Employer states I can't keep CCW in car

[m.p.driver]

My employer here in OHIO tried the same ploy of no weapons on company grounds.As a shop steward i requested from the company a signed statement, including the fact that they were taking away our rights to defend ourselves on the way too, and from work.After they all balked and refused to provide the documentation we took it to mean they weren't enforcing it.

[KyJim]

How would he even know you had a gun in your car? Why would you tell your employer or anyone else that you had a gun in your car?

Sometimes people create their own problems...

+1

I even wonder how the boss knows you have a CCL. I'm in a gun friendly state and because of a quirk in the law, my employer cannot prohibit me from carrying concealed at work. However, only one other person in the office knows I have a CCL. There's just no reason to go around talking about it.

[csmsss]

Save state laws to the contrary, the property owner's rights to freely administer who shall enter and remain upon his property and under what circumstances trumps your right to do whatever the hell you want, including possessing a firearm anywhere on his/her premises. I believe this to be fair and just, if not terribly conducive to CCW holders' convenience.

The short answer is, you're free to work under your employer's conditions, or to find employment elsewhere. What's most important to you? Only you can decide.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here we go again - property rights are not absolute. They cannot determine that certain protected classes cannot enter a place of business.

My view is clearly that legislation should be passed that voids the business firearms restrictions except for strictly technical reasons.

Property rights are social constructs and not the laws of physics. You cannot sit naked on your lawn and wave at the school bus.

The social construct that allows property rights owners to deny self-defense or employers to forbid you from being able to defend yourself on the way to and from work are archaic BS and should fall as did their discriminatory abilities.

[csmsss]

Glenn, you're awfully cavalier about dismissing one of the fundamental natural rights our Constitution was written to document and protect. The uninfringed right to own, use and enjoy private property was as sacred a notion to the FF's as any of the other concepts they envisioned.

Going a step further, your argument has no logical end that does not result in providing the government with the right to regulate any and all uses of private property, rendering it neither private nor property. We become, in essence, unpaid landlords for the state. No thanks.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Nope, I've thought this out. There are two conflicting rights. The right to be king of your property vs. the natural right (if such a thing exists) to defend yourself.

I resolve the conflict in favor of the self-defense as compared to being king of your property.

Why do you accept any other government regulation?

About going to the extremes in regulating behavior, the legislative process and that of courts determine the limits as with all the other 'natural' rights and the BOR. Conflicting outcomes limits rights. You can't capture folks to flay them alive because you are an Aztec god worshipper. Depriving folks of the right to defend themselves on the way home from work benefits no one except the ego of the King of his property. Thus, in this conflict, his or her right should be limited.

Not cavalier at all. Only if you accept a view of property as absolute without deep thought, do you think my view is superficial.

[44 AMP]

you're awfully cavalier about dismissing one of the fundamental natural rights our Constitution was written to document and protect. The uninfringed right to own, use and enjoy private property was as sacred a notion to the FF's as any of the other concepts they envisioned.

What is under discussion here (property rights) are the rights of property owners to set conditions on their property applying to other citizens. Not the right of property owners vs the government. That is what the Founding Fathers were concerned about.

All our Constitutionally protected rights are protected from infringement (in theory anyway) from the government. Not from individual citizens, including property owners. You do not have a right to free speech at work, unless your employer lets you.

The only protections you have on your job are those of protected class citizens, and they only apply to your being fired. There are other laws that may apply (safe work environment, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, etc.), but they only protect you from being fired under certain specific situations.

And reality is, that if you run afoul of some policy or rule of your employer, they will find a way to fire you, within the law. For instance, being 90 seconds late to work one day, or leaving work with a company pen in your pocket (theft), etc., etc.

I'm a freedom and private rights kind of guy, so, its a tough call to support either side. We should have the right to unlimited CCW (after all, we harm no one), but property owners also should have the right to enforce their choices on their property as well. And when the property is open to the public, it gets even more sticky an issue.

TO me, the best solution would be some laws that delegate responsibility. Because with rights comes responsibility. Carry a gun on my property, you are entirely responsible for anything that happens to/with it. You, personally. Deny me the right of carry on your property, and the property owner should be responsible for anything that happens to me (that a gun might have prevented).

It seems simple to me, why can't they just do it that way? Seems to me that if that rule was written into law it would settle the liability issue that property owners are so worried about. Besides personal issues, the only reason a property owner would prohibit weapons is they are worried about being held responsible for their misuse, and sued. And that is not unreasonable. So, if it is settled in law that they are indemnified from loss on this specific issue, why wouldn't it work?

[brickeyee]

BUT....as I personally see matters, the Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches. It doesn't say searches only by the government, you have a right to be secure in your papers and effects.

Better get back to a civics class, and understand how the system works.

The Fourth Amendment is a limit on the power of the Federal Government, extended by the 14th amendment and court cases to apply to all levels of government.

It does NOT apply to the owners of private property when you are on their property.

I can deny you free speech on my property.
My recourse is to ask you to leave, then have you charged with trespass if you refuse.

An employer can set up just about any conditions they want as long as they do not run afoul of the protected class rules.

