Ha! My employer just modified company policy to disallow firearms on the premises...

[rellik74]

When I worked for Keebler (the elf sob's:barf we could not even talk about guns while at work with out the worry of geting fired. The way they treated people I know why they were worried.

WE did talk about our bows mine was a Ruger hand Bow and my Enfield hunting bow

[BigJakeJ1s]

The Texas bill also exempted employers with secured (i.e. fenced/gated) parking lots (they would still have been able to ban weapons in cars parked on company property.)

Andy

[divemedic]

Sooooo NOT true...Disney is in possession of an explosives license thereby excluding them from the "Bring Your Gun To Work Law" as well as any other business with such explosives license (ie. fireworks, dynamite)

Its a BS loophole and I don't agree with it...but it's there to be exploited.

Actually, Disney thee park property is NOT exempt, and they settled their lawsuit out of court for undisclosed terms. The state law reads:

(7) EXCEPTIONS.--The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

The ATF license that Disney has is applicable to a portion of the Disney property that does not include the theme parks or the employee parking lots. Disney had the property platted that way, because it is illegal to operate a hotel on land where explosives are being manufactured. You can't have it both ways.

[johnwilliamson062]

I would ask that the policy be announced in an e-mail to everyone in the company.

I would also go to everyone I knew who carried, get together and request the company provide beefier security if you are not allowed to carry(I will assume like most offices it currently has no security officer and certainly not an armed guard).

[Al Norris]

skezik, even in right to work states, should you fire an employee without cause, you will pay for that employees unemployment, out of your your own pocket, in cases where your insurance won't pay or in cases where the law demands payment from you directly, not your insurance.

Harassment charges, are generally civil actions, although in some cases it may be criminal. So it will not be a "kangaroo" court that tries you and/or your business.

Then there are those "wrongful discharge" civil Torts. These can cost you also. Again, these cases are not tried in "kangaroo" courts, whatever you may think.

All of the above can and do happen to employers/businesses in right to work states.

Originally Posted by skezik

This is my right as an owner, the right to fail, the right to make bad choices as well as good. That is what freedom and liberty is.

No one is a slave unless by choice.

Sorry to inform you, but in America, not even by choice.

Employment laws (both criminal and civil) were put into place, to protect employees from just such people as you.

As such, these are not property rights laws. They are employment laws designed to protect employees from the type of abuse that is slavery, and also designed to protect employers from sue happy employees... In the case of right to work States, to protect employers from unions.

Now, as to the actual property rights of the business/business owner, the State may regulate just about any activity you care to name. That comes under the broad heading of the States power to regulate (intrastate) commerce. You, as an owner-employer have no say in how the State regulates your business. The State can ban smoking, for reasons of the general welfare, in your place of business, whether or not you like it.

For those same reasons, the health and safety of the public, the State can tell you that you must allow employees to have their personal firearms locked in their vehicles, on your property, whether or not you like it.

When it comes to business, property rights take a back seat to the powers of the government to regulate commerce, since before the beginning of this Republic.

[Colt1911forever]

And "at will" doesn't hold water in court often enough for companies to hide behind this. If your statement were true, then court cases won in favor of the former employee would be virtually non-existant.

This is not true. Most states are not "at will" employment states. I live in VA where we are. Unless you are working under a union contract or a personal employment contract which outlines the process of termination I as the employer can walking in a fire you without giving cause. I can simply say you are fired and the state and the courts will back me on it.

Now in MD that might not be the case.

[Colt1911forever]

So, a county sheriff that deems a person competent to carry concealed anywhere the state allows gets trumped by the opinion of an employer? Unless the employer can prove the employee was negligent i.e. brandishing, and others are allowed to carry at work, the employee would stand a very good chance to win in court.

Hostile work environment=Harrassment

Once again Turtle you are wrong. The CCW permit allows you carry in public. The property owner is the one who allows or denies carry on private property.

Your statements are exactly what I am talking about. You seem to think that your right to carry should allow you to trample the property rights of others.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Will you allow anyone and everyone who has a permit to carry a gun in your home? I doubt it.

[johnwilliamson062]

Sorry to inform you, but in America, not even by choice.

LOL. So cute. Slavery is illegal, therefore, there are no slaves THat is a US agencies report and they don't cover the problems in the US all that well for that reason. Much easier to say Cambodia and Thailand are the problem


I still say you get all the people in your office who carry or support you carrying and confront him about the companies failure to provide adequate security. Having a female employee who does not carry indicate that she feels safer, especially in the parking lot, knowing some of the people in the office carry won't hurt ay. Make your boss feel like everyone will hold him personally responsible if something does happen.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

My take on this has always come from what I call the higher moral law. Not unlike civil disobiedience. Some judge others who carry against company policy (like the pizza hut delivery men who used their CCW in SD) to be crooks, con men and dishonest or hypocritical. I do not judge them that way. If a woman has a crazy ex stalking them or if one is in a job that has some inherent undue risk (like delivering pizza and/or working at a stop and rob in a bad part of town) and the company denies them CCW and will not take adequate precautions to guard against the threat, then I think that company is immoral and therefore ignoring their rule is not so. One gun radio person that I really like has said that having to choose between one's safety and employment is not a moral choice. I do think one should try to find another job or work with the management (good luck with that) but if there is no economic alternative I won't judge those folk for carrying anyway. They will have to accept however, that they may be fired or worse but at the end of the day I suspect those Pizza Hut men were glad to be fired but remain alive.

[zxcvbob]

Once again Turtle you are wrong. The CCW permit allows you carry in public. The property owner is the one who allows or denies carry on private property.

Your statements are exactly what I am talking about. You seem to think that your right to carry should allow you to trample the property rights of others.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Will you allow anyone and everyone who has a permit to carry a gun in your home? I doubt it.

You are conveniently overlooking the property rights of the car owner, who has a gun locked up out in the parking lot. Property rights (and all other rights, for that matter) are all about the boundary conditions.

In the OP's case, he should show that memo to the VP who also carries, and say something like, "Did you receive this too, or was I singled out for some reason?" Also, maybe the boss's daughter. Then step back and see what happens.

[Colt1911forever]

For those same reasons, the health and safety of the public, the State can tell you that you must allow employees to have their personal firearms locked in their vehicles, on your property, whether or not you like it.

When it comes to business, property rights take a back seat to the powers of the government to regulate commerce, since before the beginning of this Republic.

Again I think you are wrong. The Govt can restrict my property use as a business just like they can restrict your property use as a individual.

Your argument is a red herring. You are attempting to paint a picture where business property rights are in a different than other property rights issues when in reality they are not. Your argument is weak as a result.

First of all your arguments from analogy do not hold up. You stated: "You, as an owner-employer have no say in how the State regulates your business. The State can ban smoking, for reasons of the general welfare, in your place of business, whether or not you like it."

These bans are enforced under licensing codes. They have nothing to do with property rights directly. If you want a Liquor Lic or a food and beverage lic you cannot allow smoking. If you are running a business open to the public under a retain business lic you need to keep it smoke free. See its not tell you want you can do with your property it has to do with the lic which allows you to conduct business of a particular form in a particular locality.

For some reason that I cannot comprehend you are trying to argue that the businesses property rights are from individuals property rights. This is not the case. The state has imposes reasonable restrictions all the time on property rights both personal and business. The building code is a perfect example of the Govt's control over use of property. A locality can tell you what you can and cannot build on your property. It can even tell you how you have to build it. etc......

It seems to me that you clearly think your rights are more important than others rights and that you can trample other peoples rights when you see fit. It is perfect example of the blinders that the pro-gun world wears everyday.

If we want respect for our rights we have to be willing to accept that others do not agree and that they have every right to hold their beliefs and impose them within their sphere of influence. To ignore that does our community a disservice IMHO.

I think that employees who have demonstrated competence with a gun should be able to carry at work but it is up to the employer not the employee to make that determination. The property owner is king of the castle and I personally would not want it any other way.

[Colt1911forever]

You are conveniently overlooking the property rights of the car owner, who has a gun locked up out in the parking lot. Property rights (and all other rights, for that matter) are all about the boundary conditions.

