Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: Washington state gun laws: Can employers ban guns that are locked in employee cars?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Puyallup, ,
    Posts
    58

    Washington state gun laws: Can employers ban guns that are locked in employee cars?

    Hello everyone,

    This is not truly a Open carry question, but we have some people here that really know the Washington state laws well. I've read a article where some states do not allow Employers to ban guns from Employees being locked in their cars in the parking lot. I believe there are 12-13 states that have this law. Where does the state of Washington fall in all of this?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Yes

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Yes, they can ban firearms from their property, including parking lots. However, I am a big fan of just "keeping my mouth shut" and not telling anyone I kept a gun in my vehicle. If people can overcome their urge to "brag" and "show off" then why would an employer ever know. Unless one has to pass through a security check point like at Boeing, and their vehicle is subject to search as a condition of entry, the chances of the employer finding out is nil. For those that work for establishments where the parking facility is shared by employees and customers alike, searching vehicles might well be problematic to an employer, that is unless the Employee Handbook says that they will.
    "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?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Puyallup, ,
    Posts
    58
    Thanks!
    Last edited by superdeluxe; 06-18-2011 at 10:58 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Puyallup, ,
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Yes, they can ban firearms from their property, including parking lots. However, I am a big fan of just "keeping my mouth shut" and not telling anyone I kept a gun in my vehicle. If people can overcome their urge to "brag" and "show off" then why would an employer ever know. Unless one has to pass through a security check point like at Boeing, and their vehicle is subject to search as a condition of entry, the chances of the employer finding out is nil. For those that work for establishments where the parking facility is shared by employees and customers alike, searching vehicles might well be problematic to an employer, that is unless the Employee Handbook says that they will.
    That makes a ton of sense as well.

  6. #6
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Parking Lot law needs to be a sticky

    We probably need to have this topic (though not necessarily this thread) made a sticky in the WA forum.

    Previously discussed at:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...8-It-s-a-start

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...he-parking-lot

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...mpany-property

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-off-the-clock.

    My proposal:

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

    Nothing will happen if we don't write our state reps and ask for protection under law.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Yes, they can ban firearms from their property, including parking lots. However, I am a big fan of just "keeping my mouth shut" and not telling anyone I kept a gun in my vehicle. If people can overcome their urge to "brag" and "show off" then why would an employer ever know. Unless one has to pass through a security check point like at Boeing, and their vehicle is subject to search as a condition of entry, the chances of the employer finding out is nil. For those that work for establishments where the parking facility is shared by employees and customers alike, searching vehicles might well be problematic to an employer, that is unless the Employee Handbook says that they will.
    In a shared lot (Think retail) the employer still needs the police to search your car unless the employee 'voluntarily' gives up that right. The employer may terminate you for refusal, but you will not give up your rights. As you stated above, keep your mouth shut and you will not have this problem.
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    Ugh. When will people stop being hypocritical and realize that it's wrong to ask private property owners to give up their rights when we insist on maintaining ours?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    I think the problem is by banning guns from the employees personal vehicles in the Parking lot while at work, you then ALSO prevent them from carrying to and from work.

    At what point does the employer/property owners rights infringe on our right to carry and defend ourselves?

  10. #10
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Yes, they can ban firearms from their property, including parking lots. However, I am a big fan of just "keeping my mouth shut" and not telling anyone I kept a gun in my vehicle
    This..

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edge of the woods
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    I think the problem is by banning guns from the employees personal vehicles in the Parking lot while at work, you then ALSO prevent them from carrying to and from work.

    At what point does the employer/property owners rights infringe on our right to carry and defend ourselves?
    When you are forced to work for them it would infringe. As it is now, you voluntarily work for them, so you acquiesce to them.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Ugh. When will people stop being hypocritical and realize that it's wrong to ask private property owners to give up their rights when we insist on maintaining ours?
    Because there is a fine debatable line, when the property is open to the public and hire employees, by banning firearms locked in the car you are also impairing their right to be armed to and fro your "private property".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Since the right to keep and bear arms is assured in the State Constitution and specifically states "defense of himself", then any Employer who removes that ability by barring firearms should be required to provide an equal defense for all their employees. If the Employer fails to do so then they have essentially deprived an Employee of their civil right to self defense.

