• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Guns in vehicles business/employer parking lot.

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Just curious what people here think. In my state there is a proposal for a bill to make it illegal for businesses to ban their employees from leaving guns in their cars if they are parked on the business's private property.

Would you support this legislation?
Would you be concerned it would violate the property rights of the owners?
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
I have not read nor do I know the specifics of the proposal you've mentioned but have no link for. That said ---
We have a similar bill/law passed several years ago here in Utah. I fully support Utah's law.
Why should an otherwise lawful gun owner be denied his right to "Keep and Bear Arms" while going to or from work?
Why should an otherwise lawful gun owner be denied his right to "Keep and Bear Arms" or temporarily secure them within his private property?
Does the employer have a "legal" right to demand / command as search of your private property while simply parked in a company parking lot?
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,135
Location
here nc
twoskinsonemanns, i have sought to find some type of legislative reference you mentioned to get a better read of the parameters of the proposal's concept(s).

unfortunately, there is nothing on the NRA ILA's commentary nor any current reference to any firearm proposal resulting from search of the www sources...

so, can't provide a viable comment to your query except to say i have worked in that type of environment to the point most employees parked our vehicles on the public streets around our work facility.

ipse
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,650
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
People keep forgetting that a company exists at the pleasure of a state. Just because companies are persons and/or citizens, they are not human beings. They are not afforded all the rights human beings are afforded.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,135
Location
here nc
at will provisions throw a curve into your concept CoL...

most employees lack the financial resources to judicially overcome their dismissal due to cause, real or perceived.

ipse
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
AFAIK the bill has not yet been completed and or published. It was announce by our local 2A supportive group that they are working with law makers to present such a bill.

I'm not asking about the bill only the concept I outlined.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,650
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
at will provisions throw a curve into your concept CoL...

most employees lack the financial resources to judicially overcome their dismissal due to cause, real or perceived.

ipse
Not at all. As an employee why would you tell your employer you have a gun in your car?
At will has been around a long time. Companies get in trouble when they let an employee go and then try to disallow unemployment benefits. Companies that try to deny benefits usually loose because the reason for discharge is not valid.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Not at all. As an employee why would you tell your employer you have a gun in your car? ...
This is not the point.

If a employer knows, or suspects, and he not being permitted to use the lawful possession of a firearm, secured in that employee's vehicle, on company property, as cause for termination is the point.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,135
Location
here nc
Not at all. As an employee why would you tell your employer you have a gun in your car?
At will has been around a long time. Companies get in trouble when they let an employee go and then try to disallow unemployment benefits. Companies that try to deny benefits usually loose because the reason for discharge is not valid.

if the company lays out in their administrative practices, or in their employee handbook, or within general clauses of their EH & S guide which have provisions of hostile or violence in the work place...that is cause which has been upheld to assure no unemployment nor anything else is forthcoming to the discharged employee.

how the employer discerns firearms in the vehicle is not my concern, whether it be hearsay from water cooler chat, or scuttle butt from a vindictive employee, or bragging by the employee...if it is against documented and acknowledged company policy, it is valid.

ipse
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,810
Location
Granite State of Mind
1. The property owner controls the property. And no, "My gun, my car, my property!" doesn't matter when you're parking on someone else's private property.

2. Any property owner who bars someone from being armed when they otherwise would be, should be civilly liable for any damage that occurs as a result.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
1. The property owner controls the property. And no, "My gun, my car, my property!" doesn't matter when you're parking on someone else's private property.

2. Any property owner who bars someone from being armed when they otherwise would be, should be civilly liable for any damage that occurs as a result.
Number 1 is State specific. In Utah most employers are banned from enforcing or imposing "no guns" in employee vehicles.
Number 2 I agree with completely.

You don't need to know what kind of device or tool was used to send this
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,650
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
If state law prohibits a company from penalizing an employee for storing their firearm in their vehicle then the company better not cross that line. Why would you ever work for a company that would violate your rights.

