[Gray Peterson]

One possibility is to not employ anyone with a permit to carry a firearm. Employers could screen out "permit-holders" during the hiring process and could also canvass their current employees. Assuming, all current employees are at-will, they could be given the choice of continued employment or surrendering their permit. Of course, this does not solve the issue as it relates to non-employees. It also may have the effect of unduly limiting the employment pool. This option may be viewed by some as extreme and could result in a test case to determine whether being a "permit holder" is a protected class of employees.

Fredrikson and Byron...Bliss Ninny's Esquire. (http://www.fredlaw.com/articles/employment/empl_0803_rar.html)

I am beyond livid at this. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[FPrice]

There are a lot of things employers are not allowed to ask. Why would they be allowed to ask if you have a permit?

I smell a lawsiut coming if this happens.

[goalie]

Oh well, more Minnesota BS from the fright-ninnies.

[BamBam]

I'm considering not hiring people that hold driver's licenses. That way I can make a stand against those who might drive "Evil SUVs".

[Norm357]

That is against the law. If it is tried it will be shot down.


Norm

[Gray Peterson]

Norm,

Legal cite?

[TallPine]

There may be ways employers can ban guns from their parking lots.

One possibility is to not employ anyone with a permit to carry a firearm.

Well, now that will stop em, won't it?

Only criminals without permits will be allowed in the parking lot. :rolleyes:

[C.R.Sam]

Madness runs rampant.
Be a shame if they had to shut down cause not enough non gunny employees.

Sam

[Standing Wolf]

From the same page:

"Each employer . . . shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. . . ."
Because federal law pre-empts state law, an employer could argue that it is obligated under OSHA to provide a safe working environment and therefore has the duty under federal law to ban firearms from all its premises, including parking lots.

I believe it's time to give credit where credit's due: Minnesota's leftist extremists are the nation's most determined sore losers. They've done a louder, longer job of snivelling and whining than any other state's anti-Second Amendment bigots.

[TheeBadOne]

Standing Wolf, you've said a mouthful!

[ReadyontheRight]

"....an employer could argue that it is obligated under OSHA to provide a safe working environment and therefore has the duty under federal law to..." ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

In the weasel words of the media and the legal profession -- the above "could be argued".

How come it never is?

[KC]

"...an employer could argue that it is obligated under OSHA to provide a safe working environment..."

Let's think about that one. Safe. (hehehe....)
No eating red meat on the job
No peanut butter (its a hell of a choking hazard)
---Probably best to just not eat while at work.
No smoking anywhere
No non-ergonomic workstations (chairs, desks, mice, pens, etc.)
No cars that burn gas (its a carcinogen, after all)
Same for white-out correction fluid
No coffee
No non bottled water
Want to make something? Not in that state.
HEPA filters for every office
No copying machines (lots of reasons)

Emotionally safe too? Stress?
No pushy bosses
No whiney underlings (and no calling them that, either)
No deadlines
No accountability
Customers who are not 110% satisifyed with the product before they but? Definatly not.
Banks/creditors wanting money? They may be illegal.


And to think that I thought that Ca was an unfriendly place to have a business...

[ReadyontheRight]

One possibility is to not employ anyone with a permit to carry a firearm.

It looks to me like these weasels are setting up some of their clients to get sued.

Hmmmm. I guess then the client would then need additional legal representation.

Why chase the ambulence when you can convince your client to knowingly cause the accident? Both sides need lawyers!:barf:

[starfuryzeta]

Because federal law pre-empts state law, an employer could argue that it is obligated under OSHA to provide a safe working environment and therefore has the duty under federal law to ban firearms from all its premises, including parking lots.

This is nothing new. Most larger businesses, including the one I work for, has something similar in the handbook. Even though, by Florida State law, you have the right to carry at your place of business, the employer has the right to fire you for doing it. Their job on their private property. Hazard of not being self-employeed. :scrutiny:

[CasualShooter]

Seems to me that if they are going to deny you your right to have the legal means to protect yourself, then they should assume the responsibility to provide that protection for you and also the related liability if they should fail to do so.

The key word here is liability as that is what they want to avoid.