If a condition of employment is to paint your face green on alternate Fridays better refuse the job or get used to green grease paint.

There are ways to obtain protection, and having a work contract (union or personal) limits employer power in accordance with the contract.

Most employment contracts contain references to the employer's policies that must be obeyed, and that the contract can be terminated for violation.

Employers are not stupid enough to give up any more power to fire than they absolutley must to get you to work.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree with the idea of limiting property owner liability such that if an employee or visitor to the property uses a firearm in a legit situation and something bad happens - the liability is attached to the gun user and not the property owner.

Also, if said gun carrier - employee or visitor goes nuts - what about liability?

I opine that if the state has given said person a license, the property owner is not liable.

If the gun owner is nutty and made threats that are known -then the HR people or law should have been called and the property owner or employer can be liable for not acting on the threats, not for the gun carrying.

Also, it's clear that gun list folk talk about property rights as some natural whatever but employers and most large property owners only care about liability. Been there and heard that explicitly. They don't care about natural rights and use that line to hoodwink the natural rights crowd.

[TheJ]

If the option exists to not park on the property of the employer without creating undue hardship then that would seem a logical option.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sure, but if it doesn't? Let's say you work at the mall in Buffalo and you would have to hike a long distance in a blizzard?

In fact, there was a case (having to due to racial discrimination leading to bus stops from the routes starting in black neighborhoods) that caused a person to be let out on a far distance from the mall and killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/15/ny...n-buffalo.html

So if I have to straddle the freeway and die, walk through a blizzard or whatever, to defend myself on the way home, is that morally right?

Of course, if I could park near the business - but that's not likely in many cases.

[kodiakbeer]

Arguing natural and constitutional law is all well and good, but until life becomes fair (which isn't likely to happen), you just have to make the best of it.

If you feel must keep your gun in the car, then do so and keep your mouth shut about it. If you feel you must carry a gun on public transport or on private property that prohibits it, then same deal.

Make your arguments with your vote, but in everyday life do what you must.

[davem]

I know they can fire you but...would you have any come back because they are firing you for practicing a Constitutional Right- what about some other Constitutional right- like you belong to a conservative outfit of some sort or you are a hunter- so they fire you.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by davem

I know they can fire you but...would you have any come back because they are firing you for practicing a Constitutional Right-...

Nope! The Constitution regulates the conduct of government, not private parties. Absent a statute that says the employer can't fire you, he can fire you; and you'll be up a creek.

For example, in 2000 three off duty employees of AOL were found with lawfully possessed guns in a parking lot being used by the company. They were fired for violating a "no guns on company property" rule. They sued for wrongful termination. Ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court upheld AOL's firing of the employees, Hanson v. AOL, 96 P.3d 950 (Utah 2004).

As a result, the Utah Legislature changed the law, but that's what it took.

[grey sky]

Indiana just passed a guns in cars law. My employer has a charter high school on premisis so no guns in car. The time locked front door quit working a week ago I just found out by accident as a customer walked in after hours. No one thought it was a big deal, except the shift suppervisor who had to tell the CEO to get the situation corrected. Those who are not there don't worry about safety untill something bad happens. Point being nothing bad happend so this open access was not a problem????? Oh everyone had a good laugh at our "paranoia".

[DG45]

The concept of property rights vs. the right to bear arms was mentioned above. Perhaps property should be broken down into domicile and non-domicile property.

I'd agree and would politically support the proposition that the owner of a domicile has a right to demand that anyone entering that domicile or upon the property where his domicile is located not carry a weapon. In other words, I think a mans home is his castle. However, I think his business property or any other property is, or should be another matter entirely.

IMHO, no individual, business entity, or govenmental body (or quasi-governmental body) should be permitted to arbitrarily deny an individuals Constitutional rights under the 2nd admendment, except on an individuals domicile.

In all other cases, it should be made a felony to threaten someones job, or their right to pursue an education just because they dare to excercise a constitutionally guaranteed right on private business property (or on a college campus for that matter).

We, as Second Amendment supporters, are forever on the defensive because the founding fathers did not forsee that we would ever live in a world where the meaning of the word "is" was questionable; or the meaning of the words "the right to keep and bear arms".

The result has been that those with the sophistry to parse words and come up with a supposed meaning for the words "the right to keep and bear arms" other than the meaning those words were clearly intended to connote by the founding fathers, have in effect stolen a constitutional right from the people under the guise of law. Then, when those "laws" are overturned by the Courts (after long legal fights just to reclaim rights that are clearly enumerated in the Constitution and its adopted amendments) the people who stole the rights don't go to jail for their affrontery to the constitution. No sir, they go right back out and set up new obstacles. These are truly dangerous people, and the average citizen of this nation needs protection from them.

We should make an all out effort to elect to office only those persons who are committed to introducing and fighting for legislation that will criminalize the acts of those who deny citizens their 2nd Amendment rights under the guise of law.

