Firearm prohibitions with regards to non-law enforcement government employees

[orpington]

What are your thoughts with regards to the following?:

FIREARM PROHIBITIONS
A. Under no circumstances are regulated industry personnel or other individuals allowed to bring firearms into a Government office or any worksite unless Federal, state, or local laws (example: law enforcement officers) permit such entry.
B. Employees may not possess firearms in any laboratory, office, Government-owned vehicle, privately-owned vehicle used while on official Government business, or official worksite.

(A) specifically prohibits the concealed carry of firearms when a Federal employee is on the job (not law enforcement), and (B) prohibits not only the possession of a firearm in a Government-owned vehicle, but also, in your privately owned vehicle while on official Government business.

Do others find this as objectionable as I do? I would have no reason to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise; however, the fact that liberties are restrained is what I find objectionable, especially that which I placed in italics.

Are there similar prohibitions in private industry?

 

[RustyShackelford]

My state....

A few years back, my state which is mostly 2A + and has 1000s of licensed CCW holders, passed a statue saying private employers or firms could not prevent authorized employees(workers) from having loaded firearms in their private vehicles.
I think there were a few limited exceptions; prisons, jails, medical centers, courts, highway patrol barracks, police stations, power plants/utility control stations, etc.
College students or state university employees could keep guns in their vehicles too on campus but they could not open carry or CCW even if they held valid W licenses.
My state and Gov also put statues in place that prevented smaller county/city officials from posting no firearm or no weapon signs on public property. These posted signs were not valid and could not be enforced per state law/AG.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Private industry, for the most part, falls under the laws having to do with private citizen owners...if they don't prohibit or don't post otherwise, then carry is OK.

Some states have certain laws over some types of organizations and businesses. For example, it is illegal for me, even with a CCW permit, to carry a concealed firearm into a hospital or any other medical facility, even if they're privately owned. NC and VA do not have these same restrictions.


As for firearms federal employees...I'm a federal employee and have to deal with this issue daily. That's one of the choices I live with in order to have this job.

 

[Bo]

I'm also a federal employee. I don't like the idea that I can't keep a firearm in my vehicle.
Actually, the rule is, you can have a firearm in your vehicle, you just can't park on federal property. Problem is, if you work in a major metropolitan city, there's no other place to park.
I don't think it's right that the government can regulate what I can carry back and forth to work.

 

[Thermactor]

I think it depends from state to state with regards to private employer-mandated restrictions on firearms.

I don't know what the truth is but at an old job (defense contractor) I heard some hotshot West Point manager proclaim that it's a government facility and that they can and will check everybody's cars at will.

I bet half the people there kept guns in their cars!

At my current job, the employer also does government contract work and they have the same blanket ban - but I didn't hear anything about the parking lot. Again, I'm certain that there are no small quantity of guns in the cars there. One of the buildings I worked at was posted (no guns) at all entrances, the current building isn't. The employee handbook, like all employee handbooks, says you can't have any weapons on the job. However, since particular building IS NOT posted with those odious no guns allowed, I don't think that you could be charged with anything if you're caught carrying - just maybe fired or something.

Disclaimer: I do not purport to carry any weapon to any of the above mentioned places, and I stand for obeying the law.

 

[orpington]

I will clarify that I am a Federal employee and this is in a Directive issued by the Agency. Disclaimer: I abide by the rules, and really don't need to conceal carry on the job, but I do object to being told one cannot have a weapon on them, in a government facility (this goes against concealed carry rights), in a Government vehicle (even more offensive to me), AND in a privately owned vehicle vehicle while on official government business (downright reprehensible!!!). Okay, maybe if one entered a facility that contained a guard shack and where every vehicle is inspected upon entry, which was the case at a facility I worked at following the terrorist attacks in 2001, it might not be a good idea to have a firearm, even if allowed, because you would likely have to give a lengthy explanation as to why you have it, IF IT WERE allowed, BUT I don't know why your liberties must be infringed upon if you are in your own personal vehicle and park on private property while conducting official Government business???? Why is that anyone else's business?

 

[danez71]

Are there similar prohibitions in private industry?

Absolutely.

 

[Tirod]

Goes to the overreaching bureaucracies and even legislatures making decisions based on not trusting the citizen.

MO had no CCW in churches. Since when does the State have any Constitutional authority to make that decision? On the other hand many do, ushers are posted during certain events in a quiet manner, and some pastors preach while carrying.

The law does carve out an exception when the pastor allows it. The difficulty is where does he have that authority, too? Not every church dispenses that authority over the grounds, buildings, and domain to him. The organization of the church body determines who retains that authority.

Case in point, a former church I was a member of had the grounds and buildings given to another church upon retirement of the pastor and chief deacon. All nice and legal as the church body had voted that authority to them earlier, never considering the possibility.

Just the same as we let our various governments.

The issue is that we hire and elect persons to help oversee the community governance, and the prime directive is to prevent evil. Police, fire, etc. Clean water. Safe driving. But, like any other human organization, they have to prove they are doing the job, and as new issues come up, they make new laws. All to control the "aberrant" behavior of other citizens who they disagree with.

So, twenty years ago, it was pretty hard to even CCW at all. Now, not so much, but certain people who think they have to safeguard the people keep coming up with ways that appear to do it.

As mentioned, when confronted with policy, even law that prevents the exercise of our freedoms, some choose to embrace their Constitutional 2A rights over obeying an illegal law. That it hasn't been determined illegal does not mean it isn't. And the citizen retains the final authority - to obey, or not, and his intent is exactly what will be judged in a court of law.

So, no, you don't deliberately propose to violate the law, ever. And saying you would, verbally or in a post in a thread on the internet IS admissable in a court of law should such a situation arise. Therefore, if someone did UNintentionally possess a firearm in a situation where a government entity made an unConstitutional and illegal policy against the right to keep and bear arms, it should just go to an oopsy. No intent. Sorry about that, won't happen again.

Of course it could go to just being a lot more careful, which is exactly the problem those who are outed seem to have. They are CARE LESS, and create issue for the rest of us prior to an organized change in the law.

Those changes are ongoing, don't screw things up with any admission of your intent or opposition to it. It's the law, get over it.

BTW, our forum policy is to never recommend an illegal act. So it goes.

 

[Ankeny]

Are there similar prohibitions in private industry?

Sure, even in a state as firearms friendly as Wyoming. A good example is firearms around poison gas wells in the gas patch. As far as Uncle Sam banning firearms in your vehicle while on govt. business, you are still on their dime, maybe even getting mileage. While I do find it an infringement, you can always just quit.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Remember, the wording of the Bill of Rights always starts with "Congress shall make no law..." which does not mean the private property owners, businesses, or bureaucracies (although I think the founders would have started another revolution if they knew how much governance is regulated by bureaucracies today) cannot make their own rules pertaining to their properties. I believe that any taxpayer owned and funded property should take a larger measure of what the OWNERS, (taxpayers) wishes are before instituting rules that infringe on the liberties of said owners. A good example would be school districts who refuse to allow school facilities to be rented for religious or political events.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

EVERYONE in this country has their right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. While I believe that the FBI is not and should not be utilized as law enforcement, FBI personnel have the same RKBA as the rest of us. Same as the people working for any other agency of the Feral Government regardless of the constitutionality of the agency. And, they should supply their own guns. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Feral Government the power to arm anyone other than the military and the militia.

Woody

 

[BSA1]

Well for starters don't use your POV for Government business.

 

[orpington]

I don't, as I have a GOV. But, it seems a bit restrictive to govern the use of your personal vehicle when on government business.

 

[Tony k]

Orpington, is the text in your op law, regulation, or policy? As far as I can tell, the only law that restricts dangerous weapons in federal facilities is 18usc930, which has specific exemptions that are routinely ignored when agencies write regulations and policies.

My point is that agencies, agency officials, and federal employees make mistakes when it comes to lots of stuff, especially the interpretation of laws. They make policy or regulation that is not supported, or is contradictory to, an actual LAW. Then they enforce those regulations and polices until they are challenged on them.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'm also a federal employee. I don't like the idea that I can't keep a firearm in my vehicle.
Actually, the rule is, you can have a firearm in your vehicle, you just can't park on federal property. Problem is, if you work in a major metropolitan city, there's no other place to park.
I don't think it's right that the government can regulate what I can carry back and forth to work.

I suppose I COULD part outside the gates at the shipyard. But the area outside the shipyard gates isn't someplace I want to routinely park my vehicle, if you know what I mean.

 

[Twiki357]

Although I disagree with it, I do understand the restrictions in certain Federal/State government buildings, but NOT in parking and other “open” areas accessible to the general public.

 

[orpington]

Likewise, I DO understand prohibitions in Federal or other government buildings, but I do NOT understand the prohibitions within a vehicle, especially one that is a personal vehicle that is used to perform government business. Assignment of a government vehicle is based on mileage, and, in my case, my mileage is significant enough to require it. It is often the case that mileage is not significant enough to warrant a government vehicle (amongst other reasons for not being assigned one) in which case one would use one's personal vehicle and seek reimbursement for mileage incurred. Is it legal to prohibit concealed carry in a personal vehicle, or even a government vehicle, for that matter??? I don't know. Probably NOT. But, just like with other things, policy becomes practice. I mean, we have regulations to enforce (most of which are, if not downright ridiculous, a bit overboard), a chain of command to follow, etc. Do we necessarily agree with that? Probably no, but we do need means of employment, and there, of course, needs to be some sort of standard or basis to follow. However, although I do not see a need to conceal carry in my current job capacity, and do not do so, of course, it just seems ridiculous to regulate whether or not one chooses to conceal carry during their working hours, especially with regards to carrying within a vehicle.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Although I disagree with it, I do understand the restrictions in certain Federal/State government buildings, but NOT in parking and other “open” areas accessible to the general public.

Actually...I don't.

What's the difference between an office job in a government facility with respect to an office job in a civilian facility? What's the difference between an engineering job on a government facility with respect to an engineering job in a civilian facility?

In non-sensitive areas where physical security restrictions are not in place to provide actual physical security against certain government assets, there is no difference.

I will at least say this: the naval shipyard where I work at has its own physical security, including armed guards. And any time spent nuclear fuel or new nuclear fuel is actually being moved, there are extra armed Marine contingents in place every step of the way. So at least at this federal facility there are actually armed security forces in place specifically tasked to provide armed physical security to the facility.

But other federal facilities, such as Post Office buildings, tax buildings, government office facilities...I don't agree with disarming the people who work there.

 

[rhinoh]

The government has some odd rules- back in the late 70's I had a job that required occasional entry to the US Navy base in Charleston SC.
I had to stop at the gate of course and being an amateur radio operator with a rig installed in my car- I had to remove and leave the microphone with them!
Likewise when portable cellphones first came into common use some government facilities didn't allow them either. In fact a dozen years back when my wife had business to conduct with the social security folks she wasn't allowed to enter the building with a camera phone! Regular phones ok, but no camera phones..

So- no guns? Don't necessarily agree with it but considering some of their strange policies I'm not surprised.

As for private employers, I retired from one with a lot of rules- no guns of course, not even in your car in their lot but they even had a rule about no alcohol or ammunition on company premises.
So if you went to lunch running errands and picked up a bottle of wine or some ammo to take home- technically one could be fired for parking in their lot upon returning from your lunch break!


BTW the no firearm rule was often violated by many employees as we often worked alone at night in the middle of nowhere- which actually was less scary than in the middle of some parts of town.
In almost 30 years I only once heard of an employee getting canned for violating the weapons policy but he was in a company vehicle, got stopped out of state and the vehicle was impounded because he violated some law there.

 

[orpington]

What Retired USN Chief say above: You know, I have to agree. Come to think of it--what is the difference between an civilian office job and a civilian government job when it comes to carrying a firearm? It seems like the Directive prohibiting firearms in vehicles and on the premises pre-date or disregard current conceal carry laws. Indeed, the Directive is nearly ten years old now.

Government rules and regulations are often created by policy-makers in DC without any regard to practicality or, sometimes, legality. They just create policy without any clue as to how it really works in the field. This could be just another example of this. Usually it relates to regulations, which are not laws, but yet must be followed and enforced, no matter how ridiculous or impractical in the particular situation.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

If I might offer an observation here, in my opinion all one needs to do is read the regulations put forth by OSHA to understand that there is no common sense or practical applications to their thinking, especially concerning ladder usage.

 

[Devonai]

Keep in mind that the greatest pushback against concealed carry on military bases has to do with the increased possibility of a friendly fire incident, the easiest example being Nidal Hassan. The brass is concerned that increasing the number of armed friendlies that are unknown to military police/security forces members is going to make dealing with an active shooter scenario even more chaotic.

In other words, they want the MPs/SFs and responding law enforcement to be able to assume that anyone other than them who is brandishing a weapon is a bad guy. While it may make mopping up an active shooter scenario simpler for them, it is of little reassurance to the rest of us cowering behind flimsy doors or under desks. It is also frustrating that while many installations have active MP/SF augmentee programs, to my knowledge they are never to be armed unless we go to Bravo or worse.

I can only speak for my base, but there is a tremendous amount of support from the unarmed masses for some kind of policy that increases the number of armed personnel on the base. For a relatively small base like mine, the idea that security forces won't be able to identify a few additional armed personnel is kind of silly, especially if they get their M9 from the vault every morning during guardmount. But there is also the "it won't happen here" attitude that is very difficult to overcome.

 

[Tirod]

The idea that your personal vehicle and how you use it comes under the concept they are paying mileage for it's use. That makes it an "independent contractor" kind of thing where they think they can set the rules.

Not carefully that those who go into the public view in such vehicles are not driving rat rods, 25 year old rusted work trucks, etc. Mostly late models with payments still ongoing. Image and liability are their focus.

One answer is to reduce the size of .Gov and contract out work, if it's even the purvey of government at the Federal level at all. From the viewpoint of some of our enemies, if working for the Great Satan is uncomfortable because of his intrusion into your rights, then decide what is more important to begin with.

I never liked the firearms policies, much less the general view taken about my lack of Rights in the Bill by the US Army, but I deliberately chose the service for good or bad. Complaining about it after the fact doesn't reflect well on me, so I shut my mouth and accepted the unintentional consequences of my decision.

As far as the US.Gov is concerned, tough, if you don't like the policy, make a new decision. Nothing wrong with trying to get a decision maker to institute a better one but the issue is that in a bureaucracy or chain of command the top levels usually make decisions based on impeding their subordinates latitude in action to prevent the worst case situation.

Case in point, if their was a shooter on post and others were first responders, the last thing Command is going to accept is another bystander getting shot and killed as they panicked and ran behind the shooter becoming the nearest backstop for a missed shot. Same as the CCW guy who was shot and killed by the wingman, it could have gone very badly if he missed and killed a fleeing shopper.

As the duly appointed person responsible for actions that happen in your area of responsibility, what would you like to be held accountable for? We have to put up with our kids already - throwing rocks, getting into scrapes as school, etc. Now add inadvertent homicide, public apology for the unintended consequences of someone else's actions who may not even report to you, etc.

Nobody likes the policies, it's a slow transformation of them and until the top dogs can be held blameless for the ugly results, it's not going to change. At least it's not China, we don't have to literally fall on our swords. Just kiss off a career completely being the scapegoat to deflect blame going even higher.

Male organizational structure is the real issue, these are the consequences of that hierarchy.

 

[oneounceload]

Their house, their rules is the old saying and it applies here as well. No one os being forced to work for anyone, gov't included.

AND in a privately owned vehicle vehicle while on official government business

While I understand the anger about your own vehicle, the last part, "while on offical government business" is the controlling aspect of that.

One power plant complex I know has the employees park personal vehicles in an outside parking area and then buses them past the formidable gate complex. They can leave their guns in their cars that way, and the security folks have an easier time of checking everyone through security

 

[orpington]

I don't like the rules, but such they are...

I don't need to conceal carry, so that is not the point. I just think I, and others, should have the option to do so, should they want to.

I am not one to institute change. I just keep my mouth shut, try and survive the day, and, when I do this long enough, it will be time to pursue other options or hobbies.

Besides, trying to institute change means going up the chain of command and drawing attention to yourself. if it is one thing I have learned over the years, the mentality is just shut up and do your job. If you have any new ideas, well, just shut up and do your job. Creativity not welcome.