Appeals Court rules against weapons at work..

[bg]

Fed Court upholds decision of lower court regarding bringing
weapons onto an employers property. Big loss as the Fed
court states this below. >

Article 2, Section 26 says: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person or property … shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."

Link below
http://www.occupationalhazards.com/articles/14725

 

[k_dawg]

yep, and notice with this massive assault against basic human rights are all but ignored by the leftoid media.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

The worst thing about this is the fact the the employees were not fired for CCW, but for having a gun locked in the trunk of their cars.

 

[Merkin.Muffley]

It's not the employees property their cars are parked on - if they don't like the rules their employer (who owns the property) makes, they should start their own business where they can make their own rules. If that doesn't work for them they should find someplace else to park their cars.

 

[dav]

Merkin... they were not told ahead of time that those WERE the rules.

 

[Merkin.Muffley]

Merkin... they were not told ahead of time that those WERE the rules.

It'd be unusual for a big corporation like Weyhauser to not inform employees of what behavior is acceptable. It often happens in a new employee orientation - and might have been missed, but I'm going to assume they were told. Anyway, they know the rules now.

 

[ARperson]

Gotta go with Merk on this one. (Honestly, how many large corporations actually allow "weapons" of any type to be on company property?)

I would agree that it is wrong to bring action against employees who weren't aware they were violating the rules (any proof they weren't aware?), but the ruling regarding the company's right to dictate the allowance of firearms on company property is right, IMO.

I don't like it, but it is private property.

 

[ArmedBear]

Yup.

If you want a steady paycheck, daily quittin' time before happy hour starts, health insurance, sick time and paid vacation days, count on giving up something in return. That's why I support anything that allows and encourages free enterprise. I don't think we should all HAVE to work for big companies.

You makes your choice, you pays your price, though.

 

[hso]

"The eight terminated employees argued that the Business Owner's Rights passage violated their constitutional right to bear arms, but the appeals court disagreed."

I don't think that was the point they should have based their case on. The employer controls the premisis they can establish such a rule as firearms not being permitted. Much better would have been a wrongful termination based on absence of training to inform the employees of this company rule.

My company has such a rule. I would not park my vehicle in a company parking lot under the circumstances.

 

[HerrWolfe]

Perhaps one of these days: (20-20 foresight by the Oklahoma legislature in the Oklahoma Self Defense Act ) It would be in everyones' best interests, including the company, if employees had the right to keep firearms in the trunks of their cars. Oklamoma Self Defense Act is one giant step in the right direction; hopefully they will win over the self centered interests of those opposed.
I am so surprised at Oklahoma. They get one great big that-a-boy. Lived there for two years and swore I would never go back or through there again. With forward thinking like this, might have to reconsider! It might have become a people place again.

 

[Nitrogen]

If the weapons were in the car's trunk, how did the company know they were there?

 

[GTSteve03]

I don't like it, but it is private property.

So are all other rights allowed to be violated while on someone else's private property, then?

Just curious.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The inside of one's car is the same as the inside of one's home, except it can travel from place to place. The law should recognize this. So long as the firearm does not leave the locked car, the inside of the car should be sacrosanct.

 

[Herself]

+100, Real Hawkeye! Simply using the employer's lot does not imply consenting to a search.

--H

 

[Langenator]

So are all other rights allowed to be violated while on someone else's private property, then?

The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to private entities on their own property.

If you want to be on my land, I don't have to listen to you speak, I don't have to allow you to practice your religion, if I want to search you and anything you want to bring with you, I can, and I don't have to allow you to bring along anything I don't want on my land-dogs, booze, guns, whatever.

If you don't like my conditions, you can just stay off my land.

My opinion is that the NRA made a silly decision in trying to go the legal route on this one-any strategy pitting one right against another (RKBA vs private property) isn't a fight you want to start.

If they want to change Weyerhauser's policy, things like ad campaigns and boycotts would have been the way to go.

 

[ArmedBear]

The inside of one's car is the same as the inside of one's home, except it can travel from place to place. The law should recognize this. So long as the firearm does not leave the locked car, the inside of the car should be sacrosanct.

That is true IMO, but different states have differing laws about this. I believe that some states DO recognize the interior of one's car as being equivalent to the interior of one's home, with all the same rights regarding search and seizure, self-defense, etc.

 

[ArmedBear]

If the weapons were in the car's trunk, how did the company know they were there?

I understand they were searching cars using tracking dogs.

A boycott and PR campaign would be a good thing here. "Weyerhauser fires hunters" would be a really ugly bit of PR in some parts of the country.

 

[Langenator]

AFAIK, the situtation of the interior of a car being treated, legally, as the same as the interior of one's home only applies to search by state actors-ie, the police or other law enforcement.

The problem here is, you're bringing your mobile 'home' onto the private property of another.

Property owners have the right to control what items are or are not allowed on their private property, not matter how they may be transported or contained.

 

[JMusic]

hso is dead on. Our company has the same rules for weapons. None on the premises. Unlike many companies though we have not authorized any manager the powers to search a vehicle. Since I manage the plant I was part of this decision. I don't believe anyone would welcome their vehicle searched without a good reason by management or LE. My criteria would be "probable cause" and frankly if a vehicle was deemed necessary to search I would have the SO and the employee there to witness.
Jim

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

AFAIK, the situtation of the interior of a car being treated, legally, as the same as the interior of one's home only applies to search by state actors-ie, the police or other law enforcement.

The problem here is, you're bringing your mobile 'home' onto the private property of another.

Property owners have the right to control what items are or are not allowed on their private property, not matter how they may be transported or contained.

