Disgruntled employee didn't need CHL to threaten former boss

• 
• 

Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00

Written by Jeff Garvas

The Dayton Daily News is reporting that a Square D employee who had been fired returned to work armed with a loaded .22 revolver and pointed it in the chest of his former boss on January 14.

Craig Z. Buck, 54, of 5274 Stillwell-Beckett Road was enraged by his firing, which was prompted by a dispute with another employee who still works there, authorities told the newspaper.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

The DDN story goes on to say that Buck's former supervisor, David Weltzer, spotted Buck and the co-worker in the parking lot and approached them. Buck jumped into his truck, grabbed a pistol, hopped out and lodged the muzzle in Weltzer's chest. According to Oxford police, Buck got back into his truck and sped away without firing a shot.

The story concludes by reporting that sheriff's deputies found Buck in his driveway and the weapon in his house. He was arrested and charged with aggravated menacing, carrying a concealed weapon and improper handling of firearms in a motor vehicle.

Commentary:
What this story (and nearly every other one the mainstream media publishes when such incidents occur) doesn't mention is that Buck didn't need (and didn't have) an Ohio Concealed Handgun License (CHL) in order to threaten his former boss and co-worker in this manner.

He didn't pay attention to the probable section in the Square D manual that forbids employees bringing firearms into the workplace, not did he take advantage of the "conflict resolution" info that is likely also in his employment manual.

As is the result of any gun control measure, the only person who was disarmed in this situation was the person who was no threat to anyone, and who actually needed to protect himself while in the workplace.

Yet when OFCC brings the fight for the recovery of workplace self-protection rights to the Ohio General Assembly, we are certain to expect loud, horrid groans from the editorial board at this newspaper, theorizing that if having a gun at work were legal (say, in one's personal vehicle, even on company property and without company permission), an employee just might get angry, go out and get the gun, and come after their former boss...

And as any criminal would chuckle in reply, "who needs it to be legal?"

Related Stories:
Recent Domestic Violence Murders in the Workplace Illustrate a Common Scenario

Why should employees be able to CCW? Question answered...tragically.

USA Today: Companies that ban guns put on defensive

Whirlpool backs out of workplace gun ban suit, but doesn't lift ban

Human right of self-defense doesn't end at the workplace

Why do so many employee manuals render workers defenseless?

UNsafe: OH Workers' Comp bureaucrats advise ''ban''

Ohio's working families deserve right to self-defense to and from jobs

• < Prev
• Next >