Nevada carrier
Regular Member
imported post
I propose that we gather signatures for a referendum that states something to the effect of:
As it stands now, very few employers allow their employees to keep, bear transport or store their firearms at work. Presenting the voters with a measure that reads as my proposal does, does not say specifically the effect on employees ability to use this law to have their firearms at work with, but it effectively would do just that.
Barring an employee from having their firearms on their employers property basically obstructs their ability keep and bear arms while traveling to and from work with their firearms without subterfuge and risk of termination.
I believe that the text of this statute would be sufficiently vague to be applied to many constitutionally protected activities. By not mentioning firearms in the text of the referendum, it will be less likely that voters and petition signers would see this as something non threatening and benign. To include terms that specifically articulate "firearms" would alienate many voters.
I am not saying that this would prevent employers from enacting policies that would allow employers to be armed while performing their duties, but it would allow for employees to secure their firearms in a vehicle or locker when they arrive at work, enabling their ability to bear arms when their work day is finished, and they leave the employers property.
No longer would an employer be able to write in their policy manual language to the effect of:
The policy manual would have to read:
Any thoughts?
I propose that we gather signatures for a referendum that states something to the effect of:
Employers shall enact no policy, procedure or take any action disciplinary or otherwise that would effectively interfere with, deny or obstruct their employees ability to exercise any and all constitutional rights enumerated by the Nevada or US Constitution and their respective amendments while employees are off duty and/or off of the employers property.
As it stands now, very few employers allow their employees to keep, bear transport or store their firearms at work. Presenting the voters with a measure that reads as my proposal does, does not say specifically the effect on employees ability to use this law to have their firearms at work with, but it effectively would do just that.
Barring an employee from having their firearms on their employers property basically obstructs their ability keep and bear arms while traveling to and from work with their firearms without subterfuge and risk of termination.
I believe that the text of this statute would be sufficiently vague to be applied to many constitutionally protected activities. By not mentioning firearms in the text of the referendum, it will be less likely that voters and petition signers would see this as something non threatening and benign. To include terms that specifically articulate "firearms" would alienate many voters.
I am not saying that this would prevent employers from enacting policies that would allow employers to be armed while performing their duties, but it would allow for employees to secure their firearms in a vehicle or locker when they arrive at work, enabling their ability to bear arms when their work day is finished, and they leave the employers property.
No longer would an employer be able to write in their policy manual language to the effect of:
Employers are prohibited from possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons on company property, violation subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
The policy manual would have to read:
Employees possessing firearms, knives or other personal defense related items of a potentially dangerous nature are permitted to do so provided that those items are reasonably secure from access while the employee is performing their assigned duties.
Any thoughts?