Carry at work....

imported post

Is this legal in PA?

I am trying to find any reference to this...

Currently, my place of employment states that you cannot have a firearm/weapon on the premises including in your car in the parking lot.

There are no signs posted anywhere, but it is in the employee handbook.

I have a valid LCF for PA, the company does not provide armed personnel for security, nor do they lock the doors during the day.

Since it is an Israeli based company, I would think that there "could" be the possibility of a terror based attack (however unlikely) to strike on an Israeli based company.

Does anyone know anything about this?

John

imported post

they most they could do is fire you, if they found out.







concealed means concealed.

imported post

I probably should have posed the question a little more clearly...

Is refusing a persons right to carry legal for a company to do?

Not allowed to carry is against the PA Constitution as well as the 2nd Amendment.

imported post

jahwarrior72 wrote:

they most they could do is fire you, if they found out.


concealed means concealed.

Click to expand...

That's what I am asking though. Can they legally fire me if I carry?

imported post

You can be fired for any reason or no reason, we call it "Employment at Will"

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/127724.html

I'd fire someone if they were bringing a firearm out of spite. Alaska is also a "Employment at will" state which can fire for any or no reason. If your boss finds out, you'll probably have a LONG talk about bring a firearm to work, I speak from experience.

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

You can be fired for any reason or no reason, we call it "Employment at Will"

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/127724.html

I'd fire someone if they were bringing a firearm out of spite. Alaska is also a "Employment at will" state which can fire for any or no reason. If your boss finds out, you'll probably have a LONG talk about bring a firearm to work, I speak from experience.

Click to expand...

I understand what At Will Employment is, but would this not be a civil rights violation?

imported post

No. "Gun carriers" are not a government-protected class. Further, companies have the right to set policies that apply to their private property, just as you can do on your own private property. You basically have three options:

1. Abide by the policy
2. Ignore the policy and be prepared to accept the consequences if discovered
3. Seek alternate employment from an employer who will permit you to carry.

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

You can be fired for any reason or no reason, we call it "Employment at Will"

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/127724.html

I'd fire someone if they were bringing a firearm out of spite. Alaska is also a "Employment at will" state which can fire for any or no reason. If your boss finds out, you'll probably have a LONG talk about bring a firearm to work, I speak from experience.

Click to expand...

So you'll do the exact same thing you'd fire someone for?

imported post

Aran, they can rather have two options with me, open carry or don't carry at all. If a person is going to conceal carry, I don't want to know about it. If I found out, I'd fire the person. I'm very much for open carry, but not because "its a right". I support open carry to inform people who may not otherwise have any interaction with firearms know there are good people out there who have firearms, willing to intervene in an incident if needed.

In regards to conceal carry, people don't know you have a firearm. All they know about firearms is what is on the news, with criminals shooting cops.

note: When I say people, I mean the general public.

imported post

gnbrotz wrote:

No. "Gun carriers" are not a government-protected class. Further, companies have the right to set policies that apply to their private property, just as you can do on your own private property. You basically have three options:

1. Abide by the policy
2. Ignore the policy and be prepared to accept the consequences if discovered
3. Seek alternate employment from an employer who will permit you to carry.

Click to expand...

No, but it is a Constitutionally protected right, and the supreme court declared that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, not a right of the state.

I need to find the legality of this as I believe that it is unconstitutional.

imported post

The Constitution recognizes our rights, and (supposedly) protects us from government interference with those rights. Try walking into your boss's office and giving him a piece of your mind, then hiding behind the 1st Amendment for protection.

Let me know how that works out for you.

The Second Amendment does not mean that you can bring a firearm onto my property if I have forbidden you to do so. One right can not go so far as to negate another.

imported post

Well, if you want to play it that way, I can give you some insight.

The CFO at one of the places I work was chatting with me when she used to live in Washington. The situation was pretty much this. 1) workers were speaking filipino 2) many workers didn't understand a thing they said. 3) manager of said workers talked with them 4) workers complained and brought the story to the news.

Now, I'm not one for causing a ruckus at work... wait... drama.. furry. Yes I am.

