I live 60 miles from work. There is an indoor shooting range a half of mile away from my work place. I work for a major corporation. I would hate to ask someone at work this question because it just might get me fired somehow. But on the days I go to the range after work, I want to keep my gun in a combination lock box in my trunk. It will not be in plain sight and nobody needs to know it is even there. Does anyone see it as a problem if I park in the company parking lot. I'm sure if somebody was to ask that question, the answer would be NO but I'm wondering if I can do it if I am very cool about it. Of course there's no reason to search my trunk at work and even if they did they would find a small lock box and they are not going to know what's inside it.
Unloaded handgun in CA in a lock box in a car trunk at work.
- Thread starter gdeal
- Start date
In California it is legal for your employer to outlaw any firearms on their property. They do it to me. :barf:
Would they ever find it? How could they? That risk is up to you.
If there is no company policy that specifically prohibits firearms on company property, you are home free.
Would they ever find it? How could they? That risk is up to you.
If there is no company policy that specifically prohibits firearms on company property, you are home free.
MosesMosley
New member
If scared to bring the question up(which is understandable IMO) then I would just simply ask for the company to provide you with a copy of their policies in general and look up if it is prohibited, if not stated in there that it is prohibited then it must be ok. 
I personally probably wouldn't have a problem with just keeping it in the car, probably just locked in the car in glove box, center console, as long as state law permits, and not bringing it up to anyone, and if getting into the trunk with people around you is a high probability then even keeping in in the spare tire well under the carpet(assuming spare isn't mounted under the car) would be my third option.
I personally probably wouldn't have a problem with just keeping it in the car, probably just locked in the car in glove box, center console, as long as state law permits, and not bringing it up to anyone, and if getting into the trunk with people around you is a high probability then even keeping in in the spare tire well under the carpet(assuming spare isn't mounted under the car) would be my third option.
Doc Intrepid
New member
This is becoming a hot topic within the private and corporate security field.
The crux of the issue is liability and foreseeability - in other words, its driven in part by insurance costs and the spectre of being hit with huge litigation awards (if something were to happen, and survivors were to file lawsuits).
It would be wise to know (as opposed to not know) exactly what your company policy manual says - word for word - about firearms on company property. (Do you park on company property? e.g. do you have other options?; etc.)
Unfortunately the professional organization for corporate security (American Society for Industrial Security) ASIS International appears to be coming down on the side of banning firearms in employee's vehicles parked on company property. While the matter is still being studied, the Brady team has scholars deeply involved in writing white papers on this topic.
Ultimately its up to you to make a decision. What you've described sounds appropriate - so long as you are completely silent about the fact that you have a firearm in your vehicle. It would not take much to make the company you work for nervous, and having the matter come up in any fashion is likely to provoke the exact responses you're trying to avoid.
Here is some scary stuff for background reading --
http://workplaceviolencenews.com/20...eport-explores-gun-violence-in-the-workplace/
[scroll down to the bottom of this link, and click on this link: ]
http://www.asisonline.org/foundation/guns.pdf
Note - the author, Dana Loomis, is a Brady co-conspirator.
Also here:
http://www.asisonline.org/
Go down to "Hot Topics" then "Information on School Safety", click on "Workplace Violence Guideline"
Both are Adobe9 .pdf files.
See pages 20, 25, and 28/29 --
Issues are numerous, but among them are these:
1. Mentioning firearms gets you identified as a potentially violent employee. Not a good career choice.
2. "Pre-employment Screening" - if the potential employee reveals that s/he is a sport shooter, participates in competitive shooting, is a hunter, etc. potentially "pre-employment screening" could suggest that another potential employee be selected instead - under the concept that people who own/handle firearms are potentially of greater liability concern to corporations than people who do not own/handle firearms.
Similar to issues involving people with pre-existing health conditions (or genetic predispositioning towards certain undesirable health conditions) being screened out of "employability" by health insurance employability pre-screening (by Human Resources), the pseudo-science of violence prevention is slowly adopting an attitude that persons who are involved (to any stated degree) with firearms offer a higher degree of "dangerousness" in terms of insurance underwriting and mortality tables, etc. Ergo, companies who hire such persons may find their liability insurance policies more expensive.
