Abstract
Should Companies Restrict Your Right to carry firearms? is the burning issue of the day. Recently, the focus on the policies of business ethics has increased dramatically. The major reason for this fresh emphasis on policies and principles of business ethics is that firms have learned that honest, responsible firms are trusted more, and this trust translates into higher revenues (Halo Effect). However, sometimes a firm devises such policy that may be right, but politically and legally controversial and flawed.
Some of the corporate policies that relate to gun-control are highly questionable or controversial, as these policies violate the rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. Lately, firms have devised such gun-policies that make it difficult for an individual to own and carry weapons, which is a constitutional right. For instance, Citi Bank, a large financial corporation, has devised a very strict policy for firearm dealers that intend to do business with the financial corporation. It restricts firearms dealers from selling high-capacity magazines to individuals who are under the age of 21 years. Citi Bank has not given any incentive to firearm dealers to take this measure, which further reduces the validity and effectiveness of this policy.
Firms should be allowed to devise policies to maintain the desired work environment within an organization. For instance, “No Handguns Policy” to keep the work environment safe is rational, even when it slightly violates the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment (it discourages/prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm). However, the policy to make owning firearms difficult is an infringement upon the right. Such a measure or policy is not only politically contentious, but also invalid or unlawful, as it makes the exercising of rights very difficult for an individual. We have learned that non-gun-control firms are lobbies also exploit their corporate capacity to reduce the effectiveness of the overall gun-control policy.
Introduction
Generally, business ethics is understood as strategies and policies of corporate firms about controversial issues. In recent years, the emphasis on business ethics has increased dramatically as the results of implementing business ethics are enormous for both economy and firms. The earlier studies focused only on the impact of implementation of business ethics on the economy. However, recent studies have also begun to emphasize the ramifications of implementing business ethics of the firm.
We learn that when consumers, clients or customers learn that a firm or organization is delivering its corporate responsibilities and it is sincerely implementing business ethics, the trust of clients, consumers or customers on that firm increase dramatically. As trust in a firm increase, because of its appropriate corporate behavior, some studies have revealed that many contemporary firms have advertised their excellent corporate behavior to expand their consumer base (Breitbart News, 2018).
When we study the implementation of business ethics in the corporate realm, it becomes quite apparent to us that on the issues that are not controversial, such as industrial waste, pollution, and minimum wage, it is easy for firms to implement a policy that creates a halo effect. However, on controversial issues, it is quite difficult for firms to take a position. Guns and gun-control are such issues that are very sensitive in the United States. Guns and gun control are not just socioeconomic subjects, but also political and constitutional subjects.
The United States is bitterly divided on the issue of the right to bear or carry arms. In some parts of the country, especially in the south belt, there is very strong support for guns and the sentiment against gun-control is very strong. On such issues, it becomes very difficult for companies to take a position, as these matters are not as simple as they seem. For instance, the support for guns has roots in history, traditions, and the constitution. On the right side of the political spectrum, constitutionalists support owning and carrying guns because the constitution permits that. Traditionalists support bearing of arms because not only does the constitution allow it, but also it is a tradition that is embedded in history. On this issue, it is very difficult for a national organization or firm to take a position. Whenever a company, organization or firm does that, it gives birth to controversy. Also, its impact on the economy and society is large, which is why most of the firms are reluctant to take a position in it. However, some firms still take a position; for instance, Citi Bank has introduced a policy that discourages or restricts firearm dealers from selling high-capacity magazines that can create a challenge at large scale in a scenario in a shooting scenario. Firearm business that intends to work with Citi Bank must adhere to the policy, which makes it a controversial matter in the constitution and political contexts (Breitbart News, 2018).
Controversy
We have already established that owning and bearing firearms is sensitive political and constitutional subjects. In recent years, the events of the mass shooting at educational and public places have occurred with great frequency. The nature, size, and victims of these mass shootings have sparked a debate in society, whether firearms should be allowed or not. On the left of the political spectrum, there are politicians, individuals, and groups, who believe that only the state must have the right of violence and therefore only state institutions should have guns. They also assert that gun culture has grown over the years and because of that mass-shootings too. The most important argument is that access to a gun or firearm increases the chances of gun violence. These politicians, individuals, and groups quote the deaths from gun violence to endorse their argument. As per statistics, in most of the intimate partner homicide cases, firearms are used to kill the partner. Statistics also reveal that the chances, of both men and women to be shot fatally by intimate partners, are very high in those states where firearm ownership per capita is higher than other states.
Statistics reveal that around 56, 755 Americans were killed by guns in the period between 2014 and 2017. In the year 2017 alone, around 15, 590 people got killed because of gun violence. When it comes to children, around 2,710 children died or got injured because of gun violence. These statistics reveal that gun violence is a serious issue in the United States. Also, workplace fatalities have also increased; around 518 workplace homicide cases have been reported (White, 2015).