I understand completely, I was an employer for a number of years.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
If state law prohibits a company from penalizing an employee for storing their firearm in their vehicle then the company better not cross that line. Why would you ever work for a company that would violate your rights.

I understand completely, I was an employer for a number of years.
Why would a employer retain a employee who could negatively impact their bottom line? Actuaries hold a great deal of influence over employers.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/11/288010.htm

http://reedscardino.com/providing-a-safe-workplace-when-employees-are-licensed-to-carry/
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,135
Location
here nc
as i go to unc medical center(s) i am again reminded...they are gfz...

you are right CoL, don't work there but do get superb medical care, so i tolerate their restrictions...

ipse
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
It would make sense to just spell it out:

1. If you have no DV, no DUIs, no Felony Arrests (violent), and have passed a background check you are not prevented from any otherwise legal activities on company property.
2. If you do have any of the above, and are discovered to be handling, storing, carrying a device that would be prohibited by state law, then you will be terminated.

Sign here that you agree: ______

What bothers people who want to be safe in dark parking lots is that the employers use too broad a brush, and are worried about lawsuits. You shoot the angry husband of an employee who thought you looked like someone he hated, and then the family sues the deep pockets. Why not have an umbrella policy or an indemnification from frivolous lawsuits? I'm sure someone could draw up something to protect companies. If they were really afraid of things like this they wouldn't have incorporated and started a company in the first place.

FWIW
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,650
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posted by color of law
If state law prohibits a company from penalizing an employee for storing their firearm in their vehicle then the company better not cross that line. Why would you ever work for a company that would violate your rights.

I understand completely, I was an employer for a number of years.
Why would a employer retain a employee who could negatively impact their bottom line? Actuaries hold a great deal of influence over employers.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/11/288010.htm

http://reedscardino.com/providing-a-safe-workplace-when-employees-are-licensed-to-carry/
Most states that allow parking lot storage usually have hold harmless statutes protecting the employer from liability. It does in Ohio. Insurance companies are selling employers a pig in a poke by telling them they need insurance and then tell the employer they cannot allow firearms on their property to be insured. Unfortunately insurance companies rule the world by using deceptive practices.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
Don't most states view your vehicle as an extension of your home?


and does the parking lot cater to the public by allowing public to park on it? or allow the public to enter the property for business services?

if they do, then they can't enforce it against john Q public, why should they be able to enforce it against you?

of course, you could always park off property, then when they get butthurt over it, "you may not like it, but it's completely legal and free from your policy"
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
It would make sense to just spell it out:

1. If you have no DV, no DUIs, no Felony Arrests (violent), and have passed a background check you are not prevented from any otherwise legal activities on company property.
2. If you do have any of the above, and are discovered to be handling, storing, carrying a device that would be prohibited by state law, then you will be terminated.

Sign here that you agree: ______

What bothers people who want to be safe in dark parking lots is that the employers use too broad a brush, and are worried about lawsuits. You shoot the angry husband of an employee who thought you looked like someone he hated, and then the family sues the deep pockets. Why not have an umbrella policy or an indemnification from frivolous lawsuits? I'm sure someone could draw up something to protect companies. If they were really afraid of things like this they wouldn't have incorporated and started a company in the first place.

FWIW
Shall not be infringed, pretty clear.
Not, it is ok to infringe on those that the population agrees should be infringed on.

If they are that dangerous and it is known that they are that dangerous, theb why are they not still in prison?
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Shall not be infringed, pretty clear.
Not, it is ok to infringe on those that the population agrees should be infringed on.

If they are that dangerous and it is known that they are that dangerous, theb why are they not still in prison?

It is not an infringement of the right to bear arms to voluntarily enter into a contract wherein you agree not to bear arms while on the business's property.

It does seem like an infringement of rights to make it illegal for two parties to enter into such a contract.
 
Last edited:
Top