Employer telling me I can no longer bring a weapon to work. Can they do that?

golddigger14s said:

I work at a store at the gun counter, and even I can't carry.

Click to expand...

Please let us know which store... want to be sure NOT to give them any of my business. (Yeah, sucks to be you, in that case, but why should such an anti-freedom business get any of our dollars?)

kparker said:

Please let us know which store... want to be sure NOT to give them any of my business. (Yeah, sucks to be you, in that case, but why should such an anti-freedom business get any of our dollars?)

Click to expand...

Ever seen an employee at Cabela's, Sportsman's Warehouse, Bass Pro Shops, Sportco, etc carry while at work?

There are times when "concealed is concealed" holds true. This is one of those times.

They cannot search you or your vehicle. As people have said, refusal to do so is not a crime, but can be cause for termination of employment.

Do not give them reason to look at you any closer than they do any other employee, and you should be fine.

I have decided for many years that my life and the lives of others are worth more than my job. I can always get another job....lives are a little bit harder to come by.

And no, disobeying the policy about carry is not criminal trespass, no matter what they say. Refusal to leave a property after being served with a criminal trespass notice is criminal trespass. They might call the police and have them serve you with that notice if they catch you at work with a firearm....but unless you return after that point, there is no law being broken. A sign or company policy does not meet the requirements for proper notice that must be met before you can be charged with the crime of criminal trespass....otherwise there would be open carriers all across WA breaking the law by ignoring GFZ signs.

Maybe you need them to define weapons. In fact that's vague enough to allow contesting it. But as Macbeth says you're probably 'at will' meaning they can fire you at any time for no stated reason.

Is a pencil, pen, cane, paperweight a weapon? People have been killed with them.

On a more serious note I wonder what happened to cause a church to institute such a harsh and pervasive policy? Is it from one person or a committee?

Oh, and you might ask them what provisions they have in place to protect you if there is an attack or burglary (not that you should do anything to 'stand out').

Had similar situation when worked for Walgreens. I parked just off their property and walked the extra 10 feet.

golddigger14s said:

snip... I work at a store at the gun counter, and even I can't carry. The customers can, but not the employees.

Click to expand...

Would it be allowed / legal to carry a loaded magazine in your pocket at work?

If so, make sure the store's display pistol of the same type of pistol that you own is readily accessible / strategically placed behind the counter (i.e. no cable tether or trigger lock).
Don't use the store's mag or ammo, that could be a problem on wear of the mag (it's now "used") and having to load / unload at the store. Just bring your own personal loaded magazine.
I would engrave your mag with your initials and have a photo (obviously taken at home) of your pistol, mag (showing the engrave), and ammo in order to protect against possible accusations of theft.
Not as good as having your own on you, but at least you can grab, slap, rack, and be good to go if need be.

Just a thought.

I believe it is coming from one person, but a committee is involved. But before it is approved it has to pass session. A couple people on season carry and so we shall see what happens. Also the Pastor is Pro guns.

The other problem I have with it is the wording. It states that it includes but not limited to, personnel, contract and temporary workers, and anyone else on property.

The anyone else on property is the interesting one.

rapgood said:

Yes. They can (and many do). Although, I have a difficult time understanding how it would constitute criminal trespass. I don't think that dog would hunt.

Click to expand...

While I would like to agree... look at the exact wording of the law:

RCW 9A.52.070
Criminal trespass in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

Notice the OR between "ënters" and "remains"

Could one argue that the signed policy document is already prior notice?

massivedesign said:

Ever seen an employee at Cabela's, Sportsman's Warehouse, Bass Pro Shops, Sportco, etc carry while at work?

Click to expand...

Sportco, yes, and i was pleasantly surprised!

(Is the one in Seattle Sportco, or is it different.....?)

Right Wing Wacko said:

While I would like to agree... look at the exact wording of the law:

RCW 9A.52.070
Criminal trespass in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

Notice the OR between "ënters" and "remains"

Could one argue that the signed policy document is already prior notice?

Click to expand...

No. One could then argue that posted signage is prior notice as it's clearly visible, and in WA state, it's not. Just because you sign a paper that says "no guns on the property", doesn't mean that carrying a gun on the property makes you guilty of trespass, because it's not "unlawful" to do so, it's just against their policy. Policy =/= law.

One must actively have the police serve the individual with a notice of trespass before (1) is in effect, especially if you are employed or have a reason to be in the building, carrying or no. Otherwise it's an easy defense to say "I was never notified I was trespassed from the property."

Right Wing Wacko said:

While I would like to agree... look at the exact wording of the law:

RCW 9A.52.070
Criminal trespass in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

Notice the OR between "ënters" and "remains"

Could one argue that the signed policy document is already prior notice?

Click to expand...

Sure. But prior notice doesn't necessarily enter into the equation. Prior notice is presumed with respect to crimes ("ignorance of the law is no excuse"), but not presumed with respect to civil wrongs. You need to read a bit farther in your emphasized portion of the statute to understand, e.g., "(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building." The crucial word here is "unlawfully."

