Should an employer be allowed to extend a CCW ban to include employee vehicles?

[c_yeager]

My car MAY be on their property, by the car is still MY property, I make payments on it, I make repairs on it, I maintain the insurence on it. Ergo, If my property (gun) is housed within my property (my car), parked in an open unsecured area (their parking lot) why does their property rights trump mine?

You made the choice to put your car on their property. That choice is what makes their property rights trump yours. If you were somehow forced to park your vehicle there it might be different, but probably not since you do get to choose your employer.

 

[enfield]

If you're parking on the employer's property, yes, he has the right to ban firearms in your car. If you're not, no.

 

[wuchak]

It seems that the car is their property when I park there with regards to weapons, but my property when something happens to it. Can't have it both ways. If my car can't be guaranteed to be safe because its "personal property", then I should be able to store what I want in it.

Great point!

 

[Thefabulousfink]

A big +1 to 50caliber123,

And if private property is private property can an employer post a sign that says No Christians, or No Jews? Can he force all his employees to sign a document renouncing their religious beliefs because he doesn't want those beliefs on his property?

If the owner has complete control of his property, does that mean that I can walk around my company and grab every womans' behinds, if they don't like it they can just quit, right???

In your home you are the master, but if you run a business you have to respect the rights of the people who work for you. You are NOT the lord and they are NOT your slaves. When they come to work, their property DOES NOT BECOME YOUR PROPERTY until they leave.

Yes, property owners do have the right to govern their property, but just like other rights they stop when they infringe the rights of other people.

Your right to "Feel Safe" can not infringe my RKBA

When a property owner opens a business and employes other people his property becomes semi-public since those people are obligated to show up for work. The owner's rights still dominate the property, but he has to repsect the rights of his employees to a reasonable degree.

 

[tenbase]

Serious, honest questions, and I realize some are strawmen/require book-length answers:

Can an employer take an employees car keys and drive the employees vehicle around the company-owned property?

Can an employer claim they are not liable for damages to a personal vehicle while it is parked on company property?

Do I get to make whatever rules I want regarding my private property when it comes to my vehicle and its contents, or only if I am a business and/or landowner?

Do property rights regarding real estate supercede those of things that move around?

Does my vehicle become company property for the 9 hours a day its parked at the office, or does it remain "sovereign"?

I've held both positions on this issue at one time or another, I am just genuinely curious as to why people feel a certain way, not why Law X or Regulation Y permits/forbids it. When I was in the military, Uncle Sam could permit/ban just about anything and search my vehicle/dorm room at any time while on base, but I am more interested in the civilian world.

 

[Helstrm]

My state law says that I can not "Carry" a handgun on private prperty without permission from the owner of said property. However it also states that anyone can keep a gun in their car providing it is in the trunk, glove box or center console, unless you are on School property, Therefore I have the right to have a gun in my car.

The moment I get in my car I put my holster on and carry. I do not beleive anyone has the right to tell my I can not have a gun in my car to protect myself and my family in the event I am carjacked or I break down.

I have heard the argument that disgruntled employees could just walk out to the parking lot and bring the gun in. Well that same employee could run to walmart at lunch and pickup a shotgun, or go by the pawn shop ect... So does this mean that as an employee you are not allowed to leave the property until your shift is over and then you can't come back?

 

[wuchak]

50calibers123 post mentioning working at a large retail store with a no weapons policy made me think of something.

Let's say you work for a store with a no weapons policy that is part of a complex, think strip mall, that includes other stores. How could a distiction be made between the parking spaces that are for your employer and those that are for the other stores? Since stores don't restrict customers from having firearms in their vehicles all that should be necessary is park at the other end of the lot from your employer, makes it hard for them to claim that spot is for their store, and say you were going shopping at one of the other stores after work.