In the OP's case, he should show that memo to the VP who also carries, and say something like, "Did you receive this too, or was I singled out for some reason?" Also, maybe the boss's daughter. Then step back and see what happens.

IMHO once your car is on their property their rights trump yours. Ever try to get on a military base with a loaded gun? They don't give a rats ass about your property rights within your car. Their property rights trump yours. Many employers have an explicit right to search car on company property. Many people agree without knowing it.

In VA if your car is on school property you are subject to search by the police or school administrators without condition or cause. All they have to do is ask. Your rights in your car are very limited. They are subordinate to your use of public roads, public property and private property.

There is nothing illegal or improper alerting an individual to the policy that is in place. It is not harassment. If there is a dress code at work sending and email to a person who is in violation or in possible violation is not harassment. It is enforcement of the rules.

The OP stated that the policy is changing in Sept so it is not in force yet. They simply gave him a heads up because someone within the management group knows it will apply to him. This is not harassment. In fact it could easily be argued that it was a above and beyond courtesy. It gives him the opportunity to address the policy change before it goes into effect.

If it was enforce and he was the only person notified of the change he might have an issue but until the policy is on the books the point is Moot.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

If we want respect for our rights we have to be willing to accept that others do not agree and that they have every right to hold their beliefs and impose them within their sphere of influence. To ignore that does our community a disservice IMHO.

So do you think the Pizza Hut delivery men who saved their own lives with their CCW who carried against company rules did a disservice to our community? I think the public had great sympathy and understanding for their acts.

[fisherman66]

You are conveniently overlooking the property rights of the car owner, who has a gun locked up out in the parking lot. Property rights (and all other rights, for that matter) are all about the boundary conditions.

Herein lies the rub. Some states consider the boundary the entry way to the structure; other's the property boundary's including parking lots. Without regard to different state laws we have a hard time talking about the issue. We suspected an employee of theft. I sought clarification from our regional rep who said *if* the car was inside the property boundary (including parking) we had the right to demand a search. If search was denied we had the right to terminate due to failure to comply (and we were strongly encouraged to document anticipating a legal struggle). The car was parked on a public street, so all bets were off. While we; as an employer in a right to work state, have the right to terminate the employee for no cause we would certainly anticipate at best loosing an unemployment case and at worse loosing a hostile work harassment case if we could not articulate and justify our suspicions (and even with documentation that's a dicey position.)

"No cause" is different from an unjust cause such as discrimination of a protected class, hostile environment harassment or quid pro quo harassment; and it's the burden of the employer to defend their position.

[zxcvbob]

IMHO once your car is on their property their rights trump yours. Ever try to get on a military base with a loaded gun? They don't give a rats ass about your property rights within your car. Their property rights trump yours.

Then what's to stop them from selling all the cars in the parking lot to the local scrap metal dealer to raise a little cash?

[Colt1911forever]

Then what's to stop them from selling all the cars in the parking lot to the local scrap metal dealer to raise a little cash?

Strawman arguments are illogical on their face.

[hogdogs]

But a military base is neither private property nor commercial property. And it has a different intended use than either of the above.

I bet the 2A rights of a citizen with a mobile home on a trailer park lot trump the rules of the land owner!

I would not have acknowledged the email. "I didn't get that email" no worse a lie than to say you are sick when in actuality you are hungover or just want to handle some personal business that day.

No proof I got it. Even if they have proof that it was read at my station, no proof it was me. This is why most employee obligatory situations require a signature...

Heck I made a one time bonus of $15,000 for violating the "Notice of nom-compete"... I claimed it was like slavery and after I leave the firm I am no longer an employee either.
So my lawyer told them that to expect me to honor it I had to be financially bound to the contract as a non employee so they paid me off as the losses of future business would have greatly exceeded the $15k in a hurry
I would sign anything to get a job.... Heck I feel that if it isn't directly related to a productive performance and profitability of the company... it is just wasted rain forest trees!
Brent

[Colt1911forever]

So do you think the Pizza Hut delivery men who saved their lives with their CCW who carried against company rules did a disservice to our community? I think the public had great sympathy and understanding for their acts.

