Employer states I can't keep CCW in car

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Crankylove said:
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....
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I've been thinking about this issue with my work, as someone pointed out that it would be really unhappy if I purchased a gun for self-defense, then came home to find that a bad guy had found my gun.

I checked our company's policies. And I'm wondering if there may be a loophole that will allow some people to carry.

Basically, the "Workplace Violence and Safety Code" says that firearms are not permitted on any company-owned or leased property, including in vehicles in parking lots. I work in a leased building, but there are several other companies in the same complex. (If I parked in an area that wasn't directly in front of our building, I dunno if they could argue that I was on the property they leased or not, but... that's one thought.)

However, the "Misconduct" policy says that having a firearm on company property "without written permission" is misconduct.

So what I'm wondering is this -- if I were to ask for permission to keep it in my car, would they give it? My job is a bit too important to me to think of it as better to ask forgiveness than permission in this instance, since "without written permission" it's an instant firing offense.

Or I could just start parking away from the building and burn a few extra calories walking to and from my car. :)
 
cmssss, I'm not saying what is, I'm saying what should be (IMHO). Perhaps we need a constitutional admendment enumerating different classes of property rights.

Actually, property rights can be changed by law, or at least by Presidential proclamation, and the Constitution amended after the fact to accomodate the law. You need look no further than the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 to see an example.
 
(If I parked in an area that wasn't directly in front of our building, I dunno if they could argue that I was on the property they leased or not, but... that's one thought.)
Click to expand...
I seem to recall something like this happening and the employees lost. Can't remember the state.
So what I'm wondering is this -- if I were to ask for permission to keep it in my car, would they give it?
Click to expand...
There's no way to say without more information. The bigger question is whether or not asking for permission would be a black mark against you.
Or I could just start parking away from the building and burn a few extra calories walking to and from my car.
Click to expand...
You have to balance the risk of driving to & from work unarmed vs. the risk of walking a long way to & from your car unarmed.
 
I always figured if I asked permission for something like this, the answer would always be no; so, I never asked questions like that. I just did what I wanted to do.

If I had asked permission, not only would I have been told no, I would have probably afterward come under the very close scrutiny of my employers senior management. I would probably have had to take a lie detector test every once in a while after that, just to let me know I'd better not have a gun with me on company premises.

Incidentally, I never heard of anybody in my company "passing" a lie detector test. They always either failed, or the test was said to be "inconclusive".
 
Actually, property rights can be changed by law, or at least by Presidential proclamation, and the Constitution amended after the fact to accomodate the law. You need look no further than the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 to see an example.
Click to expand...

A rather disgusting example that has no relevance here.
 
brickeyee,

Emancipation Proclamation disgusting? To whom?

Not relevant to a discussion of constitutional property rights? In what parallel universe?
 
Emancipation Proclamation disgusting? To whom?

Not relevant to a discussion of constitutional property rights? In what parallel universe?
Click to expand...

Using it as an example of the removal of property by law is disgusting.

What alternative should have been taken?

Compensate the slave owners for their 'property'?


Your employer does NOT have the right to search your vehicle.
Click to expand...

Under what law?

But he does have the right to fire you for refusing.
 
It's a state by state thing,,,

Several employees sued Conoco over the parking lot question,,,
Oklahoma says that your car is private property,,,
They can not regulate what is in your car,,,
Even in their own parking lot.

That doesn't do me any good though,,,
I work on the campus of Oklahoma State University,,,
It's state property and while Conoco can't tell you no, the State can.

It's a real pisser.

Best thing to do is go all Roman on your employee,,,
Don't ask permission and don't let him know,,,
He has no right to search your car.

If he fires you for not allowing a search,,,
Sue his @$$ off in court.

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