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

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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.

Orphan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

amlevin said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

amlevin said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Orphan said:

I understand what you are saying but its apples and oranges in my mind.

Click to expand...

I think it's more like apple seeds to apples.

I believe that we'll eventually be brought into the same type of law, we just got a late start and our start. While the movements for equality were going, extremists were spreading fear of guns. So as tolerance of different peoples was on the rise the tolerance of firearms was on the decline. We'll eventually get there, hopefully sooner than later.

Though I may just be optimistic and have wishful thinking.

So some of the opinions on this thread advocate that a property owner (the business) can ban you from a legal possession of property (firearm) on your own property (inside of your automobile).

Really? So if an employer says you can't have guns in your apartment, would that be ok too? Why is the inside of your car different?

gogodawgs said:

So some of the opinions on this thread advocate that a property owner (the business) can ban you from a legal possession of property (firearm) on your own property (inside of your automobile).

Really? So if an employer says you can't have guns in your apartment, would that be ok too? Why is the inside of your car different?

Click to expand...

I agree with you but until the state courts extend the meaning of abode to include your car the car does not fall under the same protections as your home as far as this topic is concerned.

What if you're protesting Boeing on their property? Can they make you leave or call the police on you for tresspassing

"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."

The main responsibility of Boeing Security is to protect company assets, such as aircraft, buildings and company property. They are not there to protect workers although they will as best they can should a situation arise. They may search vehicles entering and exiting controlled areas (behind fences). They have no responsibility to protect workers cars in the unsecured parking lots on company property but can search them if there is a specific reason to believe there may be a firearm in them (i.e. employee makes threats against others and mentions a firearm). Typically they don't.

"What if you're protesting Boeing on their property? Can they make you leave or call the police on you for tresspassing?"

Yes. For example, on those occasions when they have strikes, the property line is marked and striking workers do not cross that line. Sometimes the strikers who were legally protesting just off company boundaries, have been harassed by false reports to the police about alleged activities. Given that the company, or individuals acting independently of company sanction, would call police during those circumstances, you could certainly guarantee that Boeing Security would act and police would be called for anyone trespassing on their property.

In states that do allow workers to have firearms in their vehicles, Boeing has to abide by the laws in those states. Until such a law is enacted in this state, Boeing and any other employer with property is allowed to control if any weapons, legitimate or not, are allowed onto their property.

I would, at a minimum, like to see the law changed so that if the area is not a secured area, such as behind a fence, then workers should be allowed to have their self-defense items in their vehicles. I would not be very enthused about keeping a firearm in a vehicle in a parking lot where it can be stolen but I would rather have that as my choice, not my employers. Until state law gets changed, I have to abide by state laws and company rules or risk losing my job.

LibertyDeath said:

What if you're protesting Boeing on their property? Can they make you leave or call the police on you for tresspassing

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, Boeing "Security" consists of "Police Officers with limited authority". They essentially are the "Police" on Boeing property. Under the right circumstances they could detain you and turn you over to the "Real Cops".

So many people seem to think the employer-employee relationship is a forced one. If you don't like their rules, don't go there. Quite simple.

I have found that companies can prohibit lawful possession of firearms in vehicles to be quite annoying. Considering where I work and what I do (and that I am trying to start a long and meaningful career), I have opted to not tempt fate and risk my firearm from being discovered so I leave it at home. It does make it a nuisance to have to retrieve it and then go out on my afternoon rounds. What if something happened between work and home? I wish I could stay in Arizona or move to Texas where it is illegal for companies to ban legal activities within one's vehicle. Maybe someday we can get that law changed but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Are vehicles considered private property in Washington?

deanf said:

So many people seem to think the employer-employee relationship is a forced one. If you don't like their rules, don't go there. Quite simple.

Click to expand...

+ about a billion give or take a few

deanf said:

So many people seem to think the employer-employee relationship is a forced one. If you don't like their rules, don't go there. Quite simple.

Click to expand...

I don't view it quite that simply, how do they have the right to impair your natural right to and fro employment. And it appears you must have a great job you love and are not affected by the economic turn down where many people don't really get to choose their job they have to take what they can get.

I agree that an employer or business can ban firearms and what ever he wants from private property, yet there comes a line to be drawn and there should be some sort of compromise when it affects your time off the clock or away from their place of business. Of course if I work for someone anti, I just keep my mouth shut and conceal.

I also feel that other protected civil rights infringe on property owners too. I don't think the government should regulate compassion. That way it becomes public knowledge who are bigots and they will quickly go out of business due to the lack of support they would get from the community.

sudden valley gunner said:

I agree that an employer or business can ban firearms and what ever he wants from private property,

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this as long as when the employer or business deprives someone their right (and means of) self defense that they provide a suitable substitute.

If an employer says "no guns" then make sure that the employees are safe from all the whackadoodles that can walk in off the street and do the employees harm. Rules and Signs are by no defense against someone bent on doing harm.

As an example, what did the Oregon School District do to protect the Teacher who was denied the right to carry a firearm? She had a credible fear that her "ex" wanted to do her harm. They barred her from carrying a firearm but did nothing to assure her safety beyond saying they'd "call 911" if there was a problem.

I don't view it quite that simply, how do they have the right to impair your natural right to and fro employment. And it appears you must have a great job you love and are not affected by the economic turn down where many people don't really get to choose their job they have to take what they can get.

Click to expand...

You are of course free to make arrangements of your choosing to secure any contraband, before stepping voluntarily on to company property. Also, let's not let emotion get the best of us during this discussion.

deanf said:

You are of course free to make arrangements of your choosing to secure any contraband, before stepping voluntarily on to company property. Also, let's not let emotion get the best of us during this discussion.

Click to expand...

What emotion? But nice sidestep, as I pointed out it isn't always voluntary and not everyone has a "choice". To me there just seems there should be a logical compromise.

sudden valley gunner said:

What emotion? But nice sidestep, as I pointed out it isn't always voluntary and not everyone has a "choice". To me there just seems there should be a logical compromise.

Click to expand...

This.

What dean is saying might be valid in some idealized libertarian society where there actually WAS choice in the work place, but let's think of the real world here.

In our society, ALMOST every employer of any real size, if asked, and if permitted by law, will ban weapons from their property. It's a simple knee-jerk, guns-are-bad-mmkay, litigiphobic response.

I'd like to hear just one example in WA state of an employer, not already in the firearm industry, with say, more than 300 employees, that specifically permits employees to keep weapons in their vehicles on company property. Just one.

Then let's get a show of hands of how many of us work for an outfit where the above is strictly prohibited, up to an including termination?

I think a "weapons in vehicles" protection law is necessary at this point. It sucks, but that's just how it is. We're not going to wake up tomorrow to that idealized libertarian land. Such a law would also (likely) specifically protect employers from any liability in that case too.

Barring that, perhaps a law that allows employers to prohibit weapons in vehicles, but also makes them legally, financially, and criminally responsible for the safety of their employees, not only on the job but also too and from work, and about any personal business if during their day the employee is on company property (and thereby effectively prohibited from having their weapon at all.)

Metalhead47 said:

I'd like to hear just one example in WA state of an employer, not already in the firearm industry, with say, more than 300 employees, that specifically permits employees to keep weapons in their vehicles on company property. Just one.

Click to expand...

Do police Departments count?