequentialism and stake-

holder theory; and finally, an anti-gun perspective

drawing upon a Public Health Ethics and peace ethics

approach. We explore the issue of gun control from a

business perspective as employers face ethical decisions

William M. Martin is an Associate Professor of Management, DePaul University, Chicago, IL.

E-mail: martym@depaul.edu. Helen LaVan is a Professor of Management, DePaul University,

Chicago, IL. E-mail: hlavan@depaul.edu. Yvette P. Lopez is an Assistant Professor of Manage-

ment, DePaul University, Chicago, IL. E-mail: ylopez9@depaul.edu. Charles E. Naquin is an

Associate Professor of Management, DePaul University, Chicago, IL. E-mail: cnaquin

@depaul.edu. Marsha Katz is a Professor Emeritus of Management, Governors State Univer-

sity, University Park, IL. E-mail: marshakatz@ameritech.net

bs_bs_banner

Business and Society Review 119:1 1–36

© 2014 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

in responding to legislation that allows guns in the work-

place and/or in employer parking lots while still being

responsible to provide a safe workplace for their employ-

ees. We make recommendations regarding how compa-

nies should manage by proactively avoiding legal

challenges to employees’ rights to own and carry guns

into the workplace. This includes emphasis on enhanced

security, Human Resource policies and monitoring

rapidly changing laws.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to provide an ethical analysis

of the Second Amendment right to bear arms balanced by

the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace for its

employees. Following the tragic shooting of 20 elementary school

children and 6 teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in

Newtown, Connecticut, the reaction as to how to prevent and

address such future mass shootings ranged from calls to enforce

current gun control legislation to arming teachers with guns in

the state of Texas.

To place Sandy Hook Elementary School within a larger

context, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between

1997 and 2010, there were a total of 8,666 occupational homi-

cides, of which 1,512 involved a work associate killing a coworker

or former coworker (n= 894), or a customer or client (n= 618),

followed by relatives (n= 311), and lastly other personal acquain-

tances (n= 323). With respect to gun use, of the 8,666 homicides,

6,850 were shot, including 639 who were shot by a work associ-

ate, 389 shot by a customer/client, 250 shot by a relative, and

266 shot by a personal acquaintance. Hence, a vast majority of all

homicides involved gun use.

Our article contributes to the literature by viewing the ethicality

of gun control from a business perspective, and doing so from

a variety of popular ethical frameworks (as opposed to taking

a position on one in particular): Libertarianism, Fundamental

Rights, Consequentialism, Stakeholder, Public Health, and

Peace. Exploring the Second Amendment using these various

frameworks allows us to view the debate from (1) Pro-Gun,

2 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

(2) Moderate-Gun, and (3) Anti-Gun perspectives. We believe that

understanding the debate from these various perspectives will

allow for a better understanding of the nuances of the ethical

debate facing the business world regarding gun control. In the

end, we shall put forth our position among the three frameworks.

Landmark Case Decisions

As of late, the Second Amendment right to possess and use

firearms has been a focus of attention within our legal system and

popular culture. The legality and ethicality of this issue have

come to the forefront recently with respect to a 2008 Supreme

Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller and a related case

at the appellate court level of McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago

et al.—both of which we shall elaborate upon later. Currently, the

right to bear arms is under even more scrutiny because of the

“Stand Your Ground”1and “Castle Doctrine”2delineated in various

state and municipal laws and ordinances.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the appellate court ruled that the

Second Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in

the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some

firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible. In addition, the

Second Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It

does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and

for any purpose. This is what the “Stand Your Ground” laws

attempt to address.3

“Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine”

Duty to retreat laws require first that an individual in imminent

threat of personal harm must retreat from the threat as much as

possible before responding with force in self-defense. “Stand Your

Ground” laws, which are enacted in more than 30 states, are

essentially a revocation of the duty to retreat. In many states with

“Stand Your Ground” laws, a claim of self-defense under a “Stand

Your Ground” law offers immunity from prosecution (Stand Your

Ground laws n.d.).

Even in states that require people to retreat from the threat of

imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often

use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their

3MARTIN ET AL.