Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: "FIREARM OWNERSHIP EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT"

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    OPSOMMER TO INTRODUCE "FIREARM OWNERSHIP EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT"
    August 17, 2009
    State Rep. Paul Opsommer announced today that he will be introducing a firearm ownership protection package, a group of bills designed to ensure that Michigan citizens who lawfully own firearms are not discriminated against in the hiring process or end up being fired because they are simply exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights.
    "Unless firearm ownership is directly related to an established and bona fide occupational requirement for the job there is no reason for an employer to ask questions about whether a potential employee owns or knows how to use a gun", said Opsommer. "We also need to ensure that employers can not create over-reaching company policies that violate the Constitution and provide an excuse to terminate employees whose political views differ from those of management. People who lawfully own firearms and are following appropriate storage laws should not lose the ability to transport them in privately owned vehicles."
    Such laws have been passed as recently as July in the case of Arizona, and have been passed in ten total states such as Florida and Oklahoma. The law was upheld there by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit after Oklahoma first passed it in response to a dozen employees being fired from their jobs at the Weyerhaeuser paper mill.
    "A person who legally owns a firearm needs to have a way to store it as they are going to and from work, home, hunting, or any other lawful purpose", said Opsommer. "People shouldn't have to feel that their cars are going to be searched just because they told their boss they are going hunting after work."
    Rep. Opsommer expects the bills to be introduced this week.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073

    Post imported post

    Nice, have a picnic in Ithaca and invite him! lol




  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    I like this! I don't see why an employer should keep an employee from have a firearm in their private owned vehicle either. I understand if they don't want it in the building (kind of), but you should be able to arm yourself on the drive to work. Hopefully this will pass.

  4. #4
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Has this been an issue? I don't mean to disparage Mr. Opsommer. I'm sure I will take some heat for this on the board, but this just seems to be an attempt to correct a problem I was unaware even existed; perhaps a ploy to promote another "feel good" law. I would rather see an elimination of pistol registration or perhaps a change to the law law to allow non-cpl holders to transport in a vehicle w/out a cpl.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Has this been an issue?
    It absolutely is an issue. My employer's ban on weapons currently extends INTO MY VEHICLE while parked in their parking lot and I can be terminated if I refuse a search of my belongings, my person, or my vehicle.

    I have a CPL, yet in order to comply with company policy I have to be completely disarmed from at least 7AM to 6PM, Mon through Fri, with no real access to my tools for self-defense since I work 25 miles from where I live. This is a HUGE issue for me and many people like me.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  6. #6
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Has this been an issue?
    It absolutely is an issue. My employer's ban on weapons currently extends INTO MY VEHICLE while parked in their parking lot and I can be terminated if I refuse a search of my belongings, my person, or my vehicle.

    I have a CPL, yet in order to comply with company policy I have to be completely disarmed from at least 7AM to 6PM, Mon through Fri, with no real access to my tools for self-defense since I work 25 miles from where I live. This is a HUGE issue for me and many people like me.
    Same here, I am not allowed to have a firearm on my person or in my vehicle, and will be fired if I do. I really hope this goes through, however, for me personally to carry my gun, I'd also have to have the law pass that gets rid of CEZ's. I work in a hospital, a psychiatric one no less, where I actually may one day NEED my firearm.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I honestly just read the post rather quickly; I didn't see the part about having the firearm in the vehicle while on company property. I thought he was just proposing a law that forbad a company from firing someone because they owned a firearm. I don't have a problem with the proposal per se BUT can see a lot of opposition because it does seem to lessen property rights and contractual relationships.

    So, if I understand it correctly, a business could ban firearms from non-employees' cars while on a company's property BUT be forced to legally allow people to have a pistol if they are an employee? Like I said, I don't have a major issue with the proposal but I can tell you that the government being able to dictate what is contained in a contractual relationship, pro- or anti- firearm, is just a little hard to for me to accept.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    My old employer only didn't allow employees to have firearms on the property. We had venders that would visit, and they couldn't have them either, but that might have been their employers rules. I think it would depend on the business. For example, I worked at an apartment complex, so I don't see how they could forbid "visitors" from having a firearm in their vehicle.

    I agree with Todd that other battles may be bigger, but I think this is a valid problem.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    I live in Royal Oak and work in Downtown Detroit by choice. My Employer and my Customer both have regulations/rules about having firearms on property, which includes in your car in their parking lot. I have seriously considered moving to Public Parking in the area or Telecommuting instead. Both of these are large employers who employ 10,000+ persons.

    I will believe it when I see it and support this fully. IIRC, all the automakers, UAW, etc have fought against this in past.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Like I said, I don't have a major issue with the proposal but I can tell you that the government being able to dictate what is contained in a contractual relationship, pro- or anti- firearm, is just a little hard to for me to accept.
    Just from reading what was posted above, it doesn't appear that this would affect contracts: specific agreements between two or more parties. If you signed or otherwise agreed to a contract with specific firearms provisions, you are bound to it.

    Here in Michigan, most employment is not under a contract. It is what is called "at will". In such employment, employers have a lot of discretion and leeway to exercise their whims. Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, and this proposal sets a guideline thatit is not a responsible exercise of that freedom to capriciously, arbitrarily, or maliciously exercise "at will" employment decisions based on non-factors such as what legal items I may own or what legal items I may have in my personally owned vehicle.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  11. #11
    Regular Member Springfield Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank goodness)
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Can anyone give me avice on this scenario:

    I am a volunteer firefighter (paid on call). Our SOP says in part, "Employees licensed under the CCW law shall not carry a weapon while responding to a call, at the scene of a call, during any training exercise or while at the fire station or EMS facility."

    Now, the station shares a building with the Township Hall. There is a public meeting tonight that I just found out about and I want to OC. I want to attend as simply a citizen of the township, but was instructed that I might be in violation of our policy. Any thoughts on whether or not this policy would apply to me while not on duty?

    Another thought I had was that I am not yet (application has been submitted) licensed under the CPL (former CCW) law and even if I was, I would not be carrying under that law. Any thoughts on that?

    It appears that at the very least, this policy needs to be re-written.
    -U.S. Army Veteran (2002-2005) 11BVB4 (Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, some other stuff) SGT (E-5)
    -Public Service Professional - I've done it all: LEO, FF, and EMT
    -Certified NRA Instructor
    -CPL / CCW (whatever other acronym you can think of for carrying a concealed pistol) Instructor
    -Co-founder of OKOCA

    I am not an attorney. None of my statements should be accepted, nor are they intended to be offered, as legal advice or fact of law.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073

    Post imported post

    I'll only tell you what I would do, then you can apply that how you wish.

    I would do it. First, the policy isn't even accurate or up to date. But most importantly if I am OC'ing the policy means nothing to me as it does not say that I can't openly carry. Further, given the examples, it implies activities while on duty.

    The only thing catch is you could be opening a can of worms with the station just because someone might not like it. I am exactly the type of person that would research any loop hole that would allow me to do what I wanted to do. In my experience most people don't like when someone takes advantage of a technicality, they feel "it should just be implied" but I disagree. Again, if it were me I'd do it and not think twice.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Springfield Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank goodness)
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    I have discussed it with our Chief and he is on board. There has just been a ton of friction between the township board and the FD. Neither he or I want to add to that. He asked me to contact our township supervisor and talk to him about it first.

    The Chief said he was passing the buck on to the Supervisor. He also said that the policy waswritten and enforcedby the township board.

    My feelings as of right now are that I will try to talk to him and if I am instructed not to, I may seek legal counsel.
    -U.S. Army Veteran (2002-2005) 11BVB4 (Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, some other stuff) SGT (E-5)
    -Public Service Professional - I've done it all: LEO, FF, and EMT
    -Certified NRA Instructor
    -CPL / CCW (whatever other acronym you can think of for carrying a concealed pistol) Instructor
    -Co-founder of OKOCA

    I am not an attorney. None of my statements should be accepted, nor are they intended to be offered, as legal advice or fact of law.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073

    Post imported post

    It's up to you on how you choose to handle it. I can understand not wanting to add to an already tense situation. Just remember that they can't enforce that policy anyway. Those meeting are open to the public and you have every right to be there.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Burton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Glad to see this. My brother and I work Armed Security so, yeah, EVEYBODY has firearms in their vehicle! Last place I worked there were guys who would have justbought a new firearm and there'd be four or five of us in the parking lot checking it out! Glad our boss didn't have a rule against it!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Silverwood, Michigan
    Posts
    720

    Post imported post

    My family and I had the distinguished pleasure of meeting State Rep. Paul Opsommer last summer when a bunch of OCDO/MOC members visited Mich's state capitol. He is a stand up guy and in his heart truly believes in our cause.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Like I said, I don't have a major issue with the proposal but I can tell you that the government being able to dictate what is contained in a contractual relationship, pro- or anti- firearm, is just a little hard to for me to accept.
    Just from reading what was posted above, it doesn't appear that this would affect contracts: specific agreements between two or more parties.* If you signed or otherwise agreed to a contract with specific firearms provisions, you are bound to it.

    Here in Michigan, most employment is not under a contract.* It is what is called "at will".* In such employment, employers have a lot of discretion and leeway to exercise their whims.* Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, and this proposal sets a guideline that*it is not a responsible exercise of that freedom to capriciously, arbitrarily, or maliciously exercise "at will" employment decisions based on non-factors such as what legal items I may own or what legal items I may have in my personally owned vehicle.
    In the absence of a formal contract of employment, a "de facto" contract is taken to exist by virtue of the employment relationship i.e. you will work for an employer, under their rules, and that work will be paid. Years of discrimination cases have exemplified this. It matters not whether you are "at will" or not; an at-will employer just is stating that the "de facto" contract can be nullified for any reason, and even no reason at all.
    http://www.kelloggforum.org/the-empl...-need-to-know/

    Basically, this legislation is negating private property rights. This is akin to the possibility of the legislature negating the right of a property owner to allow firearms. If the legislature attempted passing something that did indeed negate the ability of a person to allow firearms on their property, I think most of the supporters of this would be incensed. Why do you support the legislature sticking their nose in the ability of a private property owner to regulate what takes place on their property? The public control of private property is rightly considered a form of communism.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Formerly St. Louis, MI, now New Haven, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Like I said, I don't have a major issue with the proposal but I can tell you that the government being able to dictate what is contained in a contractual relationship, pro- or anti- firearm, is just a little hard to for me to accept.
    Just from reading what was posted above, it doesn't appear that this would affect contracts: specific agreements between two or more parties. If you signed or otherwise agreed to a contract with specific firearms provisions, you are bound to it.

    Here in Michigan, most employment is not under a contract. It is what is called "at will". In such employment, employers have a lot of discretion and leeway to exercise their whims. Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, and this proposal sets a guideline thatit is not a responsible exercise of that freedom to capriciously, arbitrarily, or maliciously exercise "at will" employment decisions based on non-factors such as what legal items I may own or what legal items I may have in my personally owned vehicle.
    In the absence of a formal contract of employment, a "de facto" contract is taken to exist by virtue of the employment relationship i.e. you will work for an employer, under their rules, and that work will be paid. Years of discrimination cases have exemplified this. It matters not whether you are "at will" or not; an at-will employer just is stating that the "de facto" contract can be nullified for any reason, and even no reason at all.
    http://www.kelloggforum.org/the-empl...-need-to-know/

    Basically, this legislation is negating private property rights. This is akin to the possibility of the legislature negating the right of a property owner to allow firearms. If the legislature attempted passing something that did indeed negate the ability of a person to allow firearms on their property, I think most of the supporters of this would be incensed. Why do you support the legislature sticking their nose in the ability of a private property owner to regulate what takes place on their property? The public control of private property is rightly considered a form of communism.
    Hello from a Michigan transplant in Indiana!

    A co-worker and I were discussing this very same subject the other day. One twist I put on it was this, since our employer forbids us to have firearms in our vehicles on company property, and thereby preventing us from defending ourselves if the situation called for it (for example, the local conveinence store on the way in or the way home gets held up), I would argue that by extension the company could be seen as taking responsibility for our protection commuting to and from work. And if there is an incident, the company could be seen as negligent in their duty to protect us.

    Now, is this twist a stretch? Absolutely. However, I think it would be interesting if someone took that argument and see if it could stick.

  19. #19
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    If thats what the bill is called, they usualy have an HB.1234 number, I'll be emailing my reps to support it several times as I always do. My brother was fired from Ford,where he had worked his way up to Foreman after 23 years, because he was divorcing and kept his guns locked in his truck so she wouldn't steal them from his new place. She called security at his plant and they went out to his truck, searched it and fired him. I never want to see anyone go through anything like that anywhere! It aint right!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  20. #20
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Like I said, I don't have a major issue with the proposal but I can tell you that the government being able to dictate what is contained in a contractual relationship, pro- or anti- firearm, is just a little hard to for me to accept.
    Just from reading what was posted above, it doesn't appear that this would affect contracts: specific agreements between two or more parties. If you signed or otherwise agreed to a contract with specific firearms provisions, you are bound to it.

    Here in Michigan, most employment is not under a contract. It is what is called "at will". In such employment, employers have a lot of discretion and leeway to exercise their whims. Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, and this proposal sets a guideline thatit is not a responsible exercise of that freedom to capriciously, arbitrarily, or maliciously exercise "at will" employment decisions based on non-factors such as what legal items I may own or what legal items I may have in my personally owned vehicle.
    In the absence of a formal contract of employment, a "de facto" contract is taken to exist by virtue of the employment relationship i.e. you will work for an employer, under their rules, and that work will be paid. Years of discrimination cases have exemplified this. It matters not whether you are "at will" or not; an at-will employer just is stating that the "de facto" contract can be nullified for any reason, and even no reason at all.
    http://www.kelloggforum.org/the-empl...-need-to-know/

    Basically, this legislation is negating private property rights. This is akin to the possibility of the legislature negating the right of a property owner to allow firearms. If the legislature attempted passing something that did indeed negate the ability of a person to allow firearms on their property, I think most of the supporters of this would be incensed. Why do you support the legislature sticking their nose in the ability of a private property owner to regulate what takes place on their property? The public control of private property is rightly considered a form of communism.
    There has yet to be entered a bill, so this is a "conceptual" discussion at this point.

    The employer-employee contract that I have is "at-will", which means either party can terminate for any/no reason at any time. Unless under a specific contract, I would believe that there are many here with this same situation.

    The protections that I want from a bill like this:

    1. Protection from unrestricted searches of property (bags, cases, cars, etc), which most employers put into the contract. It should be a limited search used only in the event there is suspicion of theft. I believe that even this is questionable and should be turned over to LEO's (my employer and customer have private armed security).

    2. Protection that allows me to keep a lawfully owned and possessed firearm in my vehicle for protection to/from the workplace. My employer and customer currently forbid this on property, which includes the parking lot in which my privately-owned vehicle is stored daily. CC into parking lots of most PFZ's is allowed and see no reason this couldn't pass muster.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  21. #21
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Bill was introduced today: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...e=2009-HB-5302

    [size=HOUSE BILL No. 5302]
    September 2, 2009, Introduced by Reps. Opsommer, Meltzer, Meekhof, Agema, Mayes, LeBlanc, Hansen, Neumann, Calley, Wayne Schmidt, Spade, Melton, Rick Jones, McDowell, Lahti, Walsh, Lori, Polidori, Booher, Bolger and Lund and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources.

    A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled

    "An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,"
    (MCL 28.421 to 28.435) by amending the title, as amended by 2000 PA 381, and by adding sections 1b and 36.

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
    TITLE
    An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying, transporting, and storing of certain firearms, ammunition, and gas ejecting devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and business entities and employers; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act.

    Sec. 1b. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Michigan firearms act".
    Sec. 36.

    (1) A person who lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition may transport that firearm or ammunition in a privately owned motor vehicle or store that firearm or ammunition in a parked and locked privately owned motor vehicle that is present in a business's, commercial enterprise's, employer's, or state service agency's parking lot, parking garage, or other area designated or otherwise used for parking vehicles if the firearm is kept out of plain view and in a manner described in chapter XXXVII of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.222 to 750.239a, or otherwise allowed by law.

    (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency shall not prohibit a person who lawfully possesses a firearm from transporting or storing the firearm or ammunition in a locked and privately owned motor vehicle that is parked in a parking lot, parking garage, or other area designated for parking vehicles.

    (3) A business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency may adopt a policy that requires a firearm and ammunition stored as described in this section to be stored out of plain view. Nothing in this section creates a new duty on the part of any business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency beyond the duty specified in this section.

    (4) Except in cases of gross negligence, a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of another person's act involving a firearm or ammunition that is transported or stored as described in subsection (1).

    (5) A person who was or would be denied the ability to transport or store a firearm or ammunition by a violation of subsection (2) and but for that violation would be or was entitled legally to do so may bring an action to enjoin any person, business entity, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency from violating subsection (2). A prevailing plaintiff under this subsection shall be awarded costs and attorney fees.

    (6) A business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency shall not discharge, or otherwise penalize, an employee for transporting or storing a firearm as authorized under subsection (1). An employee who transports or stores a firearm or ammunition as authorized under subsection (1) and is discharged by a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency for violating a policy or rule prohibited under subsection (2) may demand that the business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency take all of the following actions:
    (a) Reinstate the employee to the same position the employee held at the time of his or her termination from employment, or to an equivalent position.
    (b) Reinstate the employee's full fringe benefits and seniority rights, if any.
    (c) Compensate the employee for any lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration, including, but not limited to, unpaid leave or furlough, caused by the termination.
    (d) Payment of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by the employee in seeking redress for a violation of subsection (2).

    (7) If a demand described in subsection (6) is denied or the business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency fails to respond to the demand within 14 days, the employee may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for wrongfully discharging or penalizing the employee in violation of subsection (6). A prevailing plaintiff under this subsection is entitled to all of the remedies described under subsection (6), as applicable.

    (8) It is a complete defense to an action under this section that compliance with this section would necessitate the violation of another applicable federal or state law or regulation. However, this defense does not apply if compliance with this section can be reconciled with the other law or regulation.

    (9) This section does not apply if the motor vehicle is owned or leased by the employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the discharge of the employee's duties.

    (10) This section does not authorize a person who holds a license to carry a concealed pistol under section 5b to possess the concealed pistol in a concealed manner other than as prescribed under this act.

    (11) As used in this section, "motor vehicle" means any vehicle that is required to be registered with the secretary of state, including, but not limited to, an automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, or motorcycle.



    Time to do some research people!!!
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

Posting Permissions

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