Your workplace does not allow concealed carry. Do you still carry?

[Andy Taylor]

Fortunately for me it is a non-issue. I am paid to carry a gun. If it ever became an issue, (IE: working a different job) I would weigh the total circumstances and make a risk/benefit assessment.

 

[straightshooter1]

cshoff-I thought we were (back) on the same page, but maybe not given your reply about Toyota.

I don't know anything about Toyota, but the situation is common enough. I post a sign at the gate saying "All vehicles entering are subject to search!"

You want to come in, you gotta let me search if I want to. You don't want me to search, all you have to do is not come in.

Simple! And that same idea was just upheld by the Federal Courts with respect to the Tampa Bay's own BUCs. At the Football Stadium, they instituted a policy that anyone entering would be patted down.

Somebody objected, and sued and, in the end, lost. You don't want to be patted down? Don't go to the Football game.

Are you sure we aren't still on the same page?

Bob

 

[cshoff]

cshoff-I thought we were (back) on the same page, but maybe not given your reply about Toyota.

I don't know anything about Toyota, but the situation is common enough. I post a sign at the gate saying "All vehicles entering are subject to search!"

You want to come in, you gotta let me search if I want to. You don't want me to search, all you have to do is not come in.

Simple! And that same idea was just upheld by the Federal Courts with respect to the Tampa Bay's own BUCs. At the Football Stadium, they instituted a policy that anyone entering would be patted down.

Somebody objected, and sued and, in the end, lost. You don't want to be patted down? Don't go to the Football game.

Are you sure we aren't still on the same page?

Bob

Yes, we are still on the same page. All that I am saying is that you can't hang a sign up declaring you have legal authority that you do not have and expect that authority to be valid. All that you can do is deny entrance to the premises if someone does not want to comply, just like we talked about earlier. There is no "magic sign" you can post or special words you can say that grant you extra Constitutional powers.

If a company posts a sign at their gate that reads "All vehicles entering premises are subject to search", then said company has to make a choice. They either search your vehicle at the gate with your consent, or they allow you in without a search. If they allow you in without a search and then later decide they want to search your vehicle, they cannot do it without your consent, regardless of what the sign says. If you don't consent, the most they can do is ask you to leave. They CANNOT take it upon themselves to search your car without your consent no matter what, and there is no sign that changes that.

In a nutshell, the sign doesn't provide them with any more rights or authority than they had without the sign. All that it does is announce their policy to people entering the premises and saves them from having to verbally communicate said policy to each guest as they approach the gate.

 

[cshoff]

They do have a right to search your car.
It is a Federal Trade Zone and they do have that right. I worked at such a place and they
had the same rules. [NO GUNS ON THE PROPERTY] I thought the biggest danger for me
was something happening going to and from work so I left the gun in the car.
[AND KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT] Don

If that is the case, then every business in the United State could be considered a "Federal Trade Zone", at least any of them engaged in interstate commerce. Even then, Toyota would not have any legal authority to search your vehicle. It would have to be performed by the Federal agency tasked with carrying out said orders, or their deputies.

 

[mrwildroot]

I carry at church every Sunday I am there.
I work there during the service in a technical capacity, and sit above most of the congregation. Gun free zones may attract the wrong type of person, and sitting above the rest could make me the first target.
I am permitted, and carry concealed, but follow "Don't ask, don't tell" as I don't really want others to know I'm armed.
My partner is the only other person I have discussed this subject with, and he is good with it. The Pastor would be the final word, but I feel better knowing another of the staff is aware.
Remember, you are only trespassing if asked to leave, and you don't...

Mrwildroot

 

[bk43]

It would be nice to have some uniformity with the laws in your state, for sure. Here in Missouri, our laws clearly state that it is NOT an unlawful use of a weapon to have a loaded and concealed firearm in a vehicle, even on a posted premises, so long as such weapon is not removed from the vehicle or brandished.

To clarify, what straightshooter1 is refering to in Florida is very different from the older type law that Missouri has. Florida is one of the early adaptors of a new level of employee/visitor rights and as such we are going through the usual legal challenges and fine tuning of the statute's text. It is, as he says, messy for now.

