Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: HB2137 any info?

  1. #1
    Regular Member divedog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    37

    HB2137 any info?

    I work for a company that has a no weapons on the premises clause in the employee Manuel. It does not specifically talk about private vehicles but I assume it is intended to be used as they see fit. The parking lot is owned by the company and is open to the public. Does anyone have any info on HB2137 in WA state? It looks like it is still alive, is there any traction for it? What are it's chances?

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2137&year=2011

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, United States
    Posts
    188
    Last I knew this bill didn't have enough people asking for it to be pushed through. I'll give Blake a call today and see whats going on.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Bill looks good, but since Washington is a "Right to Work" state, they can fire you for wearing a blue shirt or no socks, so unless they are foolish enough to tell you why they are letting you go, it won't help much. The other thing is that they have NO ability to search your car, so follow the car storage requirements in 9.41.050 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 and don't talk about it at work. If they do have the written ability to search your vehicle, either park off-site or make your choice.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    but since Washington is a "Right to Work" state


    Washington is not a Right to Work state. Forced unionism still applies here.

    Maybe you meant At-Will Employment state?

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Bill looks good, but since Washington is a "Right to Work" state, they can fire you for wearing a blue shirt or no socks, so unless they are foolish enough to tell you why they are letting you go, it won't help much. The other thing is that they have NO ability to search your car, so follow the car storage requirements in 9.41.050 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 and don't talk about it at work. If they do have the written ability to search your vehicle, either park off-site or make your choice.
    that's easy to get around
    file for unemployment benefits, if fired without cause you're eligible for benefits. If fired "for cause" employers may attempt to deny benefits. so if terminated and you file for benefits and your former employers shows up saying you were fired for violating policy then the "at-will" goes out the window.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    ...and you are still out of a job and unless you have some other supplement, unemployment is not going to equal your working wage. Most folks cannot take a 50% pay cut and make ends meet. Plus if you actually need a reference from your employer for the next job, good luck with that.

    ETA: yep At will is what I meant, I have mostly dealt with jobs that fall under Federal Guidelines, which require the employer to provide union "coverage" even if you don't join or pay dues. Of course you get what you pay for "free" doesn't usually work out to be much unless the employer is egregiously in the wrong.
    Last edited by Vitaeus; 12-12-2012 at 01:59 PM. Reason: address Right to Work

  7. #7
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by divedog View Post
    I work for a company that has a no weapons on the premises clause in the employee Manuel. It does not specifically talk about private vehicles but I assume it is intended to be used as they see fit. The parking lot is owned by the company and is open to the public. Does anyone have any info on HB2137 in WA state? It looks like it is still alive, is there any traction for it? What are it's chances?

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2137&year=2011
    Seems to me that this clause only applies to the employee named Manuel. Since your name is divedog, you should be okay.
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    ...and you are still out of a job and unless you have some other supplement, unemployment is not going to equal your working wage. Most folks cannot take a 50% pay cut and make ends meet. Plus if you actually need a reference from your employer for the next job, good luck with that.

    ETA: yep At will is what I meant, I have mostly dealt with jobs that fall under Federal Guidelines, which require the employer to provide union "coverage" even if you don't join or pay dues. Of course you get what you pay for "free" doesn't usually work out to be much unless the employer is egregiously in the wrong.
    True, i was thinking of a situation in which one was already terminated.
    if employed just lock the guns in the car like Vitaeus said, chances are as long as you don't run your yap about violating rules you will never have a problem. the people who get in trouble for those kinds of things are usually the people who don't know what not to talk about or what not to do.

    like the guy who ventilated the roof of the puyallup fair at the WAC show, hundreds of people probably break the rule and bring the CCW through security without reporting it. as long as you don't yak off and attempt to show off you'll never get in trouble for it either...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Regular Member divedog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    37
    Since the wording is no weapons on the premises and it doesn't specifically address private vehicles could one argue that it's not on the premises until it leaves a private vehicle?

  10. #10
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by divedog View Post
    Since the wording is no weapons on the premises and it doesn't specifically address private vehicles could one argue that it's not on the premises until it leaves a private vehicle?
    I don't think that dog will hunt.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I don't think that dog will hunt.
    I don't know rapgood...your private vehicle, is your property. That you use their parking lot does not give them any rights to it.

