Carry in your Car

imported post

I was talking to HR at my company today asking about their policy on concealed carry in light of all the recent office shootings I’m a little concerned. They proceeded to tell me that they do not allow weapons inside the buildings, which is fine.

The thing that I don't think was legal is they told me I’m not allowed to have a firearm in my personal Vehicle when I use their parking lot. I was under the impression that in Colorado your vehicle was an extension of your home.

Could someone please help me find and answer to this question? HR is giving me time to research the issue before they ask me to no longer carry. Since I drive over an hour to work I feel like I should have my pistol in the case incase of breakdown after hours.

imported post

if they own the property, they can make it a 'gun free zone'. if you were parked in your friend's garage, he could tell you 'no guns'. same thing. your car is an extension of your home, until you take it onto private property.

imported post

They do not own the property they lease it and just the building from what i understand (course they said their insurance covers the parking lot as well... not sure if there is any difference between that and owning. I guess i could if it comes down to it park on the street.

imported post

I think this link (co-law for carry in cars)

is what is confusing

http://cbi.state.co.us/ic/statutes/18-12-105.6.htm


Bomber, I appriciate the response but i'm really having a hard time finding the law that states my car is an extension of my home until i take it on private property. If this where the case then essentially it would be impossible for anyone to transport a firearm in their car. Given that anywhere you go (shopping whatever is considered private property)

That would mean you would not by law be allowed to park in any lot that has a no firearms policy. Of course how would you know this since there are no signs posted at the enterance to parking lots like there are on doors of buildings.

Not picking a fight with you bomber I just need to be able to prove to HR my case or prove their point since they are giving me the leeway to do the research on my own.

imported post

Honestly, they wouldn't know either way if you decided to just keep it in your car.

imported post

I believe the spirit of the law is that the car is an extension of your private property, when on city streets. For example, open carrying a pistol while driving through Denver is technically not illegal. But if you step out of your car, you have just broken the law.

So, since the parking lot is not city property, someone owns it and can declare it a gun free zone.

imported post

Don't ask, Don't tell. Keep it well secured and lock your vehicle. Keep your car keys with you and pre plan a route to your car. Above all, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!!!

If I remember correctly, the company can only fire you for blatant disregard for corporate policy. They have to ask you to leave, butyou don't leave they can call the police for trespass with a firearm. Thats what I was told and IANAL.

We have a similar policy as well, but if they searched all the vehicles, half of their workforce would be fired.

imported post

Awesome thanks for all the responses guys. I've already told HR that i "left it at home" which is a load of crap but whatever. I've seen a couple cases where people in CO are fired for this and once taken to the 10th Circuit Court it was determined they where wrongfully terminated. Frankly i don't have the money to pursure this kind of path so i choose the keep my mouth shut option.

Again thank you all for the comments, thats why i love this forum people are willing to share and be openly opinionated about all the issues.

imported post

in quick response valcore, i am pretty sure that a leased property would be the same as if you were talking about a renter's home. even though they do not own the property, they occupy it within an agreement with the owner and its the prerogative of the occupier to determine firearm rules.

you are right, theoretically you would be restricted by this from going to a lot of places, like a grocery store parking lot. but that would only be true if there were 'gun free zone' signs posted at every entrance and those signs explicitly complied with the appropriate laws (such as citing the C.R.S. that applies and so on). Its pretty impractical for a business to do that, so effectively we can roam free until told otherwise. we retain the right on public property until we are explicitly informed otherwise by the property owner (or renter/leasee).

say for instance that you go to the store with your gun on your hip. there are no signs saying you can't. you are within the law. but once the store manager tells you that you need to get rid of the gun or leave, you are faced with a trespassing situation. i would assume that the same goes for your employer.

i wouldnt advise that you break the law or the rules of your employer, but i also wouldn't advise that you advertise whatever personal situation you make.

cheers

imported post

Good to know Bomber thank you. Btw what kind of Markings do private business need on their door. Is a little sign in the corner with a no gun's picture sufficient? i've noticed a few places that have that or like the southpark mall they have it written on a very tiny piece of paper inside the enterance to the mall that explains their rules. For the most part i avoid these places cause its marked anyways. But is there a standard they need to have cause its very easy to miss those little signs even when i'm always careful to check

Sorry about all the questions but i am very grateful for all the feedback i'm getting this helps me to better understand the laws.

imported post

Valcore wrote:

what kind of Markings do private business need on their door. Is a little sign in the corner with a no gun's picture sufficient?

Click to expand...

Any sign will do, Colorado has no specification like Texas' famous 30.06 sign. Of course that leaves some wiggle room. Does a picture of a revolver behind the red slash-and-circle mean only revolvers are prohibited?

imported post

Anubis wrote:

Valcore wrote:

what kind of Markings do private business need on their door. Is a little sign in the corner with a no gun's picture sufficient?

Click to expand...

Any sign will do, Colorado has no specification like Texas' famous 30.06 sign.  Of course that leaves some wiggle room.  Does a picture of a revolver behind the red slash-and-circle mean only revolvers are prohibited?

Click to expand...

i was under the impression that it had to specifically follow the C.R.S. reg. does anyone know the reg?

imported post

bomber wrote:

...does anyone know the reg?

Click to expand...

Anyone who carries concealed or openly in Colorado should know the relevant Colorado Revised Statutes, which can be seen by starting at http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes.htm

CRS 18-12-214(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

As you can see, the word "sign" doesn't even appear in the statute. Verbal notice would be good enough, or a statement in an employee handbook.

imported post

thanks anubis

imported post

I have never understood why an employer would want their employees defensless on their property. I wish I had the financial freedom to walk outif they told meI cannot defend myself with a firearm.

imported post

Incredibly, USAA has a sign prohibiting weapons on their property here in COS. An insurance company that has only military members, or their immediate family, that has a sign like that is outrageous. When I go there, I have a gun in my car but leave it there. I respect their prohibiting inside carry; screw their 'ouside' prohibition. I've been a member for over 35 years--and as it's a mutual company, I'm also an owner. If I want to have a gun in my car, I will. What are they going to do? Cancel my policies?

imported post

Ian wrote:

Honestly, they wouldn't know either way if you decided to just keep it in your car.

Click to expand...

In agreement here.

My 2 cents:

"Don't ask. Don't tell."

This weekend, infact, I was stopped for a traffic violation in Denver. Alameda and Federal. I usually keep my pistol in my glove box while cruising. This time was different, as I had an unusual thought and acted on it- put the pistol in a different storage compartment- incase my registration is needed from my glovebox. I used the rear seat passenger storage compartment. Now honestly, I didn't have the new truck registered- and the officer knew it. The original stop was initiated when I failed to accelerate at a green light (was very lost). He questioned me repeatedly about where I was going and why I was traveling through the "rough neighborhood." He never asked me if I had any weapons or anything I shouldn't have. I never told him, either. He walked away and returned later with a "Traffic Warning" on yellow paper and told me to get home.

There were three other squad cars at the scene when all was said and done. The officer gave me an enormous break. He warned me that he should have impounded my ride and fined me.

I am thinking- he would NOT have been so leniant, so giving, so easy-going- if he had seen the .45 in my glovebox as I reached for my registration.

Let us take this principle and try to apply it in many facets of our everday life.

imported post

thanks for the story man. glad you got out of it ok

imported post

It's covered under http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/2/2d672/31638/31660/316e5?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_18-12-1056

Specifically:

[align=JUSTIFY](2) (a) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that the carrying of weapons in private automobiles or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction, is a matter of statewide concern and is not an offense.
[/align](b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no municipality, county, or city and county shall have the authority to enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction.

Anubis makes a good point with "CRS 18-12-214(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity."

However, section 214 pertains to concealed handgun carry, and CRS 18-12-204 specially differentiates car carry from concealed carry. In other words, car carry is not concealed carry.

imported post

Addendum: The principle reason most businesses forbid weapons on their property is one of liability. It's not a fault of the businesses, but one of the courts and our legal system.

If a perp were to enter into an office building and start shooting, and were themselves shot and either injured or killed by an employee and the company did not have a corporate ban on either concealed or open carry, the company could be held liable for the perp's injuries and or death.

Regardless of self-defense laws, most courts would favor a large payout for the perp or the perp's family due to the company's "ability to pay."

Stupid, yes. :banghead:

But that's just life.

That bill could realistically range from $5k to $5 Million. It's by no means a given, but defending against it would require $50k to $1 Million in legal fees, and defense isn't guaranteed.

That's an expense most companies simply aren't willing to risk!

As crass as this may sound, they can handle the expense of a few dead employees, which, including hiring and training replacements, would cost them a fraction of the legal fees or judgment for liable - perhaps $20k to $200k.

On the other hand, if the perp were injured or killed by an employee and the company did have a firearms prohibition in their HR rules, the company would most likely not be held liable, but would certainly employee go for cause. Meanwhile, if the employee's actions were justifiable defense in the state in which this occurred, and the employee violated no laws of the state (such as if they were carrying concealed, were in possession of a valid CWP, and acted in accordance with state law), any lawsuits would (well, "should") be tossed out thereby rendering the employee harmless.

Of course he'd be out of a job... But he'd be alive, as would many others, and I'm willing to bet many companies would quietly, but thankfully, help him find new employment.

:celebrate


That's if they were cool. The uncool companies would turn a cold shoulder to him after he saved many lives.
:cuss:

Fortunately, this is a very rare occurrence, except in Banks and Convenience Stores. Banks can afford their own security. Convenience stores often are their own security.

Thank God the laws in most states allow this.