Governments may enjoy immunity from liability in some areas. Not so for private employeers/private businesses.

If they can be convinced they have liability exposure as a result of denying you your rights, they will change their views pretty fast. :D

[Ala Dan]

Sounds like NORRED & ASSOCIATES* of Atlanta, GA !

*FootNote- I think they are speaking from their rear end,
cuz their darn mouth knows better !

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[sm]

This insanity got me to thinking. In my case my resident CCW is flagged on my DL, my non-res , no. I used to work at a hospital and I raised a stink when besides my SSN ( for payroll) they wanted my DL...started running background checks on all employees. I managed to get "around it", but I really don't know if one has a DL run by an employer ( has to use someone I'm sure) is the fact you have a CCW revealed ?

I hate all these people wanting and using SSN for Health , Employee, Student, and whatever ID. What next, flag your SSN , or use DL for everything too?.

Less meddlin' from gummit...and everybody else too...stop the insanity!

[glocksman]

Unfortunately, CCW information is considered public record in a lot of states. Despite the ability to embarrass antigun people who hold CCW, this needs to be changed.

CCW information should not be shared with any non governmental entity period.

Maybe I should write my state legislators on the issue.

[jimpeel]

In some states it is illegal for a person to devulge his status as a CCW holder. In some cases it is considered a form of "brandishment". Is that so in MN?

[XenaduKhan]

Well in Texas, you can mail the DPS specific names and birthdays, and they will mail you back and tell you whether or not those names correspond to CHL holders. But other than that, the rest of the info is private.

So in the case of Texas, I would assume that it is legal to tell people about your CHL. As for telling them your packing status, there is no prohibition against it.

[powerstrk]

What a bunch of Leftist Tripe, If they pulled that crap where I work they would lose 1/3 of our crew,and some upper management.

I swear this state is really something, sometimes it makes me glad that I was born in Michigan
:cuss:

[c_yeager]

Because federal law pre-empts state law

this alone pisses me off to no end. Why is it that the people who are least involved in the affairs of my state have the most power over it?

[greyhound]

Minnesota's leftist extremists are the nation's most determined sore losers.

Are they ever going to give up and shut up? This seems to be an almost "Holy Cause" with these sheeple, and I'm not sure that statistics like "one year into the law and no blood in the streets" will work with these folks.

Are they like this on every liberal/conservative issue? Or as Standing Wolf said, they're so used their winning ways since the 1960s that they're sore losers when they lose one?:cuss:

[Nightfall]

Because federal law pre-empts state law, an employer could argue that it is obligated under OSHA to provide a safe working environment and therefore...
...are obligated to insure that their employees are allowed to be armed to better defend themselves against violent criminals?

Hey, I can dream. :p

[Double Naught Spy]

What a bunch of paranoid fodder. Surrender your permit or be fired? Sorry, but that violates several laws in that you can't fire an employee for a not employment-related issue just like you can fire for religious beliefs, because of the car the employee drives, etc. Said fired employee will have no problem getting a nice settlement.

I think a bunch of y'all are getting upset under contrived circumstances that are not valid. Take a little time and review the personnel management law of your state and federal laws and I think you will find that this mythical firing of gun permit holders isn't valid on a variety of levels.

The employer does NOT have to let you carry a gun into the workplace, however, if that employer is not part of the government and if it is the government, there are particular laws that apply. Basically, while you may feel you have the Constitutional right to carry into your workplace, that is private property and the owner/mgmt has the right to determine activities conducted on their property including carrying of firearms. YOUR Constitutional right to carry a firearm does NOT trump another's rights, either as an individual or company. The employer does not have to let you hold religious services on the property either even though religion is part of your Constitutional rights.

Take some time and actually review the appropriate laws and I think you will have a better understanding as to what YOUR rights are and what the rights are of your EMPLOYER and then you will be better able to make the appropriate decisions pertaining to your particular work situation. The author of the article, Ross, may be involved in employment legal issues, but he is also one who profits from the lawsuits filed and I would guess he is playing on the fears of hypothetical events that might come to unfold without telling you up front in said paranoid article as to what your rights are. The plan is one of a scare tactic so that his firm can save your job or win a big settlement by providing legal help only AFTER they are contracted to work for you.

