Talk about a total waste of State Tax payer money.....

[68Charger]

RUN. HIDE. FIGHT.® Surviving an Active Shooter Ev…: http://youtu.be/5VcSwejU2D0

This is what they'll watch. Like someone mentioned, common sense for those not armed.

Ours was an internally developed presentation, nowhere near as engaging as that dramatization.

We just got to watch a video. There was a fight back scenario, but it was after the run or hide choices. In this video, when trapped in a conference room, it's evidently corporate policy to throw potted plants at an AK armed attacker. Of course, our company is based in California, so who would expect anything any different.

The instructor, a high mucky muck, said in the class in Cali, when he asked who had fired or held a gun or heard gunfire, maybe 2 out of 30 raised their hands. In our CO class, it was 100%. I've formally requested a company approved and provided potted plant for my cube, and I wonder if I can get away with bringing it to meetings.

Co. I work for is based out of NYC... So same attitude, it did use the the "RUN. HIDE. FIGHT." Mantra... It actually said in the FIGHT section "throw something heavy, like a stapler"
My requests for tactical stapler training went unanswered

CDOT has a very clear policy of NO "weapons" on CDOT property at any time unless it is a requirement of your job duties.
This also applies to private contractors on CDOT projects and property.
I as well would like to know just what position a weapon is a requirement for CDOT job duties.
Unfortunately I have been out of the system for a year so I cannot quote the exact policy/directive. I would like to see in writing where the No Weapons policy has been rescinded.
The CCW statute came into effect when I was a TMIII, I would have known in a change in policy/directive.
I even pushed the fact up the chain- how can a state entity forbid a permitted concealed permit holder from carrying on state property? The statute is clear that private property owners may forbid the carrying of a concealed weapon but there is no such provision for state property. In addition how can a state entity openly defy state law and constitution?
I never got a coherent answer and even Legal never provided any insight.
I also asked if CDOT denies a lawfull and permitted individual from carrying, what duty does CDOT have to protect their employees?
Crickets.
Hell, they even gave me grief at headquarters for my Gerber Fairburn/Applegate I carried daily.
If they only knew....

When they posted an internal blog on our forced homepage about the training, they had many (including me) posted what a joke it was, and that the company should defer to local laws on ccw... I received a call from the CSO (chief security officer) of Corporate... We agreed to disagree. Thankfully, I work from my home 80+% now

[Bailey Guns]

I even pushed the fact up the chain- how can a state entity forbid a permitted concealed permit holder from carrying on state property? The statute is clear that private property owners may forbid the carrying of a concealed weapon but there is no such provision for state property. In addition how can a state entity openly defy state law and constitution?

The state can make it a condition of employment that employees or contractors may not CCW on duty on state property. CDOT cannot arbitrarily prohibit private persons from carrying concealed on CDOT property unless they comply with the screening requirements (security personnel and electronic screening permanently in place at each entrance to the CDOT facility).

[crashdown]

My coworkers and higher ups either don't believe in guns, or don't believe in wasting time worrying about "what if"...... So I'm totally safe.

[Eric P]

CDOT has a very clear policy of NO "weapons" on CDOT property at any time unless it is a requirement of your job duties.
This also applies to private contractors on CDOT projects and property.
I as well would like to know just what position a weapon is a requirement for CDOT job duties.
Unfortunately I have been out of the system for a year so I cannot quote the exact policy/directive. I would like to see in writing where the No Weapons policy has been rescinded.
The CCW statute came into effect when I was a TMIII, I would have known in a change in policy/directive.
I even pushed the fact up the chain- how can a state entity forbid a permitted concealed permit holder from carrying on state property? The statute is clear that private property owners may forbid the carrying of a concealed weapon but there is no such provision for state property. In addition how can a state entity openly defy state law and constitution?
I never got a coherent answer and even Legal never provided any insight.
I also asked if CDOT denies a lawfull and permitted individual from carrying, what duty does CDOT have to protect their employees?
Crickets.
Hell, they even gave me grief at headquarters for my Gerber Fairburn/Applegate I carried daily.
If they only knew....

Whoever in the chain who told you CCW was not allowed was clearly not knowledgeable about CDOT policy. CDOT only prohibits illeagal possecion of firearms:

From the current workplace violence PD:

"Illegal possession of a firearm(s) or weapons(s) of any kind, including those defined by Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) Title 18, Article 1 (firearms) and Article 12 (dangerous and illegal weapons), is prohibited at work or on state property including state vehicles."

0010.0_PO_Workplace_Violence[1].pdf <== not sure if this worked, its the CDOT PD on workplace violence.

I had confirmed this with HR a few years ago and re-confirmed when they started notifying us that we will be taking this class. The instructor even said CDOT could not prevent any citizen including CDOT employees from carrying on state property unless the facility met the security requirements in the law.

[Bailey Guns]

That sounds like a pretty reasonable policy, especially for a state entity.

[BPTactical]

That sounds like a pretty reasonable policy, especially for a state entity.

That is just the brief policy, the actual procedural directive is about 20 pages long.
I am not sold on it.
I rearranged my office about a month ago, I will try to go through some boxes and see what I can find on hard copy.

Gonna make a couple of phone calls and see what I can find.

[Bailey Guns]

Definitely...I'm sure there's more to it than just a few sentences.

[Eric P]

That is just the brief policy, the actual procedural directive is about 20 pages long.
I am not sold on it.
I rearranged my office about a month ago, I will try to go through some boxes and see what I can find on hard copy.

Gonna make a couple of phone calls and see what I can find.

Here you go:

Says the same thing.

0010.1_PD_Workplace_Violence[1].pdf

[BPTactical]

Here you go:

Says the same thing.

0010.1_PD_Workplace_Violence[1].pdf

Eric- Color me shocked! I just got off of the phone with one who would know, he even took it to the AG's office for clarification.
The policy 80.10 Workplace Violence was realigned to conform to the Colorado statute on concealed carry. As was noted in what you posted it only addresses "Illegal Weapons".
A lawful holder of a Concealed Carry permit may carry on CDOT property and assets.
I am totally floored that TPTB would actually employ some common sense when it comes to this issue.
You have my apologies Eric.

[RblDiver]

I as well would like to know just what position a weapon is a requirement for CDOT job duties.

My first thought is for the State Patrol people who help on the jobs at times. My dad works for CDOT out of Loveland, and sometimes they need ST assistance (for instance, on night job sites they sometimes have a SP car sitting in a job area, in part I think to encourage drivers to drive more safely, but also so that errant drivers will hit the SP cruiser rather than hit the workers).