At its simplest, the objective is to define, by using various behavioral sciences and insurance industry coercion, "firearms ownership" as a deviant characteristic - a characteristic that employers would be wise to be aware of and avoid at all costs. Simultaneously, of course, being labeled a 'deviant' behavior by some pseudo-science would, over time, tend to cast all gun-owners in an 'anti-social' light - which, over time, could be quite effective in altering people's behaviors, social standards, and perceptions or norms.
Its an issue that may not be on many people's radar screens today - but those who would like to see firearms banned from private ownership are working in many unorthodox areas to essentially declare firearms ownership and use to be outside the bounds of 'normal' social or civil behavior. We ignore such issues to our own detriment.
Good luck with that,
Doc
The crux of the issue is liability and foreseeability - in other words, its driven in part by insurance costs and the spectre of being hit with huge litigation awards (if something were to happen, and survivors were to file lawsuits).
It would be wise to know (as opposed to not know) exactly what your company policy manual says - word for word - about firearms on company property. (Do you park on company property? e.g. do you have other options?; etc.)
Unfortunately the professional organization for corporate security (American Society for Industrial Security) ASIS International appears to be coming down on the side of banning firearms in employee's vehicles parked on company property. While the matter is still being studied, the Brady team has scholars deeply involved in writing white papers on this topic.
Ultimately its up to you to make a decision. What you've described sounds appropriate - so long as you are completely silent about the fact that you have a firearm in your vehicle. It would not take much to make the company you work for nervous, and having the matter come up in any fashion is likely to provoke the exact responses you're trying to avoid.
Here is some scary stuff for background reading --
http://workplaceviolencenews.com/20...eport-explores-gun-violence-in-the-workplace/
[scroll down to the bottom of this link, and click on this link: ]
http://www.asisonline.org/foundation/guns.pdf
Note - the author, Dana Loomis, is a Brady co-conspirator.
Also here:
http://www.asisonline.org/
Go down to "Hot Topics" then "Information on School Safety", click on "Workplace Violence Guideline"
Both are Adobe9 .pdf files.
See pages 20, 25, and 28/29 --
Issues are numerous, but among them are these:
1. Mentioning firearms gets you identified as a potentially violent employee. Not a good career choice.
2. "Pre-employment Screening" - if the potential employee reveals that s/he is a sport shooter, participates in competitive shooting, is a hunter, etc. potentially "pre-employment screening" could suggest that another potential employee be selected instead - under the concept that people who own/handle firearms are potentially of greater liability concern to corporations than people who do not own/handle firearms.
Similar to issues involving people with pre-existing health conditions (or genetic predispositioning towards certain undesirable health conditions) being screened out of "employability" by health insurance employability pre-screening (by Human Resources), the pseudo-science of violence prevention is slowly adopting an attitude that persons who are involved (to any stated degree) with firearms offer a higher degree of "dangerousness" in terms of insurance underwriting and mortality tables, etc. Ergo, companies who hire such persons may find their liability insurance policies more expensive.
At its simplest, the objective is to define, by using various behavioral sciences and insurance industry coercion, "firearms ownership" as a deviant characteristic - a characteristic that employers would be wise to be aware of and avoid at all costs. Simultaneously, of course, being labeled a 'deviant' behavior by some pseudo-science would, over time, tend to cast all gun-owners in an 'anti-social' light - which, over time, could be quite effective in altering people's behaviors, social standards, and perceptions or norms.
Its an issue that may not be on many people's radar screens today - but those who would like to see firearms banned from private ownership are working in many unorthodox areas to essentially declare firearms ownership and use to be outside the bounds of 'normal' social or civil behavior. We ignore such issues to our own detriment.
Good luck with that,
Doc
Last edited:
Yeah I guess I could park on a public (city) street somewhere near my building and walk as opposed to being in a handicap parking space right outside the front door let's say every Tuesday. But actually that might be more curious and might bring up questions. yeah I think I will just park where i normally park and just not say anything about any locked containers in my trunk.