 

[tenbase]

good point...there are about 6 or 7 businesses in the building I work in, and everyone shares the parking lot. Heck, one of them is a gunsmith

However, the entire building and surrounding parking lot is owned by one man. I guess this now gets us into property owners vs tenants vs employees

 

[Helstrm]

I just remebered, today would be a bad day for my employer to start checking cars.... I went to the range last night so I have an AK47+ammo, FAL+ammo and 2 .45 1911s....

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Tenbase,

I believe that the owner can set resonable policy for his property (even no firearms), and if I am working for them I will do my best to follow it. However, my car is my property and just like an employer can't go into my car and take my chewing gum, he can't go into it and take my firearm.

I'll respect the empolyer's property rights and not carry my gun but he has to respect my right to keep it in my car since it is legal to do so everywhere else in the state.

 

[TheShadow]

c_Yeager and others saying it is in the company rights, let's do a simple problem, that'll answer your own questions. Your car is parked in a parking lot that is used by your employer. Said parking lot is not controlled or monitored, like many. The next place to park (legally), is over a half mile away. While you're inside working, your car is broken into, and the car stereo is stollen, along with what ever odds and ends you have in the glove box, console, etc.

Now here's my question, who's insurence pays, yours or your employer?

Likewise, what is operational impact to the employer what I have in my car (or as we called in in the military a POV, Personally Owned Vehicle)?

As you can see by these simple questions, the employer has no skin in the game when it comes to the content of my vehicle, ergo should have no say of what is in it.

 

[c_yeager]

It is still your car, securing the contents is still your responsibility, you dont have to place it in their lot, you can walk half a mile, take a cab, arrange a carpool, or take a bus, or simply get a new new job that doesnt have a no-guns policy.

If your employer enacts a "no guns in cars" policy", you are consenting to that rule every time you park your car on their property.

 

[Master Blaster]

I have been out of school and working for 23 years now I have worked for about 5 different employers in that time. I have been laid off by two of those employers.

In this time I have learned this.

I owe my employer my full attention to my job, I owe them the best product I can produce while I am on the job. They owe me my paycheck and benefits for the time I worked, and they owe me respect.

Your employer is not your friend, they are not your family, if you think that they are and your relationship with them goes beyond the obligations mentioned above, you are in for a RUDE AWAKENING.

I will never let an employer tell me what to do with my family, my person/body, My car, home or pets. They will never tell me what to do when I am off the job, EVER.

I do not expect them to provide me with either SAFETY or SECURITY, that is my responsibility.

I ALSO ABSOLUTELY DO not expect them to restrict my ability to protect myself, since they sure won't do it for me.

 

[neoncowboy]

To me, this is one of those issues that show the hypocrisy of many gun owners. Your gun right trumps my property rights? That's how you stand up for freedom and individual rights? It's my property, and I'll make whatever rules I want, thank you. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to come onto my property.

+1

'Should an employer be allowed to...'? Allowed by who? Who owns the parking lot? Are you suggesting that someone (the government, presumably) should intervene to force the property owner to adopt policies they don't want?

If an employer (or any other parking lot owner) wants to specify rules for operations conducted on their property...isn't it a fundamental of property rights that they should be able to?

Working for such an employer is optional.

 

[tenbase]

I share your opinion, TFF. I fully respect my employers property rights as long as they understand I have property rights as well, they can coexist just fine despite the yes/no nature of this thread. An employer should expect his parking area to host numerous vehicles that do not belong to him over the course of a typical workday, unless he provides his employees with company-owned vehicles.

This is just one of the compromises that must be made in the course of running a business. If someone would rather play fort with their property, perhaps performing work which requires hiring outside help (who will most likely arrive in their own vehicles) is not their best option.

Providing a parking area so employees/customers can readily perform their duties/give you money, and then asserting sweeping control over the contents of their vehicles under the guise of enforcing your property rights, is hypocritical.

Knowing this, if they do not wish to provide a parking area for employees and customers as some of the vehicles may contain something they don't like, that is their perogative.

