Employer states I can't keep CCW in car

Just because I've not heard of any civilian employer requiring that as a condition of continued employment doesn't mean it hasn't happened. But I would imagine there would be no shortage of pro bono lawyers who would love to make a name for themselves in a case like that.
Click to expand...
Not in a "right to work" or "at will" state.

My employer has a policy like the one I described. At their discretion they can ask to search my vehicle. I don't have to let them do it, but if I refuse I won't have a job.

If they find anything in it that violates their policy (including legal firearms) I won't have a job.
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?
Click to expand...
I know of 2 folks who have been fired under the policy. One had a car fire in the parking lot and his handgun was discovered in the wreckage.

Another's ex-wife set him up and then notified security that he had a firearm in the vehicle.

And while it hasn't happened where I work, in at least one case in OK, a company hired "gun-sniffing dogs" to come in and go through the lot. If the dog alerted on a vehicle then the employee had to open the vehicle and if there was a firearm in it they were fired. The fired employees challenged in court and lost, however the OK legislature passed a law to prevent a repeat performance.
 
a retail store I worked for years back had a rule of no firearms OR related firearms material allowed on the property, including your personal vehicle.
An employee ignored this rule and showed customers his new desert eagle out of his trunk. when the manager wasn't in one day, he got into a conversation with a customer about guns, and came in with his desert eagle, in the store, and just started talking guns and ammo.
It didn't bother any of us and we didn't care either, as it wasn't us who were breaking rules.
Well another customer was very upset about it, and told someone about it. They told the company HQ. the spoils of being ratted out rolled downhill within 2 days. never seen a huge corporation move that quick. All of us were interviewd by the district manager, and we didn't lie, but we did get write ups because we didn't report it to the store manager. the guy who had his pistol had it locked in a box in his trunk. the DM was an ex army guy. He got him talking about guns, and sure enough.. the guy was happy to show off his pistol.
What ticked us all off.. he wasn't reprimanded. He was reminded of the rules, shown the rules and was asked to not bring the pistol back onto the store's property, which was essentially the entire parking lot.
We didn't think it was fair, but looking back. I'm glad the DM said something instead of us. We were able to work with the guy and not have him upset at us.
He continued to bring his pistol in his car. He parked his car on the street, basically 6' from the parking lot driveway. Nobody could do anything.
 
Dang, that's rough. The only rules my boss has is to make sure not to leave my guns in the work vesicles when I go home. He's still pestering me to get my Utah so I can carry in Minnesota.
 
Regarding Florida- there is at least one retail chain that restricts its employees from keeping a firearm in their vehicle so if there is a law on that- I'd like to know.
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. The courts have generally held your "home" includes your physical body, your boat, your car. That's why in a lot of States if you buy a hunting license and are in a hunting area, a game warden can search your car- the license says you accept that situation as part of buying the license. In any event I see your car as your "home" and what you have in that car is no one's business, employers included. I think if employees stood up for their rights a lot of this intrusion would stop.
And....I think I'm being reasonable. I myself have owned a couple of small businesses and my employees MADE ME MONEY. I was glad to have them. I never even considered telling them to take a drug test, a lie detector test, seaching them and their car. If I don't treat others that way why should I have to be treated that way in order to get a job?
 
You can resist the search and then they fire you. That's what people don't get - you are protected from unreasonable search but not being fired.
 
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...
+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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
If the option exists to not park on the property of the employer without creating undue hardship then that would seem a logical option.
 
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/n...ism-in-a-wrongful-death-trial-in-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.
 
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.
 
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. :cool:
 
davem said:
I know they can fire you but...would you have any come back because they are firing you for practicing a Constitutional Right-...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Employers do not care about you

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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top