Florida went through the same dog and pony show with "Stand Your Ground" law a few years ago and the original CCW law many years before that. It's just part of the process. It also benefits other states that follow later as they have a proven template to use.

Bob

 

[tiger27]

Carry at work

If you work in an office environment... and are willing to take the chance, Dillon Precision, I beleive still makes the "Plan B" which appears to be a "day planner" that has a hidden compartment for a pistol. If you carry a bag or briefcase, this may be your "out" to carry your weapon with you but not on your person. At least in this respect it is accessible in an emergency. search for Dillon Precision Plan B and take a look.

 

[safearm]

However, we don't have a law that prohibits an employer from firing an employee who he/she suspects may have a concealed firearm in the employee owned car on the employer owned parking lot.

The employer must only have "reasonable suspicion" to terminate an employee for violating company policy, i.e., no firearms or other dangerous weapons, on company property, to include vehicles, not probable cause, preponderance of evidence, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The employee normally has to acknowledge that they have read and understand the rules of the employer, which may include written consent to search as a condition of employment.

As the person who had to draft this type of policy for an organization, it is not easy to limit what I consider an abuse of constitutional rights, however, every employee is informed of their obligation to follow company policy, IF they want to stay employed.

The firearms prohibition that I wrote was in the organizations's workplace violence policy. Our intent was not to limit the individual's right to own a firearm, but to restrict firearms in the workplace. This may sound a bit alturistic from a retired LEO, but like every other employee, I knew the limits of what the leadership would accept. With a significant workplace violence episode in the state that made national news (Lockheed-Martin plant in Meridian), there was pressure, primarily from the insurance carrier, to insure there was a policy in-place to prohibit such activity, i.e., limit liability.

If an anonymous call is received that an employee has a firearm in their vehicle, and there are no other indicators of violent or erratic behavior, a single report may not rise to the level of reasonable suspicision. However, if the employee is asked if they have a firearm, and admit they do, it's an automatic termination. Likewise, if they deny it, and later it is determined that they lied, it's an automatic termination.

Like others have said, if you can't abide by these rules, then you should find somewhere else to work.

 

[cshoff]

The employer must only have "reasonable suspicion" to terminate an employee for violating company policy, i.e., no firearms or other dangerous weapons, on company property, to include vehicles, not probable cause, preponderance of evidence, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The employee normally has to acknowledge that they have read and understand the rules of the employer, which may include written consent to search as a condition of employment.

As the person who had to draft this type of policy for an organization, it is not easy to limit what I consider an abuse of constitutional rights, however, every employee is informed of their obligation to follow company policy, IF they want to stay employed.

The firearms prohibition that I wrote was in the organizations's workplace violence policy. Our intent was not to limit the individual's right to own a firearm, but to restrict firearms in the workplace. This may sound a bit alturistic from a retired LEO, but like every other employee, I knew the limits of what the leadership would accept. With a significant workplace violence episode in the state that made national news (Lockheed-Martin plant in Meridian), there was pressure, primarily from the insurance carrier, to insure there was a policy in-place to prohibit such activity, i.e., limit liability.

If an anonymous call is received that an employee has a firearm in their vehicle, and there are no other indicators of violent or erratic behavior, a single report may not rise to the level of reasonable suspicision. However, if the employee is asked if they have a firearm, and admit they do, it's an automatic termination. Likewise, if they deny it, and later it is determined that they lied, it's an automatic termination.

Like others have said, if you can't abide by these rules, then you should find somewhere else to work.

I am self employed, so for me, it's really not an issue. What you have said changes nothing. An employer can have a rule that an employee must follow as a condition of employment. That has already be discussed and acknowledged ad nauseum here. What an employer CANNOT do is make an arbitrary search of private property (a vehicle) that belongs to an employee. There is no rule, no sign, and no employee handbook that can change that. That right is reserved for a court of law or to a law enforcement agency that has probable cause and the legal authority to conduct said search of the vehicle. If you were in law enforcement as you have said, than you should know that this is correct.

Having said all of that, there is nothing that says the employer can't terminate the employee if he/she fails to consent to a search. The employer is within his/her rights to employ who he/she sees fit. But the employer cannot exercise authority it does not have and perform a search without consent and they cannot place you under arrest or detain you for failing to consent either.