In my opinion, my employers property rights end at my tire contact patches, just as my property rights end when the door clicks shut. I am not trespassing, my truck belongs to me, therefore I believe I retain property rights over my vehicle.

I should really get back to work, I'm on company time

 

[Green Lantern]

No matter how we disagree with the underlying logic, property owners are and should be free to decide who/what is on their property.

I agree 100% - with my car being the property!

I seriously doubt that any employer could otherwise get away with searching or dismissing for refusal otherwise.

LOL! ...well, maybe you don't have "at-will" employment in your state? Unless there's a contract involved, you can leave at any time and they can fire you at any time - for any or no reason.

But, if an employee, whom the employer allowed to carry a gun, did something, you have a potential lawsuit against the business owner.

Again...it's not about being able to CARRY the gun...

 

[ProguninTN]

tenbase

In my opinion, my employers property rights end at my tire contact patches, just as my property rights end when the door clicks shut. I am not trespassing, my truck belongs to me, therefore I believe I retain property rights over my vehicle.

I agree with tenbase. The parking lot may belong the boss, but the car and its contents are mine. I don't suppose the employer is going to escort me to and from work ? (More reason for compromise, I won't take guns in the building, but they will be in the car.) Besides, guns are just the beginning. How do I know they won't declare all the items in my toolbox dangerous, and ban them ?

 

[Thefabulousfink]

I suppose we are missing the REAL issue.

Most companies that have these policies aren't anti-gun
They were probably handed a list of policies by their lawyers and told "we need these to cover our a##." Companies are less afraid of an employee "going postal" than they are of some one sueing the company after the incident for not having the "firearms clause."

The REAL problem is that we live in such a lawsuit-happy society that companies have to make these policies to CYA. When it gets to court, it no longer matters that shooting people was illegal b/c the shooter isn't the one with the $$.

If Judges started saying "This lawsuit is ridiculous, get out of my court" then I bet 90% of these companies wouldn't have any sort of firearms policy other than "no shooting on company property"

 

[Soybomb]

Wow you can tell where freedom stops at the highroad....

If you're on your employers property they should be able to call the shots. None of this well its in my car its a safe zone even if its parked on your property business. Wouldn't this just extend to your pants pockets also since they are your property?

If you don't like the rules, park on the street. Taking away someone's right to decide what happens on their property just because you don't like what they might choose is quite sad.

 

[gezzer]

You have the right to resign or quit. More firearms owners need to practice this when they cannot hire employees they will rethink their position.

 

[wuchak]

Private property is just that, private, where nobody has any reason to be on the property unless given explicit permission by the property owner. Property used to conduct a business is no longer private, nor is is public. I would say it is quasi-private. The property owner has voluntarily opened up their property to others for commercial purposes and in doing so has relinquished a portion of their rights to control what takes place on their property. Once business is conducted on the property the owner has to comply with the regulations from OSHA, the ADA, and many other regulatory agencies and laws that will not only tell the property owner what they can no longer do on their private property as a condition of continuing to conduct business there but will give them a list of things they must do. If the property owner does not wish to comply with these regulations they can cease commercial operations since nobody is forcing them to be in business.

The property owner, by opening up their property to commerce, also has an obligation to respect the rights of those individuals who voluntarily enter the property, whether it be as at-will employees or as at-will customers. When the rights of the property owner conflict with the rights of the individuals it is up to the courts to decide which takes precidence and up to the legislatures to craft laws that will govern these areas of conflict along with any required penalities for violations.

The only reason that in some states companies are allowed to ban firearms in their parking lots is that the companies have donated heavily to the campaigns of the politicians who wrote the laws favoring them. Just like any other issue where the interests of large corporations conflict with those of indviduals it is usually the corporations who win, at least in the short term, due to their financial resources.

 

[tuckerdog1]

I voted NO. They deprive me of the ability to protect myself during the drive to & from work, should my car break down, or I just become the target of some highway jerk. My employer is over the top on this subject. Termination, no questions, no excuses. But they also ban just about any other form of personal protection. Even non lethal ones like those had held tasers & pepper spray. Really pisses me off, but been there too long & too close to retirement to leave.