    Employee manual, verse employment contract? Unilateral "employee manuals" are not contractual agreements.

    IMHO: if you do not bring the weapon into the building, you are probably just fine...best would be you never take it out of your personal vehicle.

    Ya?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I don't think that dog will hunt.
    UPS in Redmond lost a case like that. I wish now I had purchased that book. I was flipping through a book on legal cases and came across that case.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    I prefer the "don't ask, don't tell" method. Worked for me for years. Even had a 9mm that lived in my briefcase that, whenever I was in my office, sat open on a worktable behind my desk. Fit real nice in one of the lid's file compartments. A spare magazine fit real nice in an enclosed calculator pocket.

    Unless one has a bad case of "oral dysentery" and lets the world know what's he's got in his vehicle, why would anyone care? About the only reason I can think of that would justify the Employer's search of a vehicle in their parking lot would be the suspicion of theft, or someone running their mouth about the gun(s) in the car/truck.

    For those that have to pass through security checkpoints in order to park, like "inside" parking at Boeing, by entering there is pretty much an implied right to search. Part of the terms for more convenient parking.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    I prefer the "don't ask, don't tell" method. Worked for me for years. Even had a 9mm that lived in my briefcase that, whenever I was in my office, sat open on a worktable behind my desk. Fit real nice in one of the lid's file compartments. A spare magazine fit real nice in an enclosed calculator pocket.

    Unless one has a bad case of "oral dysentery" and lets the world know what's he's got in his vehicle, why would anyone care? About the only reason I can think of that would justify the Employer's search of a vehicle in their parking lot would be the suspicion of theft, or someone running their mouth about the gun(s) in the car/truck.

    For those that have to pass through security checkpoints in order to park, like "inside" parking at Boeing, by entering there is pretty much an implied right to search. Part of the terms for more convenient parking.
    This describes my situation right now with my employer. They don't allow guns and have a checkpoint. I have never seen anyone have their car searched, but can happen. Their policies allow for such searches. There is not much I can do except take a long walk.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I don't know rapgood...your private vehicle, is your property. That you use their parking lot does not give them any rights to it.

    Employee manual, verse employment contract? Unilateral "employee manuals" are not contractual agreements.

    IMHO: if you do not bring the weapon into the building, you are probably just fine...best would be you never take it out of your personal vehicle.

    Ya?
    I am not quite in agreement with this. If it is in the "employee manual", and you accept employment, I would think that you would be agreeing to and accepting the provisions of the manual by implied conscent.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Almost all people fired (sans contract employees) are fired under an "at-will" theory (I think a few states are different, 1 or 2 and I don't think your state is included in this unique club).

    Now, exceptions to the at-will are those terminations that are specifically noted by statue (rare) and those noted in case law. Most are via case law basis of "public policy" exception to the at-will theory.

    You can certainly file a wrongful/retaliatory discharge case even if a case does not exist but courts are loath to add additional causes of action but if you can convince a judge that such a termination (gun in car) is against a public policy that is important enough to cross the at-will threshold to the "public policy" circle, you are free to argue. Luckily, it would be decided early via a motion to dismiss or similar motion.

    My guess of winning such a motion (believing that no case has carved out this exception already): reeemote. But one can always file in hopes of a settlement too.

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Almost all people fired (sans contract employees) are fired under an "at-will" theory (I think a few states are different, 1 or 2 and I don't think your state is included in this unique club).

    Now, exceptions to the at-will are those terminations that are specifically noted by statue (rare) and those noted in case law. Most are via case law basis of "public policy" exception to the at-will theory.

    You can certainly file a wrongful/retaliatory discharge case even if a case does not exist but courts are loath to add additional causes of action but if you can convince a judge that such a termination (gun in car) is against a public policy that is important enough to cross the at-will threshold to the "public policy" circle, you are free to argue. Luckily, it would be decided early via a motion to dismiss or similar motion.

    My guess of winning such a motion (believing that no case has carved out this exception already): reeemote. But one can always file in hopes of a settlement too.
    In short, you can make any argument you can afford.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  18. #18
    Regular Member divedog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    37
    I was hoping this law would get some traction. I will play by the rules, better safe than sorry.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •