Weapons in Privately owned vehicle on company property

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

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".

John Hardin said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

amzbrady said:

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".

Click to expand...

Cherry/Metro was specifically addressing that. The State has the same rights as any private entity when acting as an employer.

NavyLT said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

END_THE_FED said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with the borderline nature of that clause, but... let's let the legislature take that out during negotiations so the anti's think we're "compromising" with them... They do that kind of garbage to us enough.

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

Click to expand...

Good point, can you suggest alternate wording? Perhaps "if the vehicle is the employee's property, or is rented or leased."

Perhaps simpler would be "if the vehicle is not provided by the employer."

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.

Click to expand...

These people are not affected by employment policies, which is the focus of this.

Proposed RCW amendment modified, take a look...

John Hardin said:

Good point, can you suggest alternate wording? Perhaps "if the vehicle is the employee's property, or is rented or leased."

Perhaps simpler would be "if the vehicle is not provided by the employer."

Click to expand...

Okay, I have modified the proposed amendment a bit to address this point and some others.

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

Comments solicited.

John Hardin said:

Okay, I have modified the proposed amendment a bit to address this point and some others.

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

Comments solicited.

Click to expand...

Since this is legaleze, would the "State and municipal" clause also include county agencies?

Metalhead47 said:

Since this is legaleze, would the "State and municipal" clause also include county agencies?

Click to expand...

Probably not. Fixing...

John Hardin said:

Probably not. Fixing...

Click to expand...

Long as you're taking requests... how about some language to also protect the employee while in the act of transferring a sidearm from person to vehicle, or while it is otherwise visible when the employee is int he process of arriving or departing with their vehicle?

Metalhead47 said:

Long as you're taking requests... how about some language to also protect the employee while in the act of transferring a sidearm from person to vehicle, or while it is otherwise visible when the employee is int he process of arriving or departing with their vehicle?

Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of when that would happen that isn't covered? When would transferring a sidearm from person to vehicle outside the vehicle be necessary? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just having trouble envisioning a plausible scenario.

Possessing or openly carrying a loaded pistol on your person inside a car is lawful if you have a CPL under (2)(a) of the statue being amended, and the amendment says "in compliance with section (2)(a)", so it prohibits discrimination if the employer should see you open carrying inside your car on the way to work.

without a CPL...

John Hardin said:

Can you give me an example of when that would happen that isn't covered? When would transferring a sidearm from person to vehicle outside the vehicle be necessary? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just having trouble envisioning a plausible scenario.

Possessing or openly carrying a loaded pistol on your person inside a car is lawful if you have a CPL under (2)(a) of the statue being amended, and the amendment says "in compliance with section (2)(a)", so it prohibits discrimination if the employer should see you open carrying inside your car on the way to work.

Click to expand...

9.41.050 says without a CPL you cant put a loaded gun in your car..
this point of law necessitates that you gotta do the unloading before you get in the car.
you break the law if you get in , then unload.
and again if you load before you get out of the car.

John Hardin said:

Can you give me an example of when that would happen that isn't covered? When would transferring a sidearm from person to vehicle outside the vehicle be necessary? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just having trouble envisioning a plausible scenario.

Possessing or openly carrying a loaded pistol on your person inside a car is lawful if you have a CPL under (2)(a) of the statue being amended, and the amendment says "in compliance with section (2)(a)", so it prohibits discrimination if the employer should see you open carrying inside your car on the way to work.

Click to expand...

When one's primary transportation is a motorcycle.

Kinda hard to remove & secure one's sidearm without it being pretty obvious in that case, unless you go the "fanny pack" route. Or if one drives a convertible, doorless jeep, etc. I can just foresee that there are plenty of "uppity" companies out there, who look for reasons to discipline employees, who might try to go around this law any way they could: "You're being terminated because so&so came up to your window to talk to you as you were fixing to leave the other day, and he saw you with your gun in your hand and it scared him baaaaaad."

I'm confused by your explanation.

9.41.050 says without a CPL you cant put a loaded gun in your car..
this point of law necessitates that you gotta do the unloading before you get in the car.
you break the law if you get in , then unload

Click to expand...

The only time you would be putting your gun in the vehicle is before you get in the vehicle to drive to work. I don't see how your explanation applies since this isn't occuring on company property, unless your employer owns your place of residence.

and again if you load before you get out of the car

Click to expand...

Assuming the employer has rules against posessing firearms on their property(if they don't this amendment wouldn't apply to you), you won't be loading before you get out of the car on company property.

1245A Defender said:

9.41.050 says without a CPL you cant put a loaded gun in your car..
this point of law necessitates that you gotta do the unloading before you get in the car.
you break the law if you get in , then unload. and again if you load before you get out of the car.

Click to expand...

True, but this amendment doesn't address the general case, only employees in employers' parking lots. If your employer prohibits carrying on their property, you won't be carrying while outside your car while you're on their property.

Absent a CPL: You unload before you get in your car at home. You put your sidearm in your lockbox before you get out at work - outside the car you aren't carrying, loaded or unloaded. After work, you get in your car and take your sidearm out of the lockbox, and if you stop on the way home you load after you get out of your car.

Re motorcycles: Ummm...

John Hardin said:

Re motorcycles: Ummm...

Click to expand...

What, you think it's fair to discriminate against those of us who practice non-enclosed alternative transportation?

Metalhead, serious questions (because I simply don't know, not being a rider): Do most cycles actually have a really secure way to store a firearm? Is it easy to add secure storage to most cycles?

Tomas said:

Metalhead, serious questions (because I simply don't know, not being a rider): Do most cycles actually have a really secure way to store a firearm? Is it easy to add secure storage to most cycles?

Click to expand...

Proper securement of the firearm is the responsibility of the owner.

For my part, when (if?) this law passes, I'm already planning how to add a lockbox to the trunk that won't come off without a grinder & a lot of patience... right under the security cameras I always park under.:dude:

Lovenox said:

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.

Click to expand...

Implied Consent. Just like RCW states that buy driving a vehicle you consent to a breath test if the officer deems it necessary.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308

Zombie Thread

My situation changed slightly and a month later I've learned a tad more as well.

My Regional Manager now works in Portland and for a different company, so no more issues from him. I travel from store to store in my own car daily. There is no more need for being on company property. My car is parked in a public lot at the stores I work at. These stores are your local Safeway, Albertsons, Fred Meyer, etc, etc, so on, and so forth.

Today we found out a warehouse worker returned from a hunting trip in time for work. He came to work and got to his job. Management passed by his vehicle and saw his rifle prominently displayed in the back. We got a company wide message saying no one is to have any firearm, concealed or NOT, whether in the field, at the warehouse, or merchandisers (my job) and is grounds for dismissal.

When asked, I told him my car is my property, parked in a public parking lot, not on company property, and I will not allow anyone inside of it without a warrant and good luck getting RAS for one of those. I also will not, stealing a line from Techno, "knowingly violate company policy."

We have been told they will ask. I will simply pass as they really have no legal right since my car isn't on company property to search it now. They truly have no "right" to search it there even, but they also have the ability to fire me for non-consent. I'm glad I don't work at the warehouse anymore. Now if I can only get them to realize my property is just that.