They made their choice and they have to live with the consequences. I assume that they were terminated from employment and rightfully so.

To the larger community good of the act it is debatable. I personally think that working to change the rules and the laws is much more effective than breaking them. I am not saying that civil disobedience is not a powerful tool but I think you are looking at this from only one perspective.

What about Pizza huts insurance if they allow carry. They will be responsible for any ND or accidental shooting by their employees. People here assume that every CHP or CCW holder is an active knowledgeable and safe shooter. This is not the case. The reality is that allowing guns as a matter of policy puts the employer in a position of liability. This has to be taken into account and unfortunately too many people who carry do not consider this.

[Colt1911forever]

I would not have acknowledged the email. "I didn't get that email" no worse a lie than to say you are sick when in actuality you are hungover or just want to handle some personal business that day.

Maybe i live by a different code but lying in any fashion seems counter productive. Your statements seem to lack a degree of integrity. You think that it is okay to break a contract simply because it benefits you.:barf:

[hogdogs]

No, I feel that the paperwork I sign as an employee are only binding as an employee. They are nullified upon termination of employment by either party. That is how the non-compete law is written in florida. That is how I won rather faced violations. Some things you sign are just a bluff by the firm. Why honor something I had to sign that is actually not binding?
I read all over this forum of folks who lie. Folks with a concealed pistol often say I would say no unless a cop asks me if I have a CCW on me....

I admit I have a different sense of moral obligation to officials and employers.

I have often lied thru my teeth to cops "Officer I didn't notice the light had turned red" "officer, my speedo said I was only doing 57, It must need calibrated if I was doing 64."

Lack of integrity? Maybe so.... But to those I associate with as friends, relatives and the like, I will never lie cheat or steal in even the most trivial level.
Brent

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

What about Pizza huts insurance if they allow carry.

Could go up. What about not delivering to certain high crime areas? Of course, that invites charges (and has before) of racial discrimination. What is the greater good? Pizza Hut's liability premium (yes insurance covers that) or the employees life?

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

I think you are looking at this from only one perspective.

Aren't you doing that as well?

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

People here assume that every CHP or CCW holder is an active knowledgeable and safe shooter. This is not the case.

I am not sure that is true. I can show you studies that show CCW carriers to be some of the safest most law-abiding ones around. Maybe some aren't but the vast majority are very safe.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

but lying in any fashion seems counter productive.

Really? How about undercover cops who "lie" to drug/illegal gun dealers? How about US government intelligence operations and official deceptions? How about those who hid jews from the Nazi's and broke the law? They all lied.

Originally Posted by Colt1911forever

You think that it is okay to break a contract simply because it benefits you.

Now THAT'S a strawman. We are talking about one's own life not some venial monetary gain.

[zxcvbob]

Strawman arguments are illogical on their face.

Not a strawman, a reductio ad absurdium. I followed your statement "Their property rights trump yours" to a logical conclusion. Since the conclusion is ridiculous, your premise is probably flawed.

[Colt1911forever]

Simply not true.

Not a strawman, a reducio ad absurdium. I followed your statement "Their property rights trump yours" to a logical conclusion. Since the conclusion is ridiculous, your premise is probably flawed.

You are putting up a false argument which I have not made and are attempting to present it as logical.

The rights of the property owner trumps the rights to have whatever you want in the car, your property.

You are arguing from poor forum. Take a formal logic class and you will understand the problem with your colloquial logic.

If you to debate the point I am all for it making absurd statements is a waste of time.

[Colt1911forever]

Now THAT'S a strawman. We are talking about one's own life not some venial monetary gain

Not true the person who posted that confirmed that he has not problem lying for personal or monetary gain.

I admit I have a different sense of moral obligation to officials and employers.

He admits to selective morality. He is entitled to it but I consider it a slippery slope.

[Colt1911forever]

I am not sure that is true. I can show you studies that show CCW carriers to be some of the safest most law-abiding ones around. Maybe some aren't but the vast majority are very safe.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."