Note that Lonnie who started the thread has already stated that he is pissed off about this hypothecial event described by Ross. Lonnie is most pissed of, whether he knows it or not, because he does not actually understand his own rights or the rights of his employer. As such, he ends up being manipulated by Ross' article because of the ignorance.

[Gray Peterson]

The problem is that many of us live in states that allow firing for any reason or no reason at all.

You CAN be fired for reasons outside of work. Give me a few days, and I can find cases of gay people fired just because they were homosexual, even if they don't talk about their personal relationships, in states that do not have sexual orientation protection in their non-discrmination laws.

[F4GIB]

It's political. The Frederickson and Byron law firm has a long record of representing, often at no charge, anti-gun causes.

[Standing Wolf]

I've heard it's considerably more difficult to replace a life than a job.

[GSB]

I wonder what the public reaction would be if you replaced "permit holder" with "NAACP member" or "registered Democrat" in that article?:cuss:

[Waitone]

If you live and work in an "At Will" state, you are employed solely at the will of the employer and you can be fired for any reason that does not violate specified state and federales law. They don't have to specify a reason, it is just done.

People get fired for lots of reasons. People get fired for having medical bills that exceed a predetermined level. People get fired for not fitting in with the boss. People get fired for lots of reasons. If a company wants to fire you because of what you do off duty and off premises, that is their decision.

Deal with it. No one every said life was fair.

[TarpleyG]

That may very well be the case but a fired employee is also free to bring suit against that company and I know who I'd award in this case as a juror. Most companies won't take that chance.

GT

[dandean316]

Typical from these sore losers. These liberals couldn't get a Humphrey elected. Couldn't get a Mondale elected. Lost on the abortion 24 hour waiting period. The budget was balanced without tax increases, and CCW is law. They think the easiest target is CCW. It's just the first step to get back their liberal, socialist agenda.

[MeekandMild]

I would remind you good people one big reason that some ethnic minorities do well in this country is they don't patronize any business which is against them. They start their own businesses and they give them all their trade.

Other minorities continue to give their money away to those who oppose them and you see what it does for them. They live in ghettos and give away all their wealth.

The gun community needs to develop a more cohesive attitude, publish more of the anti's names and refuse to do business with them.

[GSB]

Deal with it. No one every said life was fair.

Right, back in line, maggot. Don't even mention the notion of right and wrong. What's right is what your corporate liege-lord tells you is right. So just shut up and get back to work, prole. What, did you think you were a human being with dignity or something? You're a cog, a nothing, you should just shut up and rejoice in the capricious whims of your Overlords! They own you! They own you at the office and outside the office. Heck, they should even be able to tell you what you can do with your wife in the bedroom. Heck, if your Corporate Master wants your daughter, deal with it and give her to him! No one ever said life was fair. Besides, you can always switch Overlords if you don't like it -- I mean, it's not like we lost 3 million jobs in the last few years or anything...

[Ala Dan]

Alabama is an "AT WILL" state !:( :uhoh:

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[hso]

The reference to the OSHA General Duty Clause is incorrect. GDC only applies to providing a safe workplace from the work perspective. If the facility is physically unsafe or the work practices result in exposing employees to unsafe conditions then GDC may be applied. OSHA would have to treat Winchester, Ruger, Wal Mart, and every little gun shop in the country as if it were manufacturing methyethyldeath to make a non-work issue like this work related. Thinking that Fed or State OSHA would involve themselves in such a non-work related issue is absurd.

[dandean316]

The gun community needs to develop a more cohesive attitude, publish more of the anti's names and refuse to do business with them.
I couldn't agree with you more. I remember in college this liberal would constantly go around telling people why they shouldn't spend their money at certain places because of their politics. It seemed odd at the time, but I do the same now. My wife needed some medical supplies at a pharmacy that was posted and I told her we'd go over to Target (who refused to post "No Guns" signs) instead. We did the right thing and saved some money to boot. Thing is, consumers follow the dollar, but I think it's time for the gun community (that includes hunters!) to make sure we spend our money that at the very least, won't infringe on our RKBA rights. And maybe even give a little to the local gun right organizations.