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

[Nateyboy]

I have a slight twist to this but it is still applicable.

I work for one of the larger national production home builders. At my orientation I was informed that the possession of firearms on my person or in my vehicle, which they assert can be searched at anytime, could result in my employment being terminated. This they can do, I assume, becuase they are paying me a car allowance. Aside from the streets of the neighborhood that I oversee every lot along with "common area" is owned by them.

Whatever the implications of the "car allowance" they say they pay me I will not allow my safety to be dictated by someone who is sitting in an office, with CC cameras and security doors to limit access to their building let alone office.

Here is why I say that they should not be allowed to extend a ban to my vehicle. The only time that I can be covered under their liability insurance is when I am on their property i.e. the lots they own not the streets. Once I am in my truck, title in my name with no company logo on it, I am once again driving on a public street operating a personal vehicle. Whatever claim they have on my vehicle stops when it is off of their property.

First time rant... please be gentle.

 

[stlgunfan]

North Carolina they can arrest u right if your employer bans guns on property?

I hear NC is not the best carry state because of all the restrictions.

Glad i live in MO. They cant arrest you for having a gun on property, or paking. Of course they can fire you for it though.

I work at a bank and of course like most other places i cant carry at work. They didnt tell us anything about our cars though, At orentation the HR presidents like, no weapons, knives allowed in the building, keep them in your car or home.

If I lived in NC when you cant legally store a gun at work, if I got injured, victim of a crime I WOULD sue the state, employer, everyone I could.

If I ever get injured in a robbery at work because I cant carry I WILL sue my employer for everything I can get.

Here in MO the laws are great. Its almost impossible for getting arrested for carrying in a posted area. Only Federal buildings, carrying on bus is a crime. The off limits places in missouri law says only a fine, and they can tell you to leave

 

[bluecowdawg]

WOW SKUNKAPE

You do know it all.I was gonna call you an a$$ but i looked at yer profile and realized you live in Detroit,extremely safe place to live ,so it does make sense that you have the opinion on this that you do ,what with all the fabulous gun laws and city ordinances against illegal guns yall got there in Detroit.Beasides if all the gun owners ,or ccw's quit their jobs because we don't agree with our employer's rules they would just hire illegal's to work.I will keep doing what i been doing and keep my busness to myself. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[bluecowdawg]

This is my last post on this thread.I'm really gettin tired of this back and forth crap,but here is a link that shows a prime example why we should not be restricted at our jobs.http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=224637

 

[Green Lantern]

cowdawg - LOL! Good (and sadly VALID) point, that if every CCW quit their job at an "anti" place, they'd hire illegal aliens to take our places!

stlgunfan - There are no "requirements" on signage, so any sign carries legal weight. However, my workplace is NOT posted. At the last safety meeting (we had at the urging of an employee - all the brass cares about is protecting the MERCHANDISE) we were told that we could not carry guns on our person. Didn't say a thing about cars. STILL, I fall into the "know someone who does" category, so it's still personal for me!

It was asked by someone on my side of the debate, here or at another gun board, why a male boss shouldn't be free to grope his female employees since they are working on HIS PROPERTY and they can always get another job...

I'll take it a step farther and add female CUSTOMERS to that example. After all, you're the "almighty lord and master of your sacred domain!" How dare they try to bring "sexual assault" charges against a property owner?! Don't you fools know that if she don't like me fondling her bazoongas that she can go shop somewhere else?!?!?



Like it or not, a line has to be drawn somewhere! Need I reference the fact that the 1st Amendment does not protect a doofus who yells "fire" in a crowded theater?

I think we ALL agree on the basis of that limit: "your rights end where mine begin!" It's just the definition of "where mine begin" that seems to be the sticking point, eh?

Let me quote Ms. Marion Hammer from the May '06 issue of America's First Freedom:

Florida citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms [and] carry firearms in private vehicles for lawful purposes. Those rights are well established in law and public policy.

Yet some corporate giants are violating those induvidual rights, claiming a constitutional right to control business property when no such blanket right exists. Corporate lobbysists have even claimed that businesses have the right to ban any personal property inside private vehicles, from guns to Bibles to bananas. That is nonsense.
.....

Constitutional rights do not, and indeed MUST not, end when you drive into a commercial parking lot. And business practices and polices do not supersede the constitutional or statutory rights of induvidual customers and employees.

Courts have ruled "An at-will employee may not be terminated for exercising constitutional rights." [Some employers] have executed searches of private vehicles and fired employees for exercising a constitutional right. This bill stops that illegal, abusive, and clearly unconstitutional conduct.

 

[Atticus]

The company I work for bans guns anywhere on the site. They also have signs on the doors banning CC. Every day a Brinks guy wears his gun into the building to pick up their/my cash to take to the bank. I won't carry in the building...but the trunk of my car? Screw em.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Since It Hasn't Been That Long...

...since the last thread(s) on this issue, I assume there are many still unaware of the differences between people and corporations.

People and corporations are treated similarly in some aspects of the law, but far from all. Corporations are a construct made possible by state law. People existed prior to the institution of governments. People have the right to institute governments to better serve themselves. Since corporations are a construct of government, corporations are two steps below people on the rights ladder.

The top rung is for us people, with rights. Everything below that only has powers we the people give them. We give the government powers to protect us from foreign invasion, to deliver the mail, make a few roads, and to try criminals. We gave the government powers to set guidelines for the formation of corporations so that people might pool assets and embark on endeavors too big for one person, and to protect people from liability. Therefore, CORPORATIONS ONLY HAVE THOSE POWERS GIVEN TO THEM BY LAW. CORPORATIONS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. EVEN WHERE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, CORPORATIONS ONLY HAVE THOSE POWERS AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THEM BY STATE LAW.

Here is a link to the latest [thread=216199]thread[/thread] about this issue. There are seven pages of comments, and, along with the comments here, I do believe one can find all they want to know about the subject.

The bottom line in all of this is that only people have rights. Governments only have powers that have been granted to them by the people. Anything a government creates can only have those powers delegated to it by the government. A government cannot grant rights to a corporation. A government does not have any rights to grant in the first place. Since our rights are inalienable, meaning we cannot divest ourselves of them, we cannot grant rights to a government, let alone grant rights to a government to pass on to a corporation!

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

 

[Green Lantern]

Excellent points, woodcdi. Of course - not every employer is a corporation...thus where things get sticky.

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit by starting another topic so soon, but besides discussion I was really curious as to where the people here stood. As I said in the other one, I was a bit taken aback at the number of people that opposed what was in my view much-needed legislation to stop the abuse of power by unreasonably anti-gun (and potentially unreasonably anti-ANYTHING) employers.

To be clear "unreasonable" is dictating what I may keep in my own private vehicle.

I guess that those that still oppose it are in turn taken aback that there are a great many of us that are willing to turn to the government if needed, to stop these actions....

 

[psychophipps]

I voted "yes" because they can fire you for it wether it's posted as a no-no or not.

Life sucks...deal,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

 

[tenbase]

Eh? It's amusing to be accused of "lacking in core principles" and "encouraging governments to pass and enforce laws that remove another individual's rights." by people who wish to exert control over my property simply because our respective properties happen to overlap for a period of time in the course of conducting business.

Either you believe in personal property rights or you don't. Claiming your rights are being taken away because you are not allowed to take away someone elses rights is flat out ridiculous. Either you allow employees to park their personal vehicles on your property, or you don't. If you allow employees to park on your property, then that's all there is to it...the lack of, or presence of a vehicle is your only concern. From the sheetmetal inward, is none of your business, because it does not belong to you. If you have trouble with this, then do not permit others to park on your land.

 

[Autolycus]

Yes they should. If you dont like it then you are more than happy to park off of my property or to find other employment.

Gun Rights are just as important as Property Rights.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Gun Rights are just as important as Property Rights.

Problem for companies is that only people have rights.

Excellent points, woodcdi. Of course - not every employer is a corporation...thus where things get sticky.

The law and principles are the same for partnerships, LLCs, S-corps, C-corps, or any other form of business, even for a sole proprietorship that has employees. If you are a sole proprietorship with no employees, it is a moot point.

Parking your vehicle on a company's property in an area set aside for parking vehicles is done so at the invitation of the employer. If a business does not want vehicles with guns in them on its property, it can do away with the parking lots.

Woody

 

[gm]

I said no.

I know a place that did enforce one such ban here in ohio, they had a private company come in and search an employees private vehicle.NO gun was found,
the source of the complaint was an antigunner that made her views known. Everyone was told to sign the new waiver to allow searches of any private property located on company property or be terminated from employment. Most just left.

 

[ptmmatssc]

OK , have read alot of differing opinions and just want to add my .02 . When I have company come to my homee-GunParts.com I tell them that I don't allow drugs or anything else that could be detrimental to my family in my house . That said , if it is in THIER vehicle , oh well , it's their personal property . I think the same should go for employers . What is in MY vehicle is MY concern . what enters THIER building is THIER concern . A former employer of mine prohibited smoking on company property EXLUDING inside privately owned vehicles . They understood it as a vehicle being private property and did not have a right to dictate what was kept in it , just as they could not dictate what was kept in ones home.


another thought on this is , if a company I work for wants to prohibit me from having a legal firearm in my car , I don't have a problem with it as long as they have a gated entrance ,roving armed security , and have an armed security person placed with me from my driveway to work and back .

 

[mljdeckard]

Is an employer going to take responsibility for items inside my vehicle if they are stolen? NO.

Does an employer who provides some degree of security in their private parking lot take responsibility for damage to your vehicle? NO.

Is an employer going to take responsibility for my safety at the convenience store I use between home and work? NO.

Does any employer really care about what is in my car? NO. (Their lawyer gave them a blanket HR safety policy to make everyone agree to to limit their liability in the event that someone DOES kill someone on their property. They only care about not getting sued.)

Is it always possible to park off-property? NO.

Can employers claim the right to search private vehicles? NO. (There are exceptions to this where people work in military or law enforcement related areas.)

Again, bottom line, keep it under the seat, keep your mouth shut, and think twice before pulling out your gun to defend someone on the property of an employer who would fire you for doing so.