Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 99

Thread: Weapons in Privately owned vehicle on company property

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808

    Weapons in Privately owned vehicle on company property

    New to the site, but did some reading before joining. Thanks to all those posting great information. I just learned today at Cabela's by the Fish and Wildlife guys that Open Carry is LEGAL and I was directed to this site. (My thanks to these guys for opening my eyes to see I'm not alone. Being from PA, open carry is something I am used to seeing)

    Having said this, I was given a "threat" by an employer. He knows I carry. (I do have my CPL for Concealed Carry) He informed me that having a weapon in my vehicle on business property isn't allowed. I have no problem with that. He then informed me he had the legal right to search my car if he deemed cause warranted it. I said he may search the car the day his name is on the title. He has norighte, nor cause as I have been in compliance with the letter of the law.

    Just looking for opinions as beating my head against the wall ... wasn't helping. Looking forward to chatting and getting to know some people and report to the South Sound OC thread.
    Last edited by Deleted_User; 12-01-2010 at 06:51 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398
    It's not against the law to carry at work is it? (Maybe you work in a restricted place, who knows) How would he know if you CC? Concealed means what now?


    Now where am I going with this......


    BTW; having a gun (even drawing on a threat) while at work will leave you jobless, but you can never replace your life!


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  3. #3
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    1. As an employer, he can set the rules. If he says no guns on the property, it's 'his' property.

    2. He can NOT search your car without your consent.

    3. WA is an 'at will' state, meaning he can fire you for any or no reason at all. If you decline consent to search your car, he can fire you. If you come in wearing purple and he doesn't like purple, he can fire you. If he feels like being an *******, and you're the first person he sees that day, he can fire you.

    4. Go through your employee guidebook/SOP and make sure he's following what it says. As a last resort, contact human resources (if available)

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    I work for a distributor which is regulated by the Washington State Liquor Control Board. (no one under 21)

    I don't carry concealed in the workplace and usually leave it at home with the wife when I am at work. My car is unseen sometimes for hours at a time. (My wife is also a CPL holder)

    Hurray for "At will" employment. Point taken.

    To answer the first reply, a co-worker and I chat frequently about his past as a Corrections Officer and helped me to get my permit. This was never done during company time. When he (the boss) asked if we owned fire arms or carry, my co-worker responded with a yes. /shrug He then told us we can't have a weapon at work, in our car, and he can search.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Goose View Post
    To answer the first reply, a co-worker and I chat frequently about his past as a Corrections Officer and helped me to get my permit. This was never done during company time. When he (the boss) asked if we owned fire arms or carry, my co-worker responded with a yes. /shrug He then told us we can't have a weapon at work, in our car, and he can search.
    To reply to your reply. You don't seem to get it...

    Concealed means concealed. Go about your daily duties without any weird actions. Don't give anybody any reason to think anything. If he suspects, he will/might fire, even if the suspicion is wrong.


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  6. #6
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Poosharker View Post
    To reply to your reply. You don't seem to get it...

    Concealed means concealed. Go about your daily duties without any weird actions. Don't give anybody any reason to think anything. If he suspects, he will/might fire, even if the suspicion is wrong.
    Thunderwear is your friend.

    I had a similar conversation with my boss @ my PT gig... 'I know you're into guns, I just wanna make sure you know that you can't carry while you're on the clock'..

    My response was.

    'I wouldn't knowingly violate policy'

    He then asked if I carried in my vehicle when I was at work.

    I again responded.. ' I wouldn't knowingly violate policy'..

    He kinda laughed, and said 'I shouldn't ask questions I don't want to know the answer to...'

    We both smiled.

    That being said, we have a pretty good working relationship.

    Almost sounds like your boss is being a ****** about things.

  7. #7
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    All true,

    That said, if I worked for someone who stated they could search my car without my permission, I'd start looking for another employer....he has other issues (control freak)....and sooner or later he is going to be a jerk or act on his suspicion (or try)....unless you happen to also work in a union shop....still an "at will" situation but, then there is an employment contract in place that may set a framework of discharge (sorry) rules.

    Is he the "Boss" (ie: owner) or is he a distribution point manager?

    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    1. As an employer, he can set the rules. If he says no guns on the property, it's 'his' property.

    2. He can NOT search your car without your consent.

    3. WA is an 'at will' state, meaning he can fire you for any or no reason at all. If you decline consent to search your car, he can fire you. If you come in wearing purple and he doesn't like purple, he can fire you. If he feels like being an *******, and you're the first person he sees that day, he can fire you.

    4. Go through your employee guidebook/SOP and make sure he's following what it says. As a last resort, contact human resources (if available)
    Last edited by jt59; 08-30-2010 at 07:39 AM.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  8. #8
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    Thank you all for the replies and yes, I think I get it now

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    1. As an employer, he can set the rules. If he says no guns on the property, it's 'his' property.