An excellent example of what is wrong is the tragic lesson of Virginia Tech, where the university authorities denied the law-abiding among their students the right to carry a weapon on their campus. I and many others believe that this constituted denying American citizens rights guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Having done this (which first of all they should not have done) these authorities should have at least then protected the law abiding from the non-law abiding by employing stringent security measures similar to the electronic screening procedures used by Virginias county courthouses. But they did not. Thus the actions of the schools authorities created an environment that allowed a deranged gunman to murder many law-abiding students like they were so many sheep for the slaughter. Now all the world knows it can happen. Shouldn't authorities who make similar mistakes in the future be held criminally responsible for such acts? Should they not be liable also for heavy civil damages? I think so. I believe that such people should be criminalized. Then let them do the hoping that Supreme Court votes go their way.

[csmsss]

One question - where in the Constitution does it distinguish between docimiliary vs. business property? Oh, and what would you do in the case of a dual use property such as a business run from one's own home?

When you create artificial distinctions such as these, then questions like these keep bubbling up and making things all the more problematic, particularly if you're actually looking to make your argument based on the Constitution, as opposed to your own ideas of practicality and good/bad, right/wrong.

[Dewhitewolf]

My employer (home depot) has a no weapons policy for employees: they also made it a terminable offense if you have a weapon in your car while you are working. I don't know how they would find out, because there is no policy that I can find that allows management or asset protection the authority to search employee cars.

Anyway, I challenged it at my store when it was announced at a store meeting. The new policy did include some states where the policy did not apply (like Kentucky and a few others), where state law prohibited the practice. Our store shares a parking lot with two strip malls (really weird lay out of parking lot space), and I pointed out that this particular store already stipulated in previous discussions that they don't own the parking lot.

Perhaps this site should make a "shame list" for employers and shopping locations that interfere with lawful CCW practices.

[TheJ]

Perhaps this site should make a "shame list" for employers and shopping locations that interfere with lawful CCW practices.

I would practically guarantee that 99.99% of all large national chain retailers (those that don't sell firearms) have a policy against having firearms on the property. Most won't distinguish between employee and customer but they are mainly in place to prevent employees from carrying. I imagine it's primarily to limit liability in work place violence cases.

[brickeyee]

I don't know how they would find out, because there is no policy that I can find that allows management or asset protection the authority to search employee cars.

If it is on their property they can almost surely search, or fire you for refusing.

Good luck getting unemployment.

Park off their property (or areas they rent) and they have no cause.

If the mall has common parking for multiple stores they can make a reasonable claim that any rules apply to the entire parking area.

[Crankylove]

It is true that they can't legally force you to let them in your vehicle. But if they can fire you for having a legal gun in your car then they can also fire you if they ask you for a look in your vehicle and you refuse.

In other words, they can make it a condition of your continued employment that you will VOLUNTARILY allow them to search your vehicle upon request

This is the policy my employer has. I keep my pistol locked in my vehicle at the risk of my job, and, as Utah is an at-will state, they really need no reason at all to let me go. I have been there several years, and it has never been an issues yet.........but the possibility is always there that one day they will ask to search my vehicle. There are several others I work with that have there CCW permit and bring their pistols to work (some come right out and tell me, others aren't really carefull about where they keep it in their car), but I tell nobody I bring mine, and give them no reason to ask for a search of my vehicle. I know the risk I take, but I am willing to take that risk to not be a victim.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you have a home where folks come in, you display merchandise, provide a paid service - like a massage or examine, you are a business.

No expert on this , but zoning laws that define your joint as a mixture answers the question that you are a business.

I'm all for the home bans if you are so inclined. Businesses that have people come to it (not like consulting from your home PC), then no ban for you.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Crankylove

This is the policy my employer has. I keep my pistol locked in my vehicle at the risk of my job, and, as Utah is an at-will state, they really need no reason at all to let me go....

You should check this out. I believe that Utah is one of the States that has enacted a law prohibiting an employer from firing you for having a legal gun locked in your car on company property. I believe they enacted the law after the AOL case.

Be sure to check into this yourself and pay attention to the details. Even if there is such a law in Utah, there may be conditions or exceptions.

[TheJ]

Let me start by saying that personally I wish it were not possible for employers to totally prohibit firearms on their property but currently that's not the case everywhere.

That said, I seriously doubt most large companies (including fast food ones) really give a flip what you have in your vehicle and practically speaking 'they' will never ask to search it. (That is the 'companies' I'm speaking about not some lone supervisor who may have a individual agenda different from the company) Usually the only time it becomes an issue for a large company, is if they find out through some other means that you have or had a firearm on the property. Like by your own admission, video or if multiple credible people say they witnessed you possessing a firearm on the property. Usually they would only ask about it if somebody else raises the issue to begin with. Like somebody you've angered that may have some knowledge that you possess a firearm or maybe during a workplace violence or loss/theft investigation, etc. Either way it is highly unlikely a large company would ever ask to search your vehicle nor affect a termination on simple hearsay for fear of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Even in an at will state where they don't technically need a reason, it is very very rare that most large corporations use the "no reason" termination these days. Again, for fear of lawsuits.

I imagine whether your employer allows you to have firearms or not, the best personal policy is discretion.

[dnr1128]

My employer doesn't allow firearms, knives, or ammo anywhere on any company locations, including employee vehicles. But most of us carry guns because most of us drive at least four or five hours each way to work.