Right-wing organizations and individuals, whose perspectives are shaped by right-wing political notions, argue that it is not guns that kill humans, but rather it is individuals. Therefore, the emphasis must be on individuals who tend to commit violence. Access of such individuals to firearms must be restricted. Also, they argue that it is the constitution of the United States that allow them to own and carry firearms and they are not willing to compromise on their tradition that is protected by the constitution.
The gun-lobby is also very strong in the United States, which make it very difficult for Congress to legislate on this issue. In different states, gun-control laws and policies have been introduced, which make it difficult for individuals to own a gun. For instance, background checks and psychological assessments make the acquiring of firearms a cumbersome process. It is also a fact that because of the measures, there has been a significant decrease in all forms of gun violence instances.
In such scenario, when a company or firm, such as Citi Bank, introduces as a policy for firearm dealers that aim to affect the size of ownership of particular types of guns and their equipment, then a political and legal controversy is born (Fuhrmans & Feintzeig, 2018).
For instance, the new policy of Citi Bank aims to reduce the sales of bump-stock and high-capacity magazines so that instances of mass-shootings may not occur this frequently. However, this policy has both political and constitutional ramifications. Also, it seems to be more of a political measure rather than economic.
Constitutional Issue
From the systematic study of the subject, it is apparent to us that owning and bearing arms is not only a political issue, with social implications, but also a constitutional issue. By constitutional issue, we imply that not only does the constitution allow individuals to own and carry arms, but also a constitutional amendment is required to change the constitutional provision about owning and carrying of arms.
In a society which is bitterly divided on this issue, it is not possible to amend the Amendment (2nd) about keeping and bearing of arms. Also, the framers of the American constitution made the process of amendment very cumbersome, which further reduces the possibility of altering the amendment. Therefore, the entire focus has shifted towards gun-control. States that are in favor of gun-ban are introducing processes and policies that make it very difficult for an individual to buy a firearm. It is believed that as the process will become more cumbersome, the gun ownership will reduce significantly in the United States (Livni, 2015).
These measures, which make the procedure of owning a firearm hard, are considered an infringement of a right that has been granted by the American Constitution. Therefore, all the measures, which even slightly make the process or procedure of acquiring a firearm difficult, are considered an illegal and a bias measure by individuals and politicians that have conservative leanings or those, who support keeping and bearing of arms. Therefore, the new policy of Citi Bank is considered a policy that infringes on the right granted by the 2nd Amendment of America Constitution (Breitbart News, 2018).
It is a very pertinent question how valid or lawful any policy or process is, which makes it difficult for an individual to exercise his/her constitutional right? This question is the basis of constitutional controversy, which the new policy of Citi Bank yields.
Corporate Responsibility
On various ethical issues, it is the conviction that overwhelms every other factor. For instance, if a firm believes that offering health care insurance is more important than offering a wage more than average, then it is the conviction that is prevailing. When options and budget are limited, a firm has to take difficult decisions and in such situations that conviction about a particular business issue beats other factors and options.
In the case of gun control too, firms are divided. Some firms consider directly affecting the keeping and bearing of guns a right and valid measure. However, other firms believe that it is a very complex subject that is needed to be debated more thoroughly to find the perfect answer. Also, these firms also believe that whenever a policy or measure of a firm makes it difficult for an individual to exercise his or her right, such policy or measure is controversial and perhaps constitutionally invalid.
Citi Bank’s policy is ambiguous, as Citi Bank knows that the implementation of this policy will make a very small difference in the owning and bearing of firearms. Also, Citi Bank must also be aware of the fact that at a certain level, this policy affects adversely constitutional rights of those Americans, who intend to own firearms (Breitbart News, 2018).
When we study different mega organizations, which operate in the United States’ corporate sector, we learn that these large organizations are devising policies that aim indirectly affects the 2nd Amendment. For instance, several CEOs of large corporations have decided to tackle the issue of gun-control head-on, and there are several reasons for that (Livni, 2015). One of the reasons is that CEOs with liberal leaning are against gun violence and for political reasons they have devised these policies. Another reason is that clients and employees are mounting pressure on firms’ CEOs to address the issue in a manner that affects gun-control policy. However, it is very apparent that devising a policy about the issue of gun control is more related to politics rather than corporate responsibility. It is because gun control is a political issue, rather than a business ethics issue. If the emphasis of corporate firms is about gun violence than their cause is justified, lawful and it will have overwhelming support. However, if the emphasis is only gun-control, then it is a political and a constitutional issue, which is why the policy of corporate firms, such as Citi Bank, is highly controversial and generates a strong political reaction (NRA-ILA, 2018).
As more and more companies, organizations or firms are intentionally trying to increase the success and effectiveness of gun-control policies of the government, the more this measure seems a political issue rather than business ethics or corporate responsibility issue. It is perceived that in the guise of corporate responsibility and business ethics, a political agenda is being implemented by corporate firms that have an obvious political bias or leaning. When we couple this deliberate effort by corporate to affect gun-control law and policies with the liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the issue becomes highly sensitive and controversial.
