Weapons in Privately owned vehicle on company property

Metalhead47 said:

OK now I'm gonna mess with ya... so by that logic, should an employer also be prevented from dismissing employees for being rude to customers, or preaching to them? (free spech)

Click to expand...

Messing back, it depends on the Customer(s).

Some Customers deserve what they get. Take that from someone who has "Stood behind the Counter".

Seriously, Customer Service IS one of those things that an Employer can dictate. Has nothing to do with any "fundamental right". Rudeness and Preaching, while some may view these as "Free Speech", they directly impact the level of Customer Service that the employee is providing. One can carry a firearm for Self Defense and not impact anything at all other than one's personal safety. One's rudeness and preaching is visible or audible to all when it occurs. A firearm, especially when concealed, is for all practical purposes, not even there until it is needed. (assuming that's were you were planning on messing with me next).

Trigger Dr said:

I take it as ...Your right to enter my property is trumped by my right to privacy

Click to expand...

I agree property rights reign supreme, but to deny them the ability to exercise there rights too and fro from your property is unconstitutional.

There are many cases too that show that self defense, and your 4th amendment rights to property extend to your vehicle. Does your employer have the right to go open your doors and search through your vehicle? No!!!!! Should he have the right then to tell you what you can or can't have in that vehicle? My opinion, NO!!!

sudden valley gunner said:

I agree property rights reign supreme, but to deny them the ability to exercise there rights too and fro from your property is unconstitutional.

There are many cases too that show that self defense, and your 4th amendment rights to property extend to your vehicle. Does your employer have the right to go open your doors and search through your vehicle? No!!!!! Should he have the right then to tell you what you can or can't have in that vehicle? My opinion, NO!!!

Click to expand...

SVG, I agree with you 100%. The problem lies with the fact that this issue is usually a "condition of employment" that one must agree to if they want the job.
I on the other hand, can find other employment very easily.

Trigger Dr said:

SVG, I agree with you 100%. The problem lies with the fact that this issue is usually a "condition of employment" that one must agree to if they want the job.
I on the other hand, can find other employment very easily.

Click to expand...

And how about those of us who can't find other employment so easily? Are we to choose between our livelihoods and our lives?

Metalhead47 said:

And how about those of us who can't find other employment so easily? Are we to choose between our livelihoods and our lives?

Click to expand...

It is a choice only one can make for themselves. Take an online class and upgrade your knowledge, skills and abilities

Trigger Dr said:

It is a choice only one can make for themselves. Take an online class and upgrade your knowledge, skills and abilities

Click to expand...

It is a choice no one should be forced to make.

Trigger Dr said:

SVG, I agree with you 100%. The problem lies with the fact that this issue is usually a "condition of employment" that one must agree to if they want the job.
I on the other hand, can find other employment very easily.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes I see the conflict. Although I don't agree with it, to me that is similar to signing a contract under duress.

But now that we have McDonald ruling couldn't we make a case for it being a civil right?

I know judge Napolitano has said something to the effect even stores open for business can't, they are "public accommodations" that can't turn away people for exercising constitutional rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE

sudden valley gunner said:

ahh yes i see the conflict. Although i don't agree with it, to me that is similar to signing a contract under duress.

but now that we have mcdonald ruling couldn't we make a case for it being a civil right?

I know judge napolitano has said something to the effect even stores open for business can't, they are "public accommodations" that can't turn away people for exercising constitutional rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp1wgkh5mee

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+10 what he said!!

perhaps it is a condition of employment, however!, I'm sure there are ways around it....for example:

I worked for an alarm monitoring company..one of the forms that they handed me to sign was an agreement that if I failed to show for a shift, my pay would be reduced by the amount of overtime that they had to pay my replacement. I told them I wasn't comfortable signing it & they told me that if I didn't, I wouldn't be hired...signed the form.

The company treated people like crap & I began looking for a job almost immediately..fast forward 3 weeks, found a job & didn't bother showing up or giving notice..next week, at the end of the pay period, they refused to pay me anything, stating that they had to cover my shifts for the past week & still hadn't found a replacement, therefore, my 3 weeks worth of pay that I'd earned was being held to pay overtime for those covering my shifts...

off to court we go....

make a long story a bit shorter, I won because being told that I couldn't get the job if I didn't sign the form was coercion, therefore, the agreement was null and void....they were mad as a hatter, but had to pay me what I'd earned previous to walking out.....

sudden valley gunner said:

Ahh yes I see the conflict. Although I don't agree with it, to me that is similar to signing a contract under duress.

But now that we have McDonald ruling couldn't we make a case for it being a civil right?

I know judge Napolitano has said something to the effect even stores open for business can't, they are "public accommodations" that can't turn away people for exercising constitutional rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE

Click to expand...

Wait, what?! For reals? They can't trespass us or make "corporate policy" to ban us and our "big bad guns" from stores? Every store HAS to be open carry friendly? Is there a ruling for this? Cause we could change a TON of rules that keep us from going to stores we otherwise like (i.e. Costco). Anyone know more about this and how we can use it, or am I just excited over nothing!?

CRA

Chris.R.Anderson said:

Wait, what?! For reals? They can't trespass us or make "corporate policy" to ban us and our "big bad guns" from stores? Every store HAS to be open carry friendly? Is there a ruling for this? Cause we could change a TON of rules that keep us from going to stores we otherwise like (i.e. Costco). Anyone know more about this and how we can use it, or am I just excited over nothing!?

CRA

Click to expand...

I don't think that Costco would be covered under this if it were enforced, though I think it is just his opinion and not a legal ruling. Costco is a private organization that requires a membership whereas Starbucks and Walmart are open to the entirety of the public with no limitations.

Chris.R.Anderson said:

Wait, what?! For reals? They can't trespass us or make "corporate policy" to ban us and our "big bad guns" from stores? Every store HAS to be open carry friendly? Is there a ruling for this? Cause we could change a TON of rules that keep us from going to stores we otherwise like (i.e. Costco). Anyone know more about this and how we can use it, or am I just excited over nothing!?

CRA

Click to expand...

THEORETICALLY this is correct. HOWEVER, as far as discrimination goes the anti-discrimination laws do not protect "exercising ones civil rights" It only protects VERY SPECIFIC categories such as race, religion, sex, sexual preference and one or two more. Nothing about "expressing one's civil rights." That is where the problem would come in. IMHO at least.

Chris.R.Anderson said:

Wait, what?! For reals? They can't trespass us or make "corporate policy" to ban us and our "big bad guns" from stores? Every store HAS to be open carry friendly? Is there a ruling for this? Cause we could change a TON of rules that keep us from going to stores we otherwise like (i.e. Costco). Anyone know more about this and how we can use it, or am I just excited over nothing!?

CRA

Click to expand...

This is how one judge sees it and I tend to agree, private property still trumps our civil rights. I would say though there could be a strong case for your car being part of your personal effects and that restricting it from being locked in your car when you work or shop somewhere is a violation of your rights.

This guns-at-work thing is a puzzlement to me. My wife and I are both CPL holders, me self-employed her with a real job. The company she works for is absolute with respect to rules: no guns anytime, anywhere on company property.

She has the unenviable task of having to let-go employees on a frequent basis, a job function. In private discussions, from time to time, I sense the upcoming tension on some of these. Postal ring a bell?

So what we have here is one person who, because he/she has not followed company rules on multiple occasions, is being let-go by one who follows all the rules to a fault.

Nothing's happened yet, and I pray it stays that way. But, I remain unconvinced that gun-free zones are axiomatically safer.

bikemutt said:

This guns-at-work thing is a puzzlement to me. My wife and I are both CPL holders, me self-employed her with a real job. The company she works for is absolute with respect to rules: no guns anytime, anywhere on company property.

She has the unenviable task of having to let-go employees on a frequent basis, a job function. In private discussions, from time to time, I sense the upcoming tension on some of these. Postal ring a bell?

So what we have here is one person who, because he/she has not followed company rules on multiple occasions, is being let-go by one who follows all the rules to a fault.

Nothing's happened yet, and I pray it stays that way. But, I remain unconvinced that gun-free zones are axiomatically safer.

Click to expand...

Of COURSE they're safer! Don't you watch the news? A disgruntled former employee has never gone psychotic with a gun on company property. That would be against the clearly stated company policy!

Metalhead47 said:

Of COURSE they're safer! Don't you watch the news? A disgruntled former employee has never gone psychotic with a gun on company property. That would be against the clearly stated company policy!

Click to expand...

Just like guns are never at schools since a sign is posted saying "GUN FREE ZONE"

Goose said:

Just like guns are never at schools since a sign is posted saying "GUN FREE ZONE"

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Thank you! Since when has there ever been a shooting at a school?? Sheesh.

Well there you go; I feel powerless and so does my wife. It is a conundrum.

She can't defend herself but there's nothing to defend against, right...

I just got back from a hunt in SD where a pal suggested I get the NRA involved; they'd help solve the issue, as they've done in several case. Maybe so, but historically it's taken an egregious violation of many employees civil rights to change the law.

I don't think a law change is out of the question here, WA after all is a shall-issue state with respect to CPL, and I think, no duty to notify, etc. So it seems to me they trust citizens to properly handle their 2nd amendment rights.

Private property though is a sacrament; it reminds me why lawmakers rarely have an easy job.

bikemutt said:

She has the unenviable task of having to let-go employees on a frequent basis, a job function. In private discussions, from time to time, I sense the upcoming tension on some of these. Postal ring a bell?

Click to expand...

The Company I retired from handled these situations by following some simple procedures.

The Employee to be dismissed was called to a meeting in a neutral location. Not the HR office, Not the Supervisor's, and not in their work area. Usually a "third party" member of management's office who would also serve as a witness. The employee was then given a box for their personal effects, allowed a few minutes to pack, and then escorted off the premises. If there was the slightest chance that the employee had either a violent nature or there was the possibility they could have a weapon, the Sheriff's Department was contacted and they had a Deputy stand by on the property to "keep the peace".

Not a single incident during the almost 20 years I was there but several "keyed cars" after the fact.

Many companies that have "Security Forces" on their premises just let Security do the escorting, witnessing, and the packing.

Still doesn't stop them from coming back after letting the feelings of anger and hate ferment.

I could be wrong but most shootings I see is they come back to the work place.