    It's fine for an Employer to claim that they are doing so to insure a safe workplace but any business that is open to the public is also open to any whacko who decides he/she wants to be seen on the 5 O'Clock News and on the front page of all the Newspapers. Employers with "No Firearms" policies should then be required to provide armed guards and extensive security measures beyond a simple video camera. This also holds true for those businesses that would strip citizens of their Constitutionally protected right to self defense.

    Could be interesting if someone decides to make the next "Mall Shooting" a test case. It would certainly decide if "Property Rights" supersede "Civil Rights".
    "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?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Since the right to keep and bear arms is assured in the State Constitution and specifically states "defense of himself", then any Employer who removes that ability by barring firearms should be required to provide an equal defense for all their employees. If the Employer fails to do so then they have essentially deprived an Employee of their civil right to self defense.

    It's fine for an Employer to claim that they are doing so to insure a safe workplace but any business that is open to the public is also open to any whacko who decides he/she wants to be seen on the 5 O'Clock News and on the front page of all the Newspapers. Employers with "No Firearms" policies should then be required to provide armed guards and extensive security measures beyond a simple video camera. This also holds true for those businesses that would strip citizens of their Constitutionally protected right to self defense.

    Could be interesting if someone decides to make the next "Mall Shooting" a test case. It would certainly decide if "Property Rights" supersede "Civil Rights".
    If you look at all the old westerns, if weapons were banned, they checked them in for you, they didn't deny your right to carry to there place of business.

    Although I believe all rights are property rights, you can't deny someones natural rights without due process. Without providing an additional means of storage, or simply allowing someone to lock weapon in their car you are doing just that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    If you look at all the old westerns, if weapons were banned, they checked them in for you, they didn't deny your right to carry to there place of business.

    Although I believe all rights are property rights, you can't deny someones natural rights without due process. Without providing an additional means of storage, or simply allowing someone to lock weapon in their car you are doing just that.
    Actually, I am taking the argument beyond merely "storage". By outright banning firearms then the very first part of Article 1, Section 24 of the State Constitution has been violated. Unless the Employer or Business provides an equal means of defense for the person they denied the Constitutional right to, then by extension they've violated the persons civil right to self defense. In a public environment like a Courthouse at least there are armed guards present.

    What about Wal Mart? Target? Malls? What about that Office where some work? Any establishment open to the public that doesn't screen those who enter for weapons can't assure anyone's safety. By banning those who choose from carrying a firearm, they have left them "defenseless". When's the last time you saw an armed guard in a non[government office building?

    We accept the fact that people can't be barred from employment or entry to a public place because of gender, race, or religion but we accept the fact that they can be denied another Constitutionally guaranteed right just because it involves a firearm? Would anyone here support an Employer that refused to higher on the basis of race? Would the government stand by if a Mall put up a sign saying "NO Blacks"? In both cases the argument of "Property Rights" could be claimed but that's already been resolved in Court.

    Does that make sense to others here? Doesn't to me.
    Last edited by amlevin; 06-19-2011 at 10:19 AM.
    "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 sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I understand what you are saying and agree mostly in principle. Especially since I view the bill of rights as natural or human rights.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member xxx.jakk.xxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, United States
    Posts
    504
    RCW 9.41.050
    Carrying firearms.

    (1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.


    I see that as permission from the state for me to carry at work... If i must follow the laws of where I cannot carry, why don't employers have to follow them for where I can?
    Last edited by xxx.jakk.xxx; 06-19-2011 at 11:25 AM.
    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Psalms 23:4

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Benjamin Franklin

    “It’s always open season on criminals in Mason County, and there’s no bag limit.” Sen. Tim Sheldon (D)

    Molōn labe!