This is not entirely true. You cannot, for instance, have a policy against employees with severe allergies to insect bites possessing a hypo full of epinephrine in their vehicles. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen, legally speaking, if this policy was enforced and an employee died because of an insect bite, due to not having said hypo? A firearm is similarly a legitimate piece of life saving emergency equipment. How many innocent lives are saved annually because someone had a firearm nearby? So long as it remains inside of a locked vehicle, the employer should not be able to interfere with it.

 

[Cosmoline]

It would be humorous to see how well these corporate regulations work when a disgruntled employee comes in to go on a shooting spree. I'm sure he'll cease fire as soon as the regs are read to him.

 

[MGshaggy]

This is not entirely true. You cannot, for instance, have a policy against employees with severe allergies to insect bites possessing a hypo full of epinephrine in their vehicles. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen, legally speaking, if this policy was enforced and an employee died because of an insect bite, due to not having said hypo? A firearm is similarly a legitimate piece of life saving emergency equipment. How many innocent lives are saved annually because someone had a firearm nearby? So long as it remains inside of a locked vehicle, the employer should not be able to interfere with it.

My guess is that the ADA probably prohibits an employer from preventing an employee from possessing necessary medical devices on the work site. However, I haven't researched the ADA, so if it doesn't I see no other reason why the employer couldn't preclude the possession of syringes on their property. It might not be smart, and it may result in civil liability, but thats their decision to make.

As to possession of a firearm in a locked car, its still on the employer's property. How many innocent lives are saved by guns is completely irrelevant to the issue of private property rights and who can control what goes on within the bounds of their property. Whether the gun is locked in the car, strapped to the roof, or hidden in a holster on the individual employee, if its physically located within the bounds of the employer's property, the employer should have the right to dictate the rules. Your Constitutional rights in this case don't override their private property rights. Constitutional rights are protections against the government, not private actors like a company. The BoR provides no protections against anyone but the government or a state actor. Thus, since you have no right to carry on their property, and they own the property, they can set the rules.

Personally, while I think a company shouldn't prohibit the possession of legally carried firearms on their property, I'd fully support their right to do so. Would you like it if the government forced you to allow anti-gun protestors on your property to protest in exercise of their 1st Amendment rights?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

My guess is that the ADA probably prohibits an employer from preventing an employee from possessing necessary medical devices on the work site. However, I haven't researched the ADA, so if it doesn't I see no other reason why the employer couldn't preclude the possession of syringes on their property. It might not be smart, and it may result in civil liability, but thats their decision to make.

As to possession of a firearm in a locked car, its still on the employer's property. How many innocent lives are saved by guns is completely irrelevant to the issue of private property rights and who can control what goes on within the bounds of their property. Whether the gun is locked in the car, strapped to the roof, or hidden in a holster on the individual employee, if its physically located within the bounds of the employer's property, the employer should have the right to dictate the rules. Your Constitutional rights in this case don't override their private property rights. Constitutional rights are protections against the government, not private actors like a company. The BoR provides no protections against anyone but the government or a state actor. Thus, since you have no right to carry on their property, and they own the property, they can set the rules.

Personally, while I think a company shouldn't prohibit the possession of legally carried firearms on their property, I'd fully support their right to do so. Would you like it if the government forced you to allow anti-gun protestors on your property to protest in exercise of their 1st Amendment rights?

I think their needs to be a balance of property rights here, since there are clearly two property interests involved. The car is also property, and you do not seem to be willing to give this any consideration in the law. This is what I believe to be a balance which adequately, even fully, recognizes both property interests here; the real estate owner has the option of preventing ANY and ALL vehicles from entering his property, including those of all of his employees. If he should decide, however, to allow employees to enter, he may not violate the private space inside the vehicles themselves, which is also someone's private property. This gives full recognition to BOTH property interests. No one is holding a gun to the employer's head requiring him to allow cars on his property, and no one is forcing the employees to surrender the privacy of the interior of their vehicle, which is also private property.

 

[MGshaggy]

I think their needs to be a balance of property rights here, since there are clearly two property interests involved. The car is also property, and you do not seem to be willing to give this any consideration in the law. This is what I believe to be a balance which adequately, even fully, recognizes both property interests here; the real estate owner has the option of preventing ANY and ALL vehicles from entering his property, including those of all of his employees. If he should decide, however, to allow employees to enter, he may not violate the private space inside the vehicles themselves, which is also someone's private property. This gives full recognition to BOTH property interests. No one is holding a gun to the employer's head requiring him to allow cars on his property, and no one is forcing the employees to surrender the privacy of the interior of their vehicle, which is also private property.

True, but the employer can condition employment upon the employee doing certain things. It may be wearing a certain uniform, performing a certain task, showing up to work at a certain time, and abiding by various other terms and conditions of employment. Not carrying a weapon on company property and not possessing one in your vehicle (if the vehicle is located on company property) are such terms. If you don't like the terms of employment, you find a job elsewhere that has rules more suited to you. If you chose to work there you consent to their terms.

 

[Jeff White]

Langenator is right. This was a very stupid fight to pick. No one is required to work at Weyerhauser or any other place. If you don't like the company policy (and I don't) you work to have it changed. But you don't tell anyone what they have to allow on their private property.

The Real Hawkeye said;

This is not entirely true. You cannot, for instance, have a policy against employees with severe allergies to insect bites possessing a hypo full of epinephrine in their vehicles.

And what good would their epinephrine kit do them in their vehicle? I think that if you kept epinephrine kits with the other first aid supplies in the plant you could get by with banning it's possession.

You have no rights on private property other then what the property owner wants to let you have.

Jeff