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/2011-03-16/senate-approves-letting-texans-keep-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."

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...

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!

Johnsmith1521 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

jbone said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Lovenox said:

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"?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Lovenox said:

[

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lovenox said:

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..?

Click to expand...

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.

Lovenox said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good info, thanks!

amlevin said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Lovenox said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are we sure they didn't deprive them self when willingly accepting employment, and the known conditions of?

amlevin said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

gogodawgs said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

jbone said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.