Also, as was mentioned earlier, there are exceptions that can apply here as would be the case if the Federal Government, or a political subdivision thereof, was your employer. Can also apply with certain state agencies. If you work on a military base, for example, your car can be subject to search at any time, and it would be legal under our current laws.

 

[carpenter]

I respond to the disasters in the SE area(not saying who for) and they have a strong " no weapons" rule. A large percentage of the calls are to the lower income areas in any given area, and these people almost demand responce(money). Even had one not happy with what he got and call and threathen me.
Yes I'm packin, most of the others that do it are armed in some way or other. It is an adventure to go in one of these situations and it has a good side to it, but I don't advice that the meek go alone.
Other wise I'm packin or got one near...

 

[norad45]

Utah passed a law last year that prohibits businesses from terminating law-abiding employees with carry permits for keeping guns in their own private vehicles on company property. The only way the company can legally prohibit it is if they agree to provide lockboxes for the employee to store their weapoins in while they are at work. (I have yet to hear of any businesses that do so.) It struck me as a reasonable compromise between the employer's property rights over their parking lot and the employee's property rights over their vehicle. Secure areas (airports, courtrooms, etc.) are exempt.

 

[oldtexan]

cshoff,



We, of course, want the Second Amendment to trump, but, the Supremes haven't got a case yet.

Bob

I am a very strong believer in the 2d Amendment ( and the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc), but I believe that it (like all parts of the Bill of Rights) limits government actions, but not the actions of private property owners.

I believe that a property owner has the moral right to use his property as he sees fit, so he should be able to dictate conditions for people coming onto his property. If a property owner wants to limit free speech or free exercise of the 2d Amendment on his property then that is in my opinion his right. If we don't agree with a property owner's desires for his property then we should avoid his property. Otherwise we are trespassing.

 

[BarbC]

I am a very strong believer in the 2d Amendment ( and the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc), but I believe that it (like all parts of the Bill of Rights) limits government actions, but not the actions of private property owners.

I believe that a property owner has the moral right to use his property as he sees fit, so he should be able to dictate conditions for people coming onto his property. If a property owner wants to limit free speech or free exercise of the 2d Amendment on his property then that is in my opinion his right. If we don't agree with a property owner's desires for his property then we should avoid his property. Otherwise we are trespassing.

Not necessarily. Privately-owned restaurants and hotels, for example, and even large "private clubs" can't choose to practice racial discrimination. It's incredible how the Second Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is deemed the exception to the rule of inviolable individual rights.

 

[conn ak]

Can't carry in a Federal building, so I don't. You'd think the US Postal Service would allow us to carry for self-defense.http://www.smith-wessonforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[cowart]

Not allowed in my workplace. Have never carried at work. LEOs come into my workplace daily, and I assume that if anyone would spot a bit of printing, it would be them.

 

[m1tanker135]

How in the world did Toyota get away with that? They have no legal authority to search a vehicle that is privately owned by an employee nor to search the body of an employee. They would have had to fire him based off of hearsay which certainly could have led to a wrongful termination suit. Unless the guy admitted to carrying or somehow brandished or failed to keep it concealed, I don't really think there is much they could have done about it.

Indiana is an "at will" employment state. Employers may terminate you at their discretion for no reason what-so-ever. So unless you can prove that you were terminated wrongfully as a result of discrimination then... well you're pretty much out of luck.

 

[elm_creek_smith]

The sign next to the doors of the building where I work reads, "Possession of Firearms Is Strictly Prohibited." I carry. Of course, the badge, uniform, and duty belt kinda explain why.

ECS

 

[nachogrande]

CARRY AT WORK?

do they have metal detectors? in some places the signs have to be a very specific size, or they are not valid. other places it's not legal to ban cc regardless of a sign. secondly making everyone leave guns in their cars, makes for a field day for car break ins. I hate leaving a gun in a car.

 

[Bill Bates]

I don't carry at work because my employer's has a policy against employees carrying.

 

[NZshooter]

guns scare me... maybe a wooden one like from The Other Guys