It is imperative to acknowledge that gun-control affect gun violence. As we have already discussed that access to firearms increases the probability of fatal injury. Therefore, many organizations do not allow their employees to bring weapons or firearms to work, which could negatively affect the work environment. Therefore, gun control is a very difficult subject to address.
Analysis
Owning and especially carrying a firearm is a serious and controversial subject. It is because on the one hand owning and carrying a firearm is a constitutional right, on the other hand, the consequences of access to a firearm are grim. Several studies suggest that access to guns increase chances of gun violence.
For corporations too, it is not easy to devise policy regarding it. For instance, the cost of allowing individuals to carry a firearm at the workplace is enormous, negative impact on the work environment. Therefore, intra-organizational policy about gun-control is understandable and justifiable. Recently, those anti-gun-control organizations have started to mount pressure on firms to allow individuals to bring a weapon or firearm at the workplace. Also, the rulings that permit individuals to bring a firearm at the workplace in a concealed manner have also complicated the affairs (Segal, 2013). These developments allow us to understand how difficult it is for firms to devise and implement policy, within the organization, regarding firearms (Palazzolo, 2016).
However, the policy of firms to make the procedure of acquiring guns or firearms seems a little out of place. The reason is that such policy infringes upon the rights of ordinary Americans, as it makes difficult for an individual to exercise her/her constitutional right. In such matters, the intention is not considered, but rather the lawfulness of an action. If an action or policy is lawful, it must be implemented. However, if a policy, even that which has been devised with noble intention, is unlawful and infringes upon the rights of an individual, it will be invalid and controversial (destined to generate a strong political sentiment against it).
I believe that companies should be allowed to devise policies that emphasize and effect gun violence; play a part in reducing gun-related violence. However, corporate firms must not devise policies that infringe upon the rights that are guaranteed by the American Constitution. Any such policy is unlawful and politically controversial. An example of such a policy is the Citi Bank’s policy about firearms dealers that compels them to not sell a capacity magazine or bump-stock to individuals that are less than 21 years old. If it were illegal to sell the capacity magazine to individuals that are less than 21 years old, such policy would be valid; if not, then such policy would be unlawful.
Conclusion
In the end, it can be concluded that corporate firms devise policies about business ethics, which affect not only the economic system, but also the socio-political system. Studies have discovered that trust in customers increases on such firms that are considered honest and responsible. Therefore, many firms have shifted the emphasis to generate and advertise Halo Effect. In pursuit of generating and advertising the Halo Effect, many companies or firms have devised such business ethics-related policies that are not only politically controversial but also unconstitutional. Citi Bank is a prime example, which has devised a policy to make gun-control more effective. However, this policy in the process makes acquiring of particular components of a firearm more difficult, which is why it is considered a controversial policy (infringement upon the right as it makes difficult to exercise the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of American Constitution).
Firms must be allowed to make policies about their organizations, whether an individual should bring a firearm to the workplace or not. However, these firms should not be allowed to devise policies that restrict to own and carrying firearms elsewhere.
Gun-control is a serious subject that is being debated in various forums. Even though there is a division on the issue of owning and carrying a firearm, there is a consensus in American society that gun violence must reduce to a minimum. Therefore, the emphasis of firms should be a reduction of gun violence rather than gun-control, which is a constitutional issue.
References
Breitbart News. (2018, March 23). Citibank Requiring Gun Store Customers to Quit Selling ‘High Capacity’ Magazines. Retrieved from https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/23/citibank-requiring-gun-store-customers-quit-selling-high-capacity-magazines/
Breitbart News. (2018, March 22). Citigroup Announces Gun Control Requirements for Clients and Small Businesses. Retrieved from https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/22/citigroup-announces-gun-control-requirements-for-clients-and-small-businesses/
Fuhrmans, V., & Feintzeig, R. (2018, March 1). CEOs Choose Sides on Gun Control at Their Own Risk. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/ceos-choose-sides-on-gun-control-and-risk-alienating-the-other-side-1519840498
Livni, E. (2015, September 23). Can Employers Limit the 2nd Amendment Rights of Employees? Retrieved from https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/09/gun-ownership-can-employers-limit-second-amendment-rights.html
NRA-ILA. (2018, May 11). Hard-Times-For-Dicks-As-Second-Amendment-Supporters-Respond-To-Companys-Anti-Gun-Bent. Retrieved from https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180511/hard-times-for-dicks-as-second-amendment-supporters-respond-to-companys-anti-gun-bent
Palazzolo, J. (2016, June 9). Appeals Court Upholds ‘Concealed Carry’ Restrictions. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-carry-restrictions-1465483920
Segal, J. (2013, June 1). Legal Trends: Employers in the Crossfire. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0613-legaltrends.aspx
White, M. (2015, November 2). Guns in the workplace: A safety issue or a nightmare? Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/business/guns-workplace-safety-issue-or-nightmare-8C11457700
+447462439809