The only way you're going to push around your employer and force his hand to allow you to carry, openly or concealed, is if there are enough people to strike, as the filipino people in Washington.

Also, I'm sure the workers, if they did ask in numbers, would have to be of value to the company. From a business standpoint, if it were cashiers striking, the manager would just fire them all, even if they were from a union.

If you're part of a union, which I don't care too much for, bring up the topic in said union. Most will listen, bring up the fact of firearms training. Perhaps even act 235 to give some influence in the conversation.

note: I say filipino, but they could have been another asian race. I just know they were from Asia, I can't remember if the people were filipino from the story or not.

imported post

gnbrotz wrote:

The Constitution recognizes our rights, and (supposedly) protects us from government interference with those rights. Try walking into your boss's office and giving him a piece of your mind, then hiding behind the 1st Amendment for protection.

Let me know how that works out for you.

The Second Amendment does not mean that you can bring a firearm onto my property if I have forbidden you to do so. One right can not go so far as to negate another.

Click to expand...

The constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms, I can lawfully open carry or conceal carry in PA (I have a LCF), but can you point me to the amendment that says that anyone can refuse my right to bear arms?

This is the problem I have. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but anyone can refuse my right just because they want to. That is unconstitutional.

Well, I have an open door policy at work, and I have given my boss as well as the owner a piece of my mind on many occasions.

imported post

JSanderbeck wrote:

gnbrotz wrote:

The Constitution recognizes our rights, and (supposedly) protects us from government interference with those rights. Try walking into your boss's office and giving him a piece of your mind, then hiding behind the 1st Amendment for protection.

Let me know how that works out for you.

The Second Amendment does not mean that you can bring a firearm onto my property if I have forbidden you to do so. One right can not go so far as to negate another.

Click to expand...

The constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms, I can lawfully open carry or conceal carry in PA (I have a LCF), but can you point me to the amendment that says that anyone can refuse my right to bear arms?

This is the problem I have. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but anyone can refuse my right just because they want to. That is unconstitutional.

Well, I have an open door policy at work, and I have given my boss as well as the owner a piece of my mind on many occasions.

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. They are not keeping you from your right to keep and bear arms, they are saying that as the owners (or legal tenents) of the property, you are not welcome to be on their property if you choose to not abide by their rules.

The government is not forcing you to be on their property, therefore, you don't have a 2A issue here.

You don't have the right to be on anyone's property for any reason you see fit. Conditions of welcome are up to the property owner.

The other oft-cited analogy, if someone came in your home and started bad mouthing your mother, daughter, wife, sports hero, etc, etc, etc, your asking them to leave is not infringing their 1A rights. It's your house, your rules.

IANAL, but this seems pretty straightforward.

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

I think you are missing the point. They are not keeping you from your right to keep and bear arms, they are saying that as the owners (or legal tenents) of the property, you are not welcome to be on their property if you choose to not abide by their rules.

The government is not forcing you to be on their property, therefore, you don't have a 2A issue here.

You don't have the right to be on anyone's property for any reason you see fit. Conditions of welcome are up to the property owner.

The other oft-cited analogy, if someone came in your home and started bad mouthing your mother, daughter, wife, sports hero, etc, etc, etc, your asking them to leave is not infringing their 1A rights. It's your house, your rules.

IANAL, but this seems pretty straightforward.

TFred

Click to expand...

Ok. Let's look at this a different way. I am allowed by the constitution to keep and bear arms to protect myself and my property, correct?

So I go to work one day, and an armed gunman (or even a disgruntled employee who won't care that he/she can't have a gun on the premises) enters the premises and starts shooting everyone. (Kind of sounds like Virginia Tech, doesn't it?)

Here I am without any way to protect myself, the company does not provide security, so are my rights not being violated?

In certain places I can see where a company could refuse the carry right as they provide security personnel (banks, court houses, nuclear power plants, etc...), but in my instance they do not. The building is not even locked during the day so anyone could walk in off the street. Unlikely, but you see my point?

Also, along with the 2nd amendment, there is the PA Constitution.