    2. He can NOT search your car without your consent.

    3. WA is an 'at will' state, meaning he can fire you for any or no reason at all. If you decline consent to search your car, he can fire you. If you come in wearing purple and he doesn't like purple, he can fire you. If he feels like being an *******, and you're the first person he sees that day, he can fire you.

    4. Go through your employee guidebook/SOP and make sure he's following what it says. As a last resort, contact human resources (if available)
    Yes, one can be fired in WA State without cause. The "fly in the ointment" however is that if any indication of why one was terminated then it might be construed as "for cause". This brings on several conditions that must be met in order to avoid a wrongful discharge lawsuit. Is the employer following his own rules? Is he applying them equally?

    If you can show that you had a conversation regarding a firearm in a vehicle and are subsequently terminated "at will" there might be a case made that it was really "for cause". Now comes the "proof" part. Did the employer find a weapon or did he just think it was there?

    I not only carried a pistol at work (in my briefcase) but often had a second firearm in my vehicle. I was the only one that knew both were there and I didn't discuss my firearms at work with ANYONE! Too many people like to "share" when it comes to firearms and once more than one person knows about it there's no secret anymore.

    As for "inspecting/searching" employee vehicles, it is highly unlikely that an employer would do so unless you are parking inside a secure area. An example would be those cars parked inside the Boeing plants and have to pass through a security point on exit. I believe the right to park inside is subject to search anytime the employer wants. Likewise for military installations, etc.

    As to submitting to search, and I was not parking inside a secured area, If asked I would merely move my vehicle off the company property.
    Last edited by amlevin; 08-30-2010 at 10:27 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member WinchesterModel12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chandler, OK
    Posts
    185
    My work says the same thing. I told them they better have the Tukwila police show up with a search warrant, because anything less they could not search my vehicle. They dropped the subject.
    I take my firearm everywhere the law says I can.
    If guns kill people......then all of mine are defective........ UNCLE TED

  11. #11
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    If company policy prohibits weapons on said property. I got around my company policy by parking in another garage or parking in another lot. Install a gun safe in the vehicle with a good locking system.

  12. #12
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    First off Goose, welcome to the boards. You will become very educated in Washington State law if you just check the site daily. I am very happy we have a new OCer here!

    I think what you would like to know is the actually law pertaining your situation.

    RCW 9.41.300

    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

    (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or

    Read RCW 9.41.300 and memorize it. They are the only regulations regarding where you CANNOT carry. Everything else is permissible (except music concerts with 250 or more people for some reason is located in another RCW).

    Secondly, not even the police have the right to search you on a "hunch."

    RCW 9.41.270 defines "unlawful carry of a firearm."
    So you don't ask later, it says you cannot intend to intimidate or warrant alarm. It does not say you cannot carry.

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

    (a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business

    Question: Does this "employer" own the company, or is he just your boss? There is a BIG difference between the two, as I spent the last 5 years of my life as a Manager - not an owner.

    Lastly, when I was working in Oregon, I got fired because I got in a fight as a security officer. I was attacked, and I defended myself and injured 3 men. I was "let go" from the job. When I called a lawyer, he said Oregon is an at-will state and can fire me for any reason. I told him the situation and he said I cannot be fired for carrying out a "civil right." He told me to ask for the reason why I was fired. If the reason was, "You got in a fight OR you attempted a citizens arrest," then I could sue. When I asked my employer, they said it was because my job is to "observe and report," and I did not do that. They said I failed to follow company policy regarding an incident.

    Carrying a firearm is a right, and should he fire you because you were exercising a right, you may have grounds to sue. I am all for freedom and liberty, and I think they should be able to fire you for ANY reason, so I would just not work for someone who was not OK with me carrying a gun. It is, however, worth asking a lawyer about it (if you can find free advise).

    Good luck, and find another job if this is the owner. Otherwise, bite your lip and hope your life is never at risk on the job.

    Joe~

  13. #13
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by joejoejoe View Post
    Carrying a firearm is a right, and should he fire you because you were exercising a right, you may have grounds to sue. I am all for freedom and liberty, and I think they should be able to fire you for ANY reason, so I would just not work for someone who was not OK with me carrying a gun. It is, however, worth asking a lawyer about it (if you can find free advise).

    Good luck, and find another job if this is the owner. Otherwise, bite your lip and hope your life is never at risk on the job.

    Joe~

    I believe it was Metro vs Cheery (King cty vs Cherry?) that established that an employer CAN fire you for carrying on the job, under the current law. No grounds to sue.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  14. #14
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    Thanks Metal... So.. yeah, find a new job or risk your life daily.