For example, a shopping mall may have a notice posted at its entrance that says that firearms are not allowed in the mall and that the mall considers entry a "crime" and, that by entering, you agree that it is a trespass. Even if you read the notice, is your entry a crime? Not necessarily. If you enter with a firearm, that entry, in and of itself, is not unlawful -- you have entered a place of business generally held open to the public (assuming you can lawfully possess a firearm), which is not an act that harms the state (such as entering a private residence or place of business not generally open to the public without consent). Before that entry can become a trespass, someone in authority must give you, personally, notice that you are trespassing and must leave. If you then do not leave, your remaining is the unlawful act of trespass. Similarly, if you have been trespassed on a prior occasion (i.e., been given express notice that you, personally, are trespassed from the mall), a subsequent entry would likely be considered by the state as a criminal trespass (unless that entry is permitted by conditions, such as not possessing a firearm on the premises, and those conditions are met).

While one is presumed to know what the law proscribes, one is not presumed to know the proscriptive policies of a business. If you have been personally notified that firearms are not permitted at your place of business, and you then enter with a firearm against that policy, even though your employer may be able to offer evidence that you committed the crime of trespass (which the state must allege and then prove), your prior notice of the policy cannot be construed as a legal admission of guilt of the commission of a crime by violating that policy. The signing of an employee agreement is a civil contractual matter and agreement to its terms is only a contract between private entities. Any violation of those terms is a simple breach of contract, not a crime with respect to the interests of the employer.

Private entities cannot contractually agree that a particular act constitutes a crime (well, of course they can agree that it is, but that agreement doesn't mean anything, legally). Whether a particular act constitutes a crime is a legal conclusion, which conclusion is reserved entirely to the state and must be proved.

But, you raise an interesting point.

As a matter of clarification, the "or" between "enter" and "remains" means that one is guilty of criminal trespass if (s)he 1) enters a building unlawfully (e.g., a private residence or place of business not generally open to the public, as discussed above), or 2) remains in a building unlawfully -- implying that the individual has been given explicit notice that the act of a particular remaining is unlawful. In other words, the entry may be lawful but the actor is notified that (s)he is now trespassing and must leave.

ask if the handbook can be amended.

But hey, there's always this:
[h=1]Matthew 26:51(NLT) 51 But one of the men with Jesus pulled out his sword and struck the high priest’s slave, slashing off his ear.[/h]The disciples had means to defend themselves.

Also, did not the workers of Jerusalem build the wall with one hand and carry a sword in the other? (iirc)

God will protect you. He has already protected you. He provided mechanical means to employ. It's the parable of the priest in the flood who was sent a warning, raft, and helicopter.

So much conversation over something that has a simple solution. If you bring a firearm onto your employer's premises just do so in a manner that they don't, and will never know.

Keep it well concealed (Kel-Tec's are great for this) and just KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

I carried semi-auto in my briefcase for over 17 years. Sat on a cabinet behind my desk when in my office. Sat next to me in any meeting I attended.

Only time it left my briefcase was when flying and then it was in checked luggage.

It's the old "Tree falling in the forest" thing. If nobody sees it is it really there? Unless your employer has a tendency to search your personal property or has metal detectors at the enterance, just figure out a way if having a firearm near is important.

If the "policy manual" or "employee handbook" is thick enough just hollow it out and keep your firearm in it

rapgood said:

Yes. They can (and many do). Although, I have a difficult time understanding how it would constitute criminal trespass. I don't think that dog would hunt.

Click to expand...

Rap:
If you hear of something like that, let me know, pls.

Dave Workman said:

Rap:
If you hear of something like that, let me know, pls.

Click to expand...

Rereading the OP, I should have been more precise in my response. More accurately, I know of employers who prohibit firearms on the property (even locked in the employees automobile). Non-employees have not been addressed in the policies I have seen, so I conjecture that scenario would have to be treated much like a "mall prohibition" and require specific notice.

In either event, I do not believe that simple possession would constitute criminal trespass, unless the possessor had received specific notice to vacate for a specific occurrence and then unlawfully detained, or later returned possessing. I suspect the employer's right to terminate employment is sound for even a single policy violation, particularly since Washington is an employment-at-will state (I specifically do not address any implication of a collective bargaining agreement in this simple assessment).

Dave, if you still want a name, let me know.
--Rob

Would it be legal for an employer to require you to submit to a pat-down or other similar body check?

bobzilla05 said:

Would it be legal for an employer to require you to submit to a pat-down or other similar body check?

Click to expand...

Depending on what the employer's risk factors are it's perfectly legal. Work for a Drug Distributor, in the Mint, or for sensitive government contractor and it's probably listed in your "terms of employment". It then becomes YOUR CHOICE if you want to work there.

High-traffic grocery store; highest risk factor is money handling.
The sole policy regarding searches is if they have reasonable suspicion of drugs or alcohol.
Separate policy against "weapons" on company property.

I carry a backpack that I can store my pistol(s) in and after work I go down the street (if it is from a fenced parking area) about a block and put my holster(s) on and continue on about my day. If it is public parking then I put it on in the car.

When I was riding the bus I would put the holster on at the bus stop after walking there. Then again I was never asked if I was armed or not either.

bobzilla05 said:

High-traffic grocery store; highest risk factor is money handling.
The sole policy regarding searches is if they have reasonable suspicion of drugs or alcohol.
Separate policy against "weapons" on company property.

Click to expand...

But if they search for drugs and find a firearm guess which policy they'll enforce--------even if no drugs are found.