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?

Yes

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.

Thanks!

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

That makes a ton of sense as well.

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/showthread.php?88098-It-s-a-start

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...e-the-right-to-say-no-guns-in-the-parking-lot

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-Privately-owned-vehicle-on-company-property

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...almart-employees-*can*-OC-while-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.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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?

amlevin said:

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

Click to expand...

This..

xd shooter said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

deanf said:

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?

Click to expand...

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".

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".

amlevin said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I understand what you are saying and agree mostly in principle. Especially since I view the bill of rights as natural or human rights.

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?

xxx.jakk.xxx said:

If i must follow the laws of where I cannot carry, why don't employers have to follow them for where I can?

Click to expand...

Because nobody has sued them yet.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DCKilla said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.