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by xxx.jakk.xxx View Post
    If i must follow the laws of where I cannot carry, why don't employers have to follow them for where I can?
    Because nobody has sued them yet.
    "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?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Unless one has to pass through a security check point like at Boeing, and their vehicle is subject to search as a condition of entry, the chances of the employer finding out is nil.
    As a Boeing employee, I find Boeing's anti firearms policy distasteful. You in fact are subject to seach when passing security and while on the property. I wonder if visitor parking(before the checkpoint) is subject to the same scrutiny.
    Last edited by DCKilla; 06-19-2011 at 12:03 PM. Reason: added quote

  20. #20
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    As a Boeing employee, I find Boeing's anti firearms policy distasteful. You in fact are subject to seach when passing security and while on the property. I wonder if visitor parking(before the checkpoint) is subject to the same scrutiny.
    But to support my point, while Boeing has deprived you of your firearm they at least have their own armed police force to provide some semblance of protection for their employees. Not like lets say a Wal-Mart where the only "security" they provide against some schizoid coming in the front door and shooting up the place is a "greeter" armed with a blue vest.
    "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?"

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Actually, I am taking the argument beyond merely "storage". By outright banning firearms then the very first part of Article 1, Section 24 of the State Constitution has been violated. Unless the Employer or Business provides an equal means of defense for the person they denied the Constitutional right to, then by extension they've violated the persons civil right to self defense. In a public environment like a Courthouse at least there are armed guards present.

    What about Wal Mart? Target? Malls? What about that Office where some work? Any establishment open to the public that doesn't screen those who enter for weapons can't assure anyone's safety. By banning those who choose from carrying a firearm, they have left them "defenseless". When's the last time you saw an armed guard in a non[government office building?

    We accept the fact that people can't be barred from employment or entry to a public place because of gender, race, or religion but we accept the fact that they can be denied another Constitutionally guaranteed right just because it involves a firearm? Would anyone here support an Employer that refused to higher on the basis of race? Would the government stand by if a Mall put up a sign saying "NO Blacks"? In both cases the argument of "Property Rights" could be claimed but that's already been resolved in Court.

    Does that make sense to others here? Doesn't to me.
    Amlevin I agree with your basic premise. The problem is the State and Federal Constitutions protect the people from the goverment, they do not protect me from you or either of us from a business.

  22. #22
    Regular Member LibertyDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Inland Empire, CA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Ugh. When will people stop being hypocritical and realize that it's wrong to ask private property owners to give up their rights when we insist on maintaining ours?
    The Constitution doesn't give it's citizens property right other than the government depriving your of property without due process or just compensation. The Constitution does allow the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it was placed in the Bill of Rights second.

  23. #23
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Amlevin I agree with your basic premise. The problem is the State and Federal Constitutions protect the people from the goverment, they do not protect me from you or either of us from a business.
    I believe they would if the issue was "racial". My question before the group is why are some property owner's rights to exclude guns defended yet the same people would have a "pant biscuit" if that same property owner tried to exclude someone on racial grounds? Aren't both rights protected?
    Last edited by amlevin; 06-19-2011 at 01:50 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?"

  24. #24
    Regular Member xxx.jakk.xxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, United States
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    I believe they would if the issue was "racial". My question before the group is why are some property owner's rights to exclude guns defended yet the same people would have a "pant biscuit" if that same property owner tried to exclude someone on racial grounds? Aren't both rights protected?
    On that same note, I'd like to ask why openly carrying my religion would not get me removed from a store or restaurant when openly carrying my firearm would? Both are choices that we make in our lives and both are constitutionally protected by the US and the Washington Constitutions.
    Last edited by xxx.jakk.xxx; 06-19-2011 at 02:31 PM.
    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Psalms 23:4

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Benjamin Franklin

    “It’s always open season on criminals in Mason County, and there’s no bag limit.” Sen. Tim Sheldon (D)

    Molōn labe!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    I believe they would if the issue was "racial". My question before the group is why are some property owner's rights to exclude guns defended yet the same people would have a "pant biscuit" if that same property owner tried to exclude someone on racial grounds? Aren't both rights protected?
    On that same note, I'd like to ask why openly carrying my religion would not get me removed from a store or restaurant when openly carrying my firearm would? Both are choices that we make in our lives and both are constitutionally protected by the US and the Washington Constitutions.

    You are confusing rights with laws. The business owner would be breaking the law by excluding someone on racial grounds, there is no law that I am aware of that applies to the business owner excluding guns from his property. The 2nd Amendment only applys between the citizens and the federal goverment so there is no rights being violated because the business owner says no guns the 2nd Amendment does not hold any weight between 2 people or between a business and a person. I understand what you are saying but its apples and oranges in my mind.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •