"FIREARM OWNERSHIP EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT"

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.

imported post

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


:monkey

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.

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.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Has this been an issue?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

DanM wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Has this been an issue?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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-employment-contract-what-first-time-jobseekers-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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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-employment-contract-what-first-time-jobseekers-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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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-employment-contract-what-first-time-jobseekers-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.

Click to expand...

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.