Tuckerdog1

 

[SkunkApe]

Since you seem to know so much then what would you suggest i do,put my family at risk and carry on my employers prop.anyway and take a chance on getting fired,or put my family at risk by not carrying when i go to work ,which is 6 days a week,and take a chance on being injured or killed if some situation comes up and i am unable to protect myself and then not be around for them.HUH Skunkape

I'd suggest that you do the same thing you do whenever you are unhappy with some aspect of your employment (wages, working conditions, hours, etc.); decide if the benefits outweigh the negatives. If not; quit.

And if private property is private property can an employer post a sign that says No Christians, or No Jews? Can he force all his employees to sign a document renouncing their religious beliefs because he doesn't want those beliefs on his property?

Yes. Rights should not be waived under certain specific circumstances, even if those circumstances are abhorrent to most. You should be able to make whatever rules you want on your own property, as long as it doesn't involve force.

If the owner has complete control of his property, does that mean that I can walk around my company and grab every womans' behinds, if they don't like it they can just quit, right???

No, that behavior involves force and is physcial assault. Unless, of course, it's consensual and agreed upon by all involved parties.

Yes, property owners do have the right to govern their property, but just like other rights they stop when they infringe the rights of other people.

Wrong. There is no infringement without force (or fruad). People are free to work for a particular company, or not.

Private property rights for the home are not the same as those for a business that has opened up the property to the public for commerce. As soon as the property is opened to the public the property owner's rights end where they infringe on the individual rights of the people entering the property.

That's really the key point. I think private property is private property, period. You don't lose any of your rights to because you choose to voluntarily do business with some people. If you believe that private property somehow becomes non-private, or public, or semi-private just because business is conducted there, then all bets are off.

Once business is conducted on the property the owner has to comply with the regulations from OSHA, the ADA, and many other regulatory agencies and laws that will not only tell the property owner what they can no longer do on their private property as a condition of continuing to conduct business there but will give them a list of things they must do.

I happen to think those things are wrong, too. If believe that a business owner can't tell you not to bring a gun onto his property, you'd darn well better not object to OSHA requirements, or requirements of the American with Disabilities ACT, or any of the various no-smoking in the workplace rules. At least not on principle.

What I see here is typical of what I see everywhere. Most people are lacking in core principles, and approach every individual issue with the intent of finding some justification that supports their own self-interest.

People supposedly in favor of less government who, for their own personal benefit,encourage governments to pass and enforce laws that remove another individual's rights.

 

[Green Lantern]

'Should an employer be allowed to...'? Allowed by who? Who owns the parking lot? Are you suggesting that someone (the government, presumably) should intervene to force the property owner to adopt policies they don't want?

What would happen if a business owner decide he didn't want any Jews in his workplace? "They can change religion or work somewhere else" - ?

How about Blacks/Asians/Mexicans et cetera? - "They can change....well, they can't change their race but they can work somewhere else!" - ?

Of course, in this day and age you aren't likely to encounter such things in real life. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where discriminating against gun owners wasn't the "socially acceptable" postition to take instead of supporting them or being one?

Of course, fink makes a good point out there that it's more about liability than gun-hating.

Wouldn't this just extend to your pants pockets also since they are your property?

:banghead:

For the 800th time, NO!

Read...again:
Gun under lock and key in car
Gun in your waistband while you're inside the building

Not the same!

 

[garyk/nm]

I believe that one of the primary sticking points here is that employers who ban guns in employee vehicles do not apply the same rules to customers/ visitors/ contractors. If a property owner wishes to assert their right to control what is allowed on their property, then that control should extend to all parties. Otherwise you run into that "arbitrary and capricious" thingy.
If a business owner wishes to keep all guns off the property, fine, just post the parking lot.