Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: It's a start

  1. #1
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    It's a start

    Texas is at least "half way" to having legislation passed that would allow employees to keep firearms in their cars while at work.

    http://lubbockonline.com/texas/2011-...-guns-car-work


    This bill has passed their Senate and is not off to the House.

    Hopefully it will pass and have a snowball effect, bringing more states to pass similar legislation.

    Will prevent employers from having policies that forbid employees from storing firearms in their vehicle while parked at their place of employment. Firearms will have to be out of sight and the vehicle locked.

    Naturally it is opposed by Business Groups and trial lawyers. Predicting "blood in the streets, yada, yada, yada."
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    140

    I wish WA would have some law like this...

    I have actually gotten fired from a job because I left my firearm in the car... I don't know how they found out, maybe someone saw me putting it away... but oh well, found a better job anyway... How am I suppose to protect myself from home to work and back? I wish employers would understand that...

  3. #3
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    How does forcing a ban on another private citizen; the owner’s of their private business/property display progression in individual rights. This kind of gun rights legislation is a fine example of lessening individual rights, and only serves as an open door to more loss of individual freedom legislation.

    In gaining a right it is acceptable to remove a right? Hogwash I say!

  4. #4
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnsmith1521 View Post
    I have actually gotten fired from a job because I left my firearm in the car... I don't know how they found out, maybe someone saw me putting it away... but oh well, found a better job anyway... How am I suppose to protect myself from home to work and back? I wish employers would understand that...
    You mean they didn't tell you the proof behind your being fired?

    I don't know squat about labor law or human resource, but one would think they would need to, and be able to prove if that was the reason they claimed for firing you. You didn't admit, or allow a private employer to search your car did you? Sounds like if they just went on the word of another you got shafted out of your job.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Is the parking lot still the businesses property? I am really torn on this one. I think it is a unique situation because they are preventing you from potentially defending yourself on the way home, but then again you don't have to work there either. In the end I would side with the 2A even at a small risk of encroaching on property rights.

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    You mean they didn't tell you the proof behind your being fired?

    I don't know squat about labor law or human resource, but one would think they would need to, and be able to prove if that was the reason they claimed for firing you. You didn't admit, or allow a private employer to search your car did you? Sounds like if they just went on the word of another you got shafted out of your job.
    If the employer has an "Employment at Will" clause in his policy they don't have to tell you anything. If State law allows this, it is actually better to not tell an employee why they are being fired. Just saying, "Your services are no longer required" is better than giving a reason because then the firing becomes "with cause". Wrongful termination lawsuits come from "for cause firings" because often the employer has not followed their own rules for termination.

    Washington State is an "Employment at Will" State so rarely will an employer give a reason. That is unless you were actually caught committing a crime or the like.

    As for "Property Owner's Rights" that should begin OUTSIDE your car. Not inside where you keep your personal effects.
    Last edited by amlevin; 03-16-2011 at 03:25 PM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Washington State is an "Employment at Will" State so rarely will an employer give a reason. That is unless you were actually caught committing a crime or the like.

    Is there a difference between "Employment at Will" and "Right to Work"?



    As for "Property Owner's Rights" that should begin OUTSIDE your car. Not inside where you keep your personal effects.

    Yes but YOUR car is sitting on THIER property. I would then suggest to park off of the employers property if at all possible.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Washington State is an "Employment at Will" State so rarely will an employer give a reason. That is unless you were actually caught committing a crime or the like.

    Is there a difference between "Employment at Will" and "Right to Work"?
    Yeah. Right to Work means they can't force you to join a union as a condition of employment.

    At Will means that you have a voluntary contract between you and your employer for so long as either of you agrees to it. If either of you wants to terminate the relationship, you can.

    On topic, I don't see how it involves private property rights for an employer to restrict what legal items I can keep in my car, out of sight, and locked while I am working. The car is not their property, it is mine.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Yeah. Right to Work means they can't force you to join a union as a condition of employment.

    I thought you had to join the union to become a state employee..?



    At Will means that you have a voluntary contract between you and your employer for so long as either of you agrees to it. If either of you wants to terminate the relationship, you can.

    Good to know, but I was under the impression that "Right to Work" an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all.

    On topic, I don't see how it involves private property rights for an employer to restrict what legal items I can keep in my car, out of sight, and locked while I am working. The car is not their property, it is mine.


    Sure, but out of sight doesn't absolve them of liability ("CEO, why didn't you know employee x had a gun in his car?") or act as preemption for thier property rights. I am playing Devil's Advocate here, for the record. Personally, if it is leagal and within the confines of someones property AND secure then whats the big deal.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    [

    As for "Property Owner's Rights" that should begin OUTSIDE your car. Not inside where you keep your personal effects.

    Yes but YOUR car is sitting on THIER property. I would then suggest to park off of the employers property if at all possible.
    But nothing inside that car is theirs or should be subject to their snooping. If they let all their customers park there with guns in their car, then why not employees?

    As for me, my former employer(s) would have "filled their pants" if they not only knew that I had a gun in my car, but how many.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Yeah. Right to Work means they can't force you to join a union as a condition of employment.

    I thought you had to join the union to become a state employee..?


    If the State is a "right to work state" they can't force you to belong to any union. Washington is not a Right to Work State. Why do you think Boeing is moving their new production to their new factory in South Carolina?

    Do not confuse "Right to Work" with "Employment at Will". RTW is covered by State Law and EAW is merely an employer contract with the employee.

    If you belong to a Union you are then covered by a different contract. The one between the Union and the Employer. That will spell out terms and conditions as to employee terminations.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Sure, but out of sight doesn't absolve them of liability ("CEO, why didn't you know employee x had a gun in his car?") or act as preemption for thier property rights. I am playing Devil's Advocate here, for the record.
    The same argument could be made with non employees having firearms in their vehicles. Can you imagine a Retailer demanding to search a Customer's car?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    If the State is a "right to work state" they can't force you to belong to any union. Washington is not a Right to Work State. Why do you think Boeing is moving their new production to their new factory in South Carolina?

    Do not confuse "Right to Work" with "Employment at Will". RTW is covered by State Law and EAW is merely an employer contract with the employee.

    If you belong to a Union you are then covered by a different contract. The one between the Union and the Employer. That will spell out terms and conditions as to employee terminations.

    Good info, thanks!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The same argument could be made with non employees having firearms in their vehicles. Can you imagine a Retailer demanding to search a Customer's car?

    Searching is another beast altogether. Now if you are talking about searching lockers OWNED by the company on company property then that might be a different story all together. I can see the splitting of hairs by the legal teams on that one.

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Searching is another beast altogether. Now if you are talking about searching lockers OWNED by the company on company property then that might be a different story all together. I can see the splitting of hairs by the legal teams on that one.
    As can I. It is a matter of who's property is being searched. A locker is typically INSIDE the employer's building while the car is not.

    This whole idea of Employers being able to strip people of their employees of their right to self defense while traveling to and from work is what is being addressed in attempting to pass these laws. If the employers are successful in barring firearms from being left in employees cars while on the employers property then the next step is for an employer to be sued if an employee is attacked between work and home. If someone who regularly carries a firearm is "mugged" or "carjacked" while going to and from work, and they were deprived of their right to self defense because of the employer's policy it might be an interesting case.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  16. #16
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    As can I. It is a matter of who's property is being searched. A locker is typically INSIDE the employer's building while the car is not.

    This whole idea of Employers being able to strip people of their employees of their right to self defense while traveling to and from work is what is being addressed in attempting to pass these laws. If the employers are successful in barring firearms from being left in employees cars while on the employers property then the next step is for an employer to be sued if an employee is attacked between work and home. If someone who regularly carries a firearm is "mugged" or "carjacked" while going to and from work, and they were deprived of their right to self defense because of the employer's policy it might be an interesting case.
    Are we sure they didn't deprive them self when willingly accepting employment, and the known conditions of?

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    ... for "Property Owner's Rights" that should begin OUTSIDE your car. Not inside where you keep your personal effects.
    Exactly right. What else should an employer get to search your property for??? Legal medications? Legal political phamplets? Legal religious symbols?

    An employer has absolutely, positively no business inside the locked car of any employee.
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Exactly right. What else should an employer get to search your property for??? Legal medications? Legal political phamplets? Legal religious symbols?

    An employer has absolutely, positively no business inside the locked car of any employee.
    Damn right. I think there's a reasonable middle ground to be found there between the "carry everywhere, all the time" folks and the "OMG IT'S A GUN RUUUUUN!" folks. Also, it's not just the employee's commute to and from work where his/her right to self defense is compromised, it's also everything that employee does between home and work. Most people have been known to run errands before/after/between shifts at work. Technically, the employee's right to self defense is denied if at any point during their day that employee will be on company property, even if it's only for a couple of minutes.


    jbone: Let's be realistic here. Your points might be valid in a perfect libertarian society, but last I checked we don't have one. Yes, you DO have to work there. Finding an employer, especially around here, who will knowingly allow firearms to be stored in a personal vehicle on company property is virtually impossible. Parking off company property isn't always an option either.

    A person should not have to choose between staying alive and staying employed. In my case, my wife has very specific instructions on who to sue if I ever come to harm as a result of following my employer's policies, whether on or off their property.

    Anyone have an update on the similar here in WA that was proposed by a forum member?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    I am an advocate for private property rights, but in this case I would say that the owner of the vehicle would have the say in this.

    Yes, the car is on the company's property, but the private property rights of the vehicle's owner trumps the property rights of the parking lot owner.

    I would also compare it to renting an apartment. Could the owner of an apartment complex prevent its tenants from storing firearms in the apartment they rent? Of course not.

    But,
    Perhaps with our State's political climate the way it is, it could be beneficial to approach the issue from a different angle.

    I think that the main reason businesses enforce these policies is because of the fear of being sued if the firearm is used inappropriately, that and because of insurance company requirements. Maybe a law that addressed these two issues would cause a lot of businesses to abandon such policies.
    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

  20. #20
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    How does forcing a ban on another private citizen; the owner’s of their private business/property display progression in individual rights. This kind of gun rights legislation is a fine example of lessening individual rights, and only serves as an open door to more loss of individual freedom legislation.

    In gaining a right it is acceptable to remove a right? Hogwash I say!
    Do you as an employer have the right to say I cannot have pornography in my car? Do you as an employer have the right to say I cannot have empty potato chip bags littering the floor of my car? Do you as an employer have the right to say I can't have any of those damned rap CDs in my car?

    You have the right to tell me whether or not I can park my car on your property. You don't have the right to control what I can or can not place on or in my own property.

    If you have a problem with what I might or might not have in my car then don't let me park on your property, but if you do that you'd better damned well accept liability for what happens to me between where you're making me park and the workplace.

  21. #21
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    My proposal:

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

    It's been discussed here in the past.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    If the State is a "right to work state" they can't force you to belong to any union. Washington is not a Right to Work State. Why do you think Boeing is moving their new production to their new factory in South Carolina?
    Second production line, the 787 line in Everett isn't going anywhere I can assure you of this.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Before I retired, there were times that we needed to search a private locker in a business. A search warrant was required. Even though the locker was owned by the company, it was assigned to the employee, and as such the employee had a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. The same held true to the desk an employee used as his or her work station. The employer could only legally access these areas with the permission of the employee or as a condition of employment. I believe this would extend to a privately owned vehicle on the property, with more protection than afforded the locker or desk.
    I have been retired for 14 years now, and things may have changed, but I believe not.
    Lammo or Drew, please speak up.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 03-17-2011 at 12:07 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    Do you as an employer have the right to say I cannot have pornography in my car? Do you as an employer have the right to say I cannot have empty potato chip bags littering the floor of my car? Do you as an employer have the right to say I can't have any of those damned rap CDs in my car?

    You have the right to tell me whether or not I can park my car on your property. You don't have the right to control what I can or can not place on or in my own property.

    If you have a problem with what I might or might not have in my car then don't let me park on your property, but if you do that you'd better damned well accept liability for what happens to me between where you're making me park and the workplace.
    Dang dude, porno rap & tater chips. You've been having entirely too much fun in your car! :-P

    Seriously tho, what's the status of your bill? Did anyone pick it up to move thru the process?

    and to an earlier poster: IIRC, the law passed last year in Oklahoma, and this fine fellow's proposal, also include language that absolve the employer from any liability if the employee misuses said stored firearm.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by onlurker View Post
    Second production line, the 787 line in Everett isn't going anywhere I can assure you of this.
    Like my post said, NEW PRODUCTION. Do you really think Boeing will not look elsewhere for a production line for any new airplane they come up with? Like the replacement for the 737?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •