So, let me see Road Rat - you favor "sue(ing) the company out of existence" no matter what their position is on firearms on company property? That seems to be what you are saying... 
Employer Code of Conduct question
- Thread starter 307-Niner
- Start date
TexasArmed
Member
So, let me see Road Rat - you favor "sue(ing) the company out of existence" no matter what their position is on firearms on company property? That seems to be what you are saying...
Not the way I took it. The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the grease you know. Why shouldn't they be liable for not allowing firearms on company property?
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Forcing by law a private employer to allow guns is no better than forcing an employer to ban guns. Texas and the NRA are on the wrong side of this issue with SB321. An area where I would agree with such a law is a Federal employer, but the law exempts them.
Tennessee has it right by allowing private employers and employees to settle these matters between themselves.
Tennessee has it right by allowing private employers and employees to settle these matters between themselves.
Old TexMex
Member
Forcing by law a private employer to allow guns is no better than forcing an employer to ban guns. Texas and the NRA are on the wrong side of this issue with SB321. An area where I would agree with such a law is a Federal employer, but the law exempts them.
Tennessee has it right by allowing private employers and employees to settle these matters between themselves.
Not sure about that, Phil. Laws requiring a company to cease violation of Constitutional rights are necessary. (Regrettably).
(If your "federal" reference has anything to do with the Texas SB, I don't see it. Are you citing the railroad commission??)
I see a clear difference between restricting possession and allowing possession, and DO see one as better than the other!
The law still provides for the business to post 30.06 signage and prohibit carrying inside the building.
I will assume you mean there is no need for another law on the books, but your suggestion of employers and employees to settle the matter, how does this work, by popular vote? If so, are the minority obliged to seek employment elsewhere if the vote to self defense (as Constitutionally guaranteed) comes up two votes short of majority?
How does the Tennessee model work?
Jg
Last edited:
Old TexMex
Member
If responsible gun owners prevent violence (and we know we do), then business owners should be liable by the same standards that obligate them to have fire prevention.
If a business posted "no fire zone" signs, are they exempt from the requirements to have fire extinguishers?
It's a shame that we have to write more law, but in our litigious society it seems the only way.
Forcing by law a private employer to allow guns is no better than forcing an employer to ban guns. Texas and the NRA are on the wrong side of this issue with SB321. An area where I would agree with such a law is a Federal employer, but the law exempts them.
Tennessee has it right by allowing private employers and employees to settle these matters between themselves.
1st time I've disagreed with you on something, that bill doesn't appear to force employers to allow guns on their premises only to allow an employee to keep their legally carried guns in their own premises (car) while it's parked at work. If an employee is not allowed to leave his gun in his car while at work then the employer is effectively is disarming him for the entire drive to and from work as well. To me that's unacceptable, I agree that private businesses/employers have the right to ban whatever they want from their buildings but not the employee's vehicle even if it happens to be parked on company property. To me that's a valid compromise between individual and property rights.
I should also note that the Texas law appears to give the employer protection from liability that may arise from any use legal or illegal of a gun that had been stored by an employee on the premises. And also affirms that the employer maintains a safe workplace even while allowing the guns on premises. Seems to be a well crafted compromise to me.
I feel the same way. Unacceptable IMHO.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
In Tennessee it is legal to have a gun in a private employer's parking lot. However, unlike Texas, Tennessee does not force by law that an employer allow it (may not prohibit). In Tennessee the employer may have a policy to prohibit, and there is no crime for firing an employee in violation. The employee may violate the policy and there is no crime either. It is none of the state's business either way. As it should be.
Some Tennessee guns owners jumped to the conclusion that they could do what they wanted regardless of employer policy and be protected from termination. Our Attorney General set them straight on this--
The "Guns in Parking Lots" bill is actually an amendment to the Tennessee criminal code and does not address employment relationships. There has been considerable discussion about whether a Tennessee employer may still terminate a permit holder who brings a firearm onto company property in violation of company policy. The Tennessee Attorney General has now issued an opinion stating that the "Guns in Parking Lots" law does not prohibit termination under these circumstances.
------
I agree with Tennessee law and the AG's opinion.
An employer is under no legal obligation by the state to provide or otherwise protect the 2A anymore than they are the 1A. Try telling your boss in the parking lot to go (fill in the blank) and you may very well get fired. That's not a freedom of speech Constitutional crisis either.
Don't misunderstand, I object to an employer prohibiting firearms, period, whether it be at a military base or McDonald's. I just don't believe it's the government's business to be dictating these things to private business.
Some Tennessee guns owners jumped to the conclusion that they could do what they wanted regardless of employer policy and be protected from termination. Our Attorney General set them straight on this--
The "Guns in Parking Lots" bill is actually an amendment to the Tennessee criminal code and does not address employment relationships. There has been considerable discussion about whether a Tennessee employer may still terminate a permit holder who brings a firearm onto company property in violation of company policy. The Tennessee Attorney General has now issued an opinion stating that the "Guns in Parking Lots" law does not prohibit termination under these circumstances.
------
I agree with Tennessee law and the AG's opinion.
An employer is under no legal obligation by the state to provide or otherwise protect the 2A anymore than they are the 1A. Try telling your boss in the parking lot to go (fill in the blank) and you may very well get fired. That's not a freedom of speech Constitutional crisis either.
Don't misunderstand, I object to an employer prohibiting firearms, period, whether it be at a military base or McDonald's. I just don't believe it's the government's business to be dictating these things to private business.
Last edited:
TexasArmed
Member
In my opinion the attorney general got it right in Texas and here is why. The employer can still post the 30.06 sign to
prevent the employee or anyone from legally carry but that
should not extend to disarming the employer who might have to drive through some very bad areas too and from work. By
compelling the employee to disarm and not even allowing them
to have a gun in their vehicle, they expose that person to carjacking and other crimes. Texas considers the vehicle too
to be the extension of the employee's home. I think that the employer can still restrict weapons in company owned vehicles, but not in the employees private vehicle. Gregg Abbot is our attorney general who I think also ruled that parking lots are not extensions of the building. I notice another state has similar definitions, on another post here. So Texas is not dictating policy within the owner's property, just not allowing the employer to restrict the handgun in the employee's personal vehicle.
Texas though is an employment at will state, but if a person
were terminated from employment for not going along with
the company I think the employee could have a case for wrongful termination.
I just checked today on an employer who has installed
video surveillance and audio surveillance but did not post
any notice to the public indicating that audio was being
recorded. In checking I found that Texas is a one party
state regarding audio notification. And the video surveillance
requires no notification, except for certain places like
inside bathrooms that surveillance is not permitted.
tat2dchad
Member
if its a private company like anything else they can enforce whatever rules they want. you cant wear a pink panda suit to work, you cant do a lot of things. they can choose when you work how you work what you can wear etc.
there are places you can not smoke on their property at all...you have to go on the sidewalk to do so. no different.
they are in no violation of any of your rights. the only right you have there is the right to work there or not.you cant make up your own rules.
this arguement is the over the top pro gun nut jobs. you dont like it leave. thats your right
there are places you can not smoke on their property at all...you have to go on the sidewalk to do so. no different.
they are in no violation of any of your rights. the only right you have there is the right to work there or not.you cant make up your own rules.
this arguement is the over the top pro gun nut jobs. you dont like it leave. thats your right
Employment at will means exactly that...the condition of employment is not contractually mandated, but is at the terms and needs of the employer (if the employees are union/covered by a contract, then procedures for termination may be specified.) Employees can be terminated for cause, or for no cause.
A terminated employee may have a case if the termination was based on illegal grounds, such as race, religion, age, gender, or sexual orientation. Violation of employer policies is not protected under federal or state law, unless there is a specific law addressing a specific act. Texas has enacted a "parking lot law" which says that employers can't prohibit an employee from having a legally owned and properly stored firearm in their personal vehicle on the employer's parking lot, with some exceptions: school districts or charter schools, chemical manufacturers and oil refiners that manufacture, use, transport or store hazardous materials if it has a secured parking lot, and on parking areas for which possession of firearms is prohibited by an unexpired oil and gas lease. (Source: Texas Law Shield)
If an employee was terminated solely for having a gun in his vehicle on the employer's parking lot, and with no other employer policy violation(s), then the employee probably does have a case for wrongful termination. However, if there are any other violations, such as telling a supervisor or co-worker "I'm going to go get my gun out of my car and settle this issue" (even if he doesn't actually do it) then there is ample cause for termination, and the gun in the car isn't the primary factor.
Your logic is flawed. I can wear anything I desire while driving to work, and even parking my vehicle in their parking lot. I can change my clothes, put on my PPE, and then clock in, leaving my pink panda suit locked up in my vehicle. I can also smoke in my vehicle while driving to work if I choose(never smoked in my life, but you mentioned smoking).
Nobody is asking to carry while on the job...
TexasArmed
Member
Not in Texas they cannot. If a company fired someone for having a gun in their vehicle I expect they will be took to the
cleaners if the employer is in violation of State Law.
TexasArmed
Member
If as you suggest an employee made a statement in Texas that he was going to go to his car and get a gun and settle an issue, that would be a cause for his arrest, for felony menacing. If however, the employer merely terminated him for not complying with the company's written policy of not having a gun in his vehicle, then that company is in violation of State law and there are plenty of lawyers that would gladly handle that case. Employment at will law does not legitimize an employer to violate State law any more than other laws allow an individual to violate Texas law. Unlike a lot of other States a
lot of our laws, in Texas mean what they say, and Texas is more aggressive in punishing violation of laws than many other States. Death penalty in Texas actually means what it says.
That is exactly what I was saying.
Do some research, check out your state's website. Most states will give you a link to the state laws.
Look for concealed carry, and dangerous weapon laws. It's usually a PITA to understand, but you should find some useful information.
Good luck, stay safe
Look for concealed carry, and dangerous weapon laws. It's usually a PITA to understand, but you should find some useful information.
Good luck, stay safe
TexasArmed
Member
""this arguement is the over the top pro gun nut jobs""
Quite a curious comment, almost a troll like comment.
I don't believe I ever meet an over the top pro gun nut job" but I have listened to them
"anti gun nutters" on TV who have their own armed security service, and
armed guards, while they advocate disarming legal gun owners, or
outlawing their weapons.
I am glad that has never taken hold in my State of Texas.
Quite a curious comment, almost a troll like comment.
I don't believe I ever meet an over the top pro gun nut job" but I have listened to them
"anti gun nutters" on TV who have their own armed security service, and
armed guards, while they advocate disarming legal gun owners, or
outlawing their weapons.
I am glad that has never taken hold in my State of Texas.
Tex1001
Member
I can and should be able to drive to work naked (As long as the car pool doesn't object) and I meet the dress code when I exit my car. I can park my car on the lot and go there and scream that the boss is an *** as long as I'm courteous at work. I worked for a company that declared ''no weapons' on company premises. When reminded by security, one guy responded with: 'Why do you issue them? I have a 10" screwdriver that I can carry into any part of the building.' He added: 'How much damage could that WEAPON do with a 4 minute police response time here?'. He still has his job, but valid point.
_______________________
I don't have Alzheimer's- My wife had me tested.
_______________________
I don't have Alzheimer's- My wife had me tested.
Exactly....right on point.These corporate "policies" are not about weapons -the only target is specifically handguns. However,I think the corporate monkeys would mess up their pants if you showed up with a bayonet or Samurai sword visible in your vehicle. However, any tool could be construed to be a weapon.
AZretired
Member
Forcing by law a private employer to allow guns is no better than forcing an employer to ban guns. Texas and the NRA are on the wrong side of this issue with SB321. An area where I would agree with such a law is a Federal employer, but the law exempts them.
Tennessee has it right by allowing private employers and employees to settle these matters between themselves.
I respectfully disagree. Read Arizona Law. Arizona employers can only deny your right to keep your firearm in your car in two circumstances. 1 they supply a secure place to lock up your gun while working. or 2. they have a separate secure parking for gun owners. The purpose is to deny access to your firearm while at work. Both these options are expensive and no employer I am aware of does this. So we are able to store them in our cars while at work legally.
While this does not apply to federal property, most federal jobs are located where you can park off their property without much problem.
Similar threads