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

imported post

JSanderbeck wrote:

TFred wrote:

I think you are missing the point. They are not keeping you from your right to keep and bear arms, they are saying that as the owners (or legal tenents) of the property, you are not welcome to be on their property if you choose to not abide by their rules.

The government is not forcing you to be on their property, therefore, you don't have a 2A issue here.

You don't have the right to be on anyone's property for any reason you see fit. Conditions of welcome are up to the property owner.

The other oft-cited analogy, if someone came in your home and started bad mouthing your mother, daughter, wife, sports hero, etc, etc, etc, your asking them to leave is not infringing their 1A rights. It's your house, your rules.

IANAL, but this seems pretty straightforward.

TFred

Click to expand...

Ok. Let's look at this a different way. I am allowed by the constitution to keep and bear arms to protect myself and my property, correct?

So I go to work one day, and an armed gunman (or even a disgruntled employee who won't care that he/she can't have a gun on the premises) enters the premises and starts shooting everyone. (Kind of sounds like Virginia Tech, doesn't it?)

Here I am without any way to protect myself, the company does not provide security, so are my rights not being violated?

In certain places I can see where a company could refuse the carry right as they provide security personnel (banks, court houses, nuclear power plants, etc...), but in my instance they do not. The building is not even locked during the day so anyone could walk in off the street. Unlikely, but you see my point?

Also, along with the 2nd amendment, there is the PA Constitution.

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the answer is still no. As I have already stated, the government does not force you to go onto the employer's property. You choose to work there, and as a condition of that choice, you must agree to leave your weapon elsewhere.

I had this similar question concerning the receipt checking at my local club warehouse store. This is my pet peeve, like you wouldn't believe! It's my stuff, I just bought it, how dare you accuse me of stealing without probable cause.

I asked a lawyer friend of mine about it one time. Two things. It's a membership thing, I agree to abide by the rules, or they can rescind my membership. (With or without a refund is inconsequential here.) And second, this is not a violation of my Fourth Amendment protection, because the government does not force me to shop there. I agree to surrender this right when I ask for permission (apply for membership) to shop there.

Believe me, I wish there was a way to legally stop them from doing that. There is an argument for ignoring the request as you leave a non-membership store, such as Wally-World, but for a club, them's the rules (but oddly enough, since I am not a minority, nobody at Wally-World ever even asks to see my receipt!) Same as your employer. Until such a day that the government tells you where to work, your only recourse is to find a job that has rules you can live with.

TFred

imported post

Companies are allowed to set their own rules and policies. If you choose to work there, you must follow their rules in order to work there . . . it's not protected by the constitution.

I see your points, but I don't think you have a case. The court will say you are not required to work there.

And nowhere is it required that companies provide security . . . there are millions of jobs out there with no security provided . . . that's just the way it is.

It's no different than a bank or a business that says no guns allowed on the premises . . . it's their place, they can make the rules. You can choose to follow the rules or not go there.

imported post

However, this brings up a question: If a company denies your right to carry on their premises, do they inherently assume a "duty to protect" by doing so?

If anything happened of a violent nature, I would think it possible to later bring suit based on the fact that they took responsibility for your individual safety by prohibiting you from protecting yourself.

Has this been tested yet in court?

Jeff

imported post

I don't understand why a company would have a duty to protect their workers?

Can you give us some examples?

imported post

Theojt wrote:

However, this brings up a question: If a company denies your right to carry on their premises, do they inherently assume a "duty to protect" by doing so?

If anything happened of a violent nature, I would think it possible to later bring suit based on the fact that they took responsibility for your individual safety by prohibiting you from protecting yourself.

Has this been tested yet in court?

Jeff

Click to expand...

This was primarily where I was going with my original question.

I work at a company that was bought out by an Israeli based firm a few years ago. With the unrest in that area, I would think that a site like ours would be a good place to hack into the network to financially cripple the main branch.

With no carry,no security, and no locks on the doors, it is entirely possible (however unlikely) that we could be an attack point.

If the building was overrun by men with machine guns, who would be responsible for my safety?