No reason for you to know California law, but it is specifically not legal to have your handgun in either the glove box or center console. It must be in a locked container in your trunk.MosesMosley said:
gdeal - what I worry about is other employees (or the owner) seeing me leave the parking lot and go to the range one block away, and assuming I must have a gun in the car. The range does rent guns, but I would still be facing difficulties at work. When I worked the 7-4 shift there was street parking available. Now that I'm 9-6 there is no street parking, and I have no choice but to use the company parking lot. Bummer.
MosesMosley
New member
[/quote]No reason for you to know California law, but it is specifically not legal to have your handgun in either the glove box or center console. It must be in a locked container in your trunk[/quote]
Honestly didn't even notice where OP was from which was why I added the "if state law..." While that isn't surprising it is a helpful piece of knowledge for a up-coming road trip I have planned. Thanks for the correction.
Honestly didn't even notice where OP was from which was why I added the "if state law..." While that isn't surprising it is a helpful piece of knowledge for a up-coming road trip I have planned. Thanks for the correction.
Excellent Reminder! I am going to take down any posts that mention that one of my interests is Shooting. Also, I am NOT going to talk to people at work about my hobbies I mean especially that one. Nobody will be too threatned about me kayaking but yes, you do make a very good point. Today's society is very nervous about things like that. Not to stray too far off this post but you can get into a lot of trouble at my work for just raising your voice at somebody.
Doc Intrepid
New member
Likely a wise precaution.
Good luck with the shooting procedures, and take a minute to check out company policy manual!
Good luck with the shooting procedures, and take a minute to check out company policy manual!
It is a sad state of affairs indeed that political correctness, fear of lawsuits, and anti gun sentiment have created a situation where a person is reluctant to discuss shooting as a hobby for rear of offending someone, or worse for fear of disciplinary action of some sort.
Keeping an unloaded, locked up firearm in the trunk of an automobile should be an individual decision and right. Not up to the whims of an employer.
Keeping an unloaded, locked up firearm in the trunk of an automobile should be an individual decision and right. Not up to the whims of an employer.
Doc Intrepid
New member
Indeed.JWT said:
What makes matters worse, in my humble opinion, is that this strategy has been deliberately engineered, by the Brady Center for Prevention of Handgun Violence, to achieve those specific objectives.
By making firearms 'offensive' to 'normal society', they are re-engineering what constitutes "normal society" in a manner that - left unchallenged - may be quite successful in achieving their goals in another 20 years.
It is 'gun bans' without the bans.
Simply make firearms ownership and use illegal or highly inadvisable due to medical, insurance, civil, taxation, or employment-related concerns, make it more costly for everyone involved, and ultimately firearms use and ownership will decline until it reaches a point where the minority may safely be politically controlled.
Thus far, preliminary conclusions would have to agree that it seems to be working... What corporate employer in their right mind would have a company policy that explicitly allowed their employees to bring guns to work, in the current era of gun incidents in workplaces and schools?
I'll get off my soapbox now, but this issue is becoming a rather insidious challenge to legal firearms ownership and, much like smoking, diabetes, cancer, or other factors allowing one to be discriminated against without fear, firearms ownership is potentially the next thing that "nice people don't do"; or that becomes a "not in my backyard" issue; or is perceived as a risk that cannot be tolerated by U.S. employers. Lawyers and insurance underwriters may over time accomplish what Brady alone could not...
Just shut up, put your sheep suit on and go to work.
Or, put some golf clubs in a shotgun case in plain view in your car.
Or, put some knitting needles and yarn in a pistol rug.
Let 'em call the police, get their warrants etc. - Get your tail out from between your legs and have some fun with the bastards!
Unless of course you work at a high security facility (prison, nuclear plant, etc.) but it sounds like that's not the case.
Or, put some golf clubs in a shotgun case in plain view in your car.
Or, put some knitting needles and yarn in a pistol rug.
Let 'em call the police, get their warrants etc. - Get your tail out from between your legs and have some fun with the bastards!
Unless of course you work at a high security facility (prison, nuclear plant, etc.) but it sounds like that's not the case.
I'm retired Navy, living in San Diego. Outside each Naval installation's gates are signs forbidding fire arms, etc. It would be convenient to stop off at Naval Station San Diego to fill up on gasoline while enroute to my range. Not so much recently, but random auto searches at the gate have been commonplace in times of higher threat. Getting caught at the gate with a firearm could put me back on active service for a month or so, long enough to court martial me. Needless to say, I don't do it. Your question addresses a whole different matter: assuming you keep your mouth shut as to what you were doing, is it likely that your company would cause your car to be searched? I find it unimaginable that any company would do what the federal government routinely does: conduct random searches. I can hear lawyers panting at the thought.
Cordially, Jack
Cordially, Jack
Stevie-Ray
New member
We had some people held up at gunpoint in our lots. Some demanded a written policy that stated that the company refused employees, under threat of dismissal, keeping a gun in their car, so that "if anything happens to us, our loved ones can properly sue the company for not providing adequate protection to employees while in company lots." This was causing a stir as the company maintains a security department. (unarmed, of course) But I retired before I heard anything concrete on the matter.
Crankylove
New member
My company also bans "weapons", including firearms on thier property, or in their vehicles. Both my immediate supervisors have their CCW, as do about 50% of the people I work with, and we brings firearms to my supervisors office when one of us gets a new one, or has a question about one. We all are "gun" people, and enjoy seeing what the other guy has, and arent really worried about one of the group turning us in, since we would all get fired. We all know the rules and the consequences if we get caught.........you just need to decide if it is worth it to you. I keep my pistol locked in my car in the company lot, even after signing a "Consent to Search" that allows them to search me, my locker, and my vehicle (if its on company property) at anytime, for any reason. If caught with a firearm, or if I refuse the search, I can lose my job.
If you really want to see some startled faces, ask your boss if you can bring the gun on company property (regarding concealed carry, or storing in a vehicle for your ride to and from work). When they say NO, ask them for a statement, in writing, stating that they (your employer) will assume all responsibilities and risks in maintaining you safety while on company property, and that they will be responsible for any incidents on their property, since they are limiting you in your ability to protect yourself while you are there. The supervisor I asked nearly choked to death on his tongue when I asked him, and then called corporate, who then called their legal team to discuss their liabilities if an incident happened, and they were unable to stop someone getting injured. They were unable to find anything that stated that they would be responsible for my safety if they deny me the ability to protect myself, but, they also couldnt find anything that said they wouldnt be............was very interesting for a few days. I only brought it up with them because I was leaving in a week anyway, so whatever backlash that came from it wouldnt really affect me, and I wanted to see their reaction.................. it was quite amusing.
If you really want to see some startled faces, ask your boss if you can bring the gun on company property (regarding concealed carry, or storing in a vehicle for your ride to and from work). When they say NO, ask them for a statement, in writing, stating that they (your employer) will assume all responsibilities and risks in maintaining you safety while on company property, and that they will be responsible for any incidents on their property, since they are limiting you in your ability to protect yourself while you are there. The supervisor I asked nearly choked to death on his tongue when I asked him, and then called corporate, who then called their legal team to discuss their liabilities if an incident happened, and they were unable to stop someone getting injured. They were unable to find anything that stated that they would be responsible for my safety if they deny me the ability to protect myself, but, they also couldnt find anything that said they wouldnt be............was very interesting for a few days. I only brought it up with them because I was leaving in a week anyway, so whatever backlash that came from it wouldnt really affect me, and I wanted to see their reaction.................. it was quite amusing.
Last edited:
Atticus Thraxx
New member
Let me come at this from a different end, one that no doubt will get some folks all hot and bothered.
But if you take the paycheck, aren't you sort of honor bound to comply with all company policies? Do you pick and choose which policies to follow based on what's convient to you?
I also work for a large corporation here in the Bya Area and the policy is clear and it has one more than one occasion been mighty inconvenient. But as they are paying me(and therefore allowing me to continue to persue shooting sports) I feel obliged to follow their rules.
There are places to take a stand, but I'm not screwing around with my job, especially now.
But if you take the paycheck, aren't you sort of honor bound to comply with all company policies? Do you pick and choose which policies to follow based on what's convient to you?
I also work for a large corporation here in the Bya Area and the policy is clear and it has one more than one occasion been mighty inconvenient. But as they are paying me(and therefore allowing me to continue to persue shooting sports) I feel obliged to follow their rules.
There are places to take a stand, but I'm not screwing around with my job, especially now.