    Joe~

  15. #15
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by joejoejoe View Post
    Thanks Metal... So.. yeah, find a new job or risk your life daily.

    Joe~

    IIRC Cheery (Cherry?) was a union driver dismissed by KC metro for packing at work. Just goes to show that not even a strong union can protect an employee on this matter. Personally, if I drove for Metro, ain't no way in hell I'd go to work WITHOUT a gun. Preferably belt-fed.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  16. #16
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    808
    My thanks to everyone for the responses. Every tidbit helped and will help in the future.

    Lockbox in the car is already a done deal. Great suggestion though, as I had to be told about it first before I actually did it. My father in law just tucks his under his seat. I bought him a box too

    Lastly, he is the "Regional Manager" so not the owner. He's about 5 steps removed from manager. I know he's just being pompous, so moving on is an option

    Again, thanks to everyone for a tidbit of knowledge.

    Metalhead +1 on belt-fed. That's funny.
    Last edited by Deleted_User; 08-30-2010 at 06:28 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Not even MY employer has the legal right to search MY personal vehicle on company property! Granted, when I come onto MY employer's property I am CONSENTING to random searches. If MY employer does not have the RIGHT to search my vehicle on company property, I can guarantee you that your employer does not.

    My employer is way farther up the food chain than your employer, I am willing to bet.

    Are you in the Navy, if so your vehicle can be search at anytime upon entering a DOD installation. It happens all the time here on Ft Lewis...I could be wrong but I am sure your vehilce can be searched.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Are you in the Navy, if so your vehicle can be search at anytime upon entering a DOD installation. It happens all the time here on Ft Lewis...I could be wrong but I am sure your vehilce can be searched.
    reread his wording, it is NOT a right. It is consenting to a condition of access/employment, some folks around here get a bit defensive of RIGHT's for some reason

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Tx
    Posts
    326
    A former employer once posted their intentions to be searching vehicles. I was able to start parking off their property and walked an extra few yards to work. When they asked me, I told them 'your rules end at your property line.' I refuse to give up my right to self protection for someone elses stupidity!

  20. #20
    Regular Member joejoejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    321
    It goes Store Manager ----> Area Manger ----> District Manager -----> Regional Manager then from there it typically breaks down into the four major locations: North, East, South, and West. They are typically called North Regional Manager, East, South, and West... then to VP and President. I would call H.R. and ask. In a corporation, your Regional could be in the wrong. It is never a good idea to get on your Regional's bad side, but it may make you feel better if you for sure whether you can or can't. I'd just CC (I did this at work), and hope they don't notice. It's unfortunate you have to go through this, but companies have their rights too.

    Joe~

  21. #21
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Not to hijack the thread, but it's on-topic. I think this next legislative session we should try to get this submitted as a bill. After the election, talk to your reps!

    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_car.txt

  22. #22
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    am I missing something or is a state run facsility not different. He said the state liquor control board. I would think there would be something different when it comes to employees and parking. Maybe I misread and am way off base. Our liqour store is in a combined parking lot with 2 other stores. no way to tell who's parking is who's.

    Edited for Idiocy, It's late, I'm tired, just saw "distributer".
    Last edited by amzbrady; 08-31-2010 at 01:28 AM.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    Not to hijack the thread, but it's on-topic. I think this next legislative session we should try to get this submitted as a bill. After the election, talk to your reps!

    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_car.txt
    I have been thinking about trying to do something similar as a citizen initiative.

    There are three things I would change.
    I think that (II) should be removed. If the employer owns a car and assigns it to an employee, the employer should have the right to set conditions for its use.


    (I) states "if the vehicle is the employee's property". The problem here is, what if someone is renting or borrowing the car?

    The last thing is instead of saying "employees" it should say "any person" or something else so that it would also include contractors and customers.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  24. #24
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    am I missing something or is a state run facsility not different. He said the state liquor control board. I would think there would be something different when it comes to employees and parking. Maybe I misread and am way off base. Our liqour store is in a combined parking lot with 2 other stores. no way to tell who's parking is who's.

    Edited for Idiocy, It's late, I'm tired, just saw "distributer".
    Cherry/Metro was specifically addressing that. The State has the same rights as any private entity when acting as an employer.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Absolutely correct. I CONSENT to random searches by entering the base, as does every one else who enters the base. But the Federal government does NOT have a RIGHT to search a vehicle randomly - we are protected by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution against such searches.

    Thats hardly a "Consent" in the strictess terms. Its like you having to join the union or else you wont get the job. "Consent" should have no terms or conditions, it should be just that, "consent". I agree with why they do it, but I don't agree with the verbiage. I may be splitting hairs but what if you don't consent to having your vehicle randomly searched upon entering? Will you be excused from showing up to work? No, probably not. So it appears it is coercion more than consent.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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