is there pending legislation????

imported post

So is there any pending legislation in WA that would require employers to allow employees to store a sidearms in there car while at work? I work for an employer that says no firearms on company property, and they have said they wouldnt change it until state law required them to. I know other states have a similar law, anything in the works for WA???

imported post

Anything is possible, but I am not aware of any legislation in this state that addresses this problem.

imported post

None that I've heard of. Arizona just signed one into law though.

I want to take devils advocate position on this.

I'm not sure where people get this thinking that they have a right to carry a firearm on someone elses private property without their permission. Do property rights not trump?

imported post

Kildars wrote:

None that I've heard of. Arizona just signed one into law though.

I want to take devils advocate position on this.

I'm not sure where people get this thinking that they have a right to carry a firearm on someone elses private property without their permission. Do property rights not trump?

Click to expand...

Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?

Click to expand...

Whether or not it is enforceable is really irrelevant, there are many laws on the books regarding firearms that are unenforceable, i.e. carrying into a bar. If there is a posted sign that they do not want firearms on the property. It is their right for them to post that as it is private property. Now, of course, you could violate their rights and lock your firearm in the car anyways as I'm sure many do. However, does this make it okay? Should the government A-OK this? The constitution applies to government which is why you do not have a freedom of speech on private property, the right to peacefully assemble, etc..

Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

imported post

Kildars wrote:

FMCDH wrote:

Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?

Click to expand...

Whether or not it is enforceable is really irrelevant, there are many laws on the books regarding firearms that are unenforceable, i.e. carrying into a bar. If there is a posted sign that they do not want firearms on the property. It is their right for them to post that as it is private property. Now, of course, you could violate their rights and lock your firearm in the car anyways as I'm sure many do. However, does this make it okay? Should the government A-OK this? The constitution applies to government which is why you do not have a freedom of speech on private property, the right to peacefully assemble, etc..

Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

Click to expand...

Either I have misread your statement or I'm confused. The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

It does not give the government those rights.

My apologies if I have misunderstood your statement.

We have the RIGHT to defend ourselves going to said private property and leaving said private property. If it is a business we are patronizing we have a choice not to enter that said property.
However, many of us just don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who we work for. Yes, they have the right not to have firearms on the property, but they can't negate our rights off of their property by negating the law that says our firearms can be locked inside our car out of site.

The legislation would require them, if they didn't want guns in the business, to honor the state law allowing us to store and lock our guns in our cars when working.

You are stating that if we want to make a living, our employer is able to force us to gamble with our lives because they don't like guns anywhere on their property, thus disarming us off their property.

Cheers,
Bill

imported post

double post.

imported post

n15wb wrote:

Kildars wrote:

FMCDH wrote:

Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?

Click to expand...

Whether or not it is enforceable is really irrelevant, there are many laws on the books regarding firearms that are unenforceable, i.e. carrying into a bar. If there is a posted sign that they do not want firearms on the property. It is their right for them to post that as it is private property. Now, of course, you could violate their rights and lock your firearm in the car anyways as I'm sure many do. However, does this make it okay? Should the government A-OK this? The constitution applies to government which is why you do not have a freedom of speech on private property, the right to peacefully assemble, etc..

Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

Click to expand...

Either I have misread your statement or I'm confused. The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

It does not give the government those rights.

My apologies if I have misunderstood your statement.

We have the RIGHT to defend ourselves going to said private property and leaving said private property. If it is a business we are patronizing we have a choice not to enter that said property.
However, many of us just don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who we work for. Yes, they have the right not to have firearms on the property, but they can't negate our rights off of their property by negating the law that says our firearms can be locked inside our car out of site.

The legislation would require them, if they didn't want guns in the business, to honor the state law allowing us to store and lock our guns in our cars when working.

You are stating that if we want to make a living, our employer is able to force us to gamble with our lives because they don't like guns anywhere on their property, thus disarming us off their property.

Cheers,
Bill

Click to expand...

I think you misread, or I mistyped. I meant that the constitution puts limitations on government and attempts to hold back government encroaching on liberty. It does not apply to private parties. It was first meant only for federal government but over the years, with judicial precedent, it has been applied to the states.

No one is saying that your rights off the property should be negated. The point is, you choose who you work for, you understand and agree to their policies by accepting voluntary employment. They have a right to that property to manage it as they please as they own it, pay taxes on it, up keep it. Your right to do as you wish ends when you encroach onto their property.

I am stating that property rights, in my opinion, is one of the most fundamental rights we have and when that right is undermined either drastically or slightly it is a slap in the face. You can park off property, you can lobby your company to change it's rules, or you can change employers that is more gun friendly much like we patronize gun friendly businesses. You also have the option to do this under the radar, and because your company can not legally search your car you would probably get away with it. The question becomes why can the government legislate what you can or can not do on your property.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason,

Click to expand...

Then I can disallow you for business or whatever reason, including carrying a firearm.

Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

Click to expand...

You would probably make submission to searches a condition of entry.

As far as on your person, most business don't do this, for obvious reasons, but some night clubs, bars, and other places that deal with "rowdies," for example, do, for equally obvious reasons.

As for searching a car before allowing it in the parking lot... You'd probably alienate a lot of your customers, and wouldn't be in business very long. But if that's the decision you make for your business, you ought to be allowed to live (or die) by it, without interference from the government.

As for searching employee cars, you'd make it a condition of employment. Refuse a search = get fired or face other disciplinary action as outlined in your employment agreement.

imported post

grishnav wrote:

FMCDH wrote:

If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason,

Click to expand...

Then I can disallow you for business or whatever reason, including carrying a firearm.

Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

Click to expand...

You would probably make submission to searches a condition of entry.

As far as on your person, most business don't do this, for obvious reasons, but some night clubs, bars, and other places that deal with "rowdies," for example, do, for equally obvious reasons.

As for searching a car before allowing it in the parking lot... You'd probably alienate a lot of your customers, and wouldn't be in business very long. But if that's the decision you make for your business, you ought to be allowed to live (or die) by it, without interference from the government.

As for searching employee cars, you'd make it a condition of employment. Refuse a search = get fired or face other disciplinary action as outlined in your employment agreement.

Click to expand...

Exactly... and as I stated before, you might get away with that in the police state of Illinois, but not here in Washington, or for that matter, in most states. Your business wouldn't survive.

Businesses can make any rules they like, but they can only do so much to enforce them before they become illegal in an of themselves.

I always obey posted or verbal requests not to carry, but then, I also vote and shop with my feet, and let the business know it. This is exactly what keeps most businesses from making such rules in the first place. Its as it should be.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

grishnav wrote:

FMCDH wrote:

If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason,

Click to expand...

Then I can disallow you for business or whatever reason, including carrying a firearm.

Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

Click to expand...

You would probably make submission to searches a condition of entry.

As far as on your person, most business don't do this, for obvious reasons, but some night clubs, bars, and other places that deal with "rowdies," for example, do, for equally obvious reasons.

As for searching a car before allowing it in the parking lot... You'd probably alienate a lot of your customers, and wouldn't be in business very long. But if that's the decision you make for your business, you ought to be allowed to live (or die) by it, without interference from the government.

As for searching employee cars, you'd make it a condition of employment. Refuse a search = get fired or face other disciplinary action as outlined in your employment agreement.

Click to expand...

Exactly... and as I stated before, you might get away with that in the police state of Illinois, but not here in Washington, or for that matter, in most states. Your business wouldn't survive.

Businesses can make any rules they like, but they can only do so much to enforce them before they become illegal in an of themselves.

I always obey posted or verbal requests not to carry, but then, I also vote and shop with my feet, and let the business know it. This is exactly what keeps most businesses from making such rules in the first place. Its as it should be.

Click to expand...

Is it unlawful for a business to allow you entry because you refuse to submit to a visual or wand search?

Most arenas and nightclubs do this but they technically are not open to the public like wal-mart as the club charges an entry fee.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Is it unlawful for a business to allow you entry because you refuse to submit to a visual or wand search?

Most arenas and nightclubs do this but they technically are not open to the public like wal-mart as the club charges an entry fee.

Click to expand...

No, there is nostatute stating that business like Wal-mart cant wand or search their customers. There is only public opinion and bad PR that prevents such "family" businesses from doing those kinds of things.

Most large retail chains already have merchandise loss prevention equipment installed. Some will actually request to see your receipt and compare it with what is in your cart (such as Costco, and some Best Buys) but these practices are considered"acceptable" in most marketsas they are primarily consensual and non-invasive. Its what is called in loss prevention circles as the "5 second rule".

Now, install security guardswith wands or metal detectors at the doors of a Wal-Mart, and make bag checks and pat downs mandatory, and see how long that store lasts.

There is already a law that deals with these types of practices, and its called the law of free market. It workswell, and does not require further legislation for either side.

imported post

n15wb wrote:

The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The Constitution does NOT give us rights. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. The Constitution, written by We the People, guarantees those rights. The Constitution restricts government from infringing upon those rights.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Is it unlawful for a business to allow you entry because you refuse to submit to a visual or wand search?

Most arenas and nightclubs do this but they technically are not open to the public like wal-mart as the club charges an entry fee.

Click to expand...

No, there is nostatute stating that business like Wal-mart cant wand or search their customers. There is only public opinion and bad PR that prevents such "family" businesses from doing those kinds of things.

Most large retail chains already have merchandise loss prevention equipment installed. Some will actually request to see your receipt and compare it with what is in your cart (such as Costco, and some Best Buys) but these practices are considered"acceptable" in most marketsas they are primarily consensual and non-invasive. Its what is called in loss prevention circles as the "5 second rule".

Now, install security guardswith wands or metal detectors at the doors of a Wal-Mart, and make bag checks and pat downs mandatory, and see how long that store lasts.

There is already a law that deals with these types of practices, and its called the law of free market. It workswell, and does not require further legislation for either side.

Click to expand...

Ahh. That makes sense.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

There is already a law that deals with these types of practices, and its called the law of free market. It workswell, and does not require further legislation for either side.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Now if only people would trust the law of the free market to deal with drugs, prostitution, gambling, and other "vices," healthcare, food safety, product safety, etc., we'd be soooo much better off.

imported post

My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?

Click to expand...

With a CPL the firearm can be left loaded in an unattended vehicle as long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is out of sight.

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?

Click to expand...

thats just it, they wouldnt.....unless the 1 in a million chance of something warranting a search of my vehicle on company property happens. needless to say i could be fired over the subject if it ever came up, and i would like to keep this job.

someone else put it good on this forum before..............just as i expect people to respect my rights as a gun owner, i respect their right to ban guns from their property. though i dont completely agree with it.:banghead:

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?

Click to expand...

That's not the point.

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

n15wb wrote:

The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

 

Wrong.  The Constitution does NOT give us rights.  We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.  The Constitution, written by We the People, guarantees those rights.  The Constitution restricts government from infringing upon those rights.

Click to expand...

True, you stated it better than I did.

Kildar said

I am stating that property rights, in my opinion, is one of the most fundamental rights we have and when that right is undermined either drastically or slightly it is a slap in the face. You can park off property, you can lobby your company to change it's rules, or you can change employers that is more gun friendly much like we patronize gun friendly businesses. You also have the option to do this under the radar, and because your company can not legally search your car you would probably get away with it. The question becomes why can the government legislate what you can or can not do on your property.

Click to expand...

On the surface what you write is true. However, changing employers is not so easy. When ones education and line of work puts you in a sector that is limited, and puts you in the employ of a government agency on top of it, changing jobs can turn into starting from scratch all over again. Giving up years of education, seniority, retirement etc. You are correct in that you could park off property or fly under the radar. My point is that using the guise of property rights to disarm me off the property does not set well with me. I tend to agree with FMCDH's comment:

"Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things."

I do believe in property rights, and would not carry into ones house without their permission, nor would I carry/trespass on ones property (ie hunting) without their permission.

I do routinely store my firearm in my private vehicle in a lawful manner when visiting people and places so that I might be armed when not on that property.

Cheers,
Bill