In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Can an employer fire you ????

4406v4406v Member Posts: 317 ✭✭✭
Question is: Can an employer fire you for having a legally stored firearm in your vehicle in the parking lot at work???They just handed out a new company policy stating "no firearms on the premises".I am in Pennsylvania if it matters.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If they have made it a company policy of no firearms on the premises and have given everyone notification and opportunity to comply, then sadly, yes they probably can. You may want to ask for clarifcation of policy to see if properly stored and locked in vehicle is acceptable. You are always free to find employment w/ a company who does not require defenseless employees or take the risk of ignoring policy.
  • Options
    4406v4406v Member Posts: 317 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is not the company I work for but my wife's.I think it it unreasonable for them to be able to tell you "you can't have a weapon" LEGALLY stored,in your car,on company property.I am questioning whether they have a LEGAL right to fire people who may bring a gun in thier car to work during hunting season.
  • Options
    buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes they can legally fire you for breaking company policy. Does not matter what laws of city or state are. The owner of company gets to make up the rules and you have to follow them or find other employment.

    Link to recent similar discussion
    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=394408
  • Options
    BGHillbillyBGHillbilly Member Posts: 1,927 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Like the police told me when I moved to Illnois(very short stay) and asked about a FOI card. Keep it out of site, don't advertise you got it,and stay out of trouble. The employer is not going to be searching personal vehicles in most cases.
  • Options
    miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 4406v
    Question is: Can an employer fire you for having a legally stored firearm in your vehicle in the parking lot at work???They just handed out a new company policy stating "no firearms on the premises".I am in Pennsylvania if it matters.
    It's company property, Sure they can! Show some respect for peoples private property.
    Park at the Curb on the street.
  • Options
    4406v4406v Member Posts: 317 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am not willing to accept a company telling me what I can or cannot do on thier property provided I am obeying the law.If I have a gun locked in my car on thier property I don't think it's ANY of thier buisness.I also don't think they have a LEGAL right to punish me if they find out about it.As long as I have the gun stored legally in my car what's the problem???
  • Options
    Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 39,476 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 4406v
    As long as I have the gun stored legally in my car what's the problem???
    The problem is that it is private property and the property owner makes the rules.
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 4406v
    I am not willing to accept a company telling me what I can or cannot do on thier property provided I am obeying the law.If I have a gun locked in my car on thier property I don't think it's ANY of thier buisness.I also don't think they have a LEGAL right to punish me if they find out about it.As long as I have the gun stored legally in my car what's the problem???
    It never ceases to amaze me how some people believe it is their right to dictate to a property owner what can and cannot be done on their property.

    He owns the land, he makes the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, don't go there, don't work there.

    It is really very simple.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 4406v
    I am not willing to accept a company telling me what I can or cannot do on thier property

    Would you accept the government telling you what you can and cannot do on YOUR property? It's the same thing. Property owner gets to make the rules.

    That said, it would be nice if all property owners respected the RTKBA, but some do not. Me, if I owned a business, I'd have a sign on the door that read, "Weapons permitted on this property, concealed or otherwise", because that's just the kind of guy I am.

    There are many folks who would jump up and down rejoicing would the government pass a law that all property owners must allow weapons on their premises. I wouldn't, and here's why:

    Once the government passes a law mandating what property owners can and can't allow on their premises, rest assured they will take full advantage of it. Look at what has happened with smoking bans. The government has mandated 'rules' for property owners when they have absolutely no authority to do so. Your property, your rules; not the government's.
  • Options
    scrumpyjackscrumpyjack Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    PA is an "at will" employment state. Your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason (or no reason).
  • Options
    miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by 4406v
    I am not willing to accept a company telling me what I can or cannot do on thier property

    Would you accept the government telling you what you can and cannot do on YOUR property? It's the same thing. Property owner gets to make the rules.

    That said, it would be nice if all property owners respected the RTKBA, but some do not. Me, if I owned a business, I'd have a sign on the door that read, "Weapons permitted on this property, concealed or otherwise", because that's just the kind of guy I am.

    There are many folks who would jump up and down rejoicing would the government pass a law that all property owners must allow weapons on their premises. I wouldn't, and here's why:

    Once the government passes a law mandating what property owners can and can't allow on their premises, rest assured they will take full advantage of it. Look at what has happened with smoking bans. The government has mandated 'rules' for property owners when they have absolutely no authority to do so. Your property, your rules; not the government's.
    Dead on![;)]

    I do own my own Business and we are all carrying, I feel safer knowing my guys and gal's are watching the front door and each other back and can protect the shop.

    When the Government mandates anything we lose another freedom!
  • Options
    miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by scrumpyjack
    PA is an "at will" employment state. Your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason (or no reason).
    Sounds like freedom regarding the PA employment laws anyway!
    Should not any employer be able to fire, Hire anyone they want?
    I like the Idea! If a man does a good job and earns his keep I keep him. If he's looking to suck off the company because he thinks some how I ow him, He's out the door!
    Its called working for a living.
  • Options
    miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 4406v
    I am not willing to accept a company telling me what I can or cannot do on thier property provided I am obeying the law.If I have a gun locked in my car on thier property I don't think it's ANY of thier buisness.I also don't think they have a LEGAL right to punish me if they find out about it.As long as I have the gun stored legally in my car what's the problem???
    Its obviously a problem with the employer! Its his parking lot your car is parked on. See the Obvious!
  • Options
    badchrisbadchris Member Posts: 1,668 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not only can they fire you, but you would more than likely be prosecuted as well.
    If you decide to not follow the law, be prepared to accept the consequences.
    Enemies of armed self-defense focus on the gun. They ignore the person protected with that gun.
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Ok, hypothetically speaking, your car is your property. To me, it then stands to reason that you can have "inside" your property, whateve, as long as it does not violate "a law". (i.e. drugs, etc) Now if the employer makes it policy that you can not park your car on their property, with a firearm in it, they have you?? Do not lay the firearm on the parking lot?? There is a "property line" where the rubber meets the parking lot.

    In CO, your vehicle is an extension of your home. So, this would be akin to telling you what you can have in your home. Don't think it would pass muster with a good attorney, if it came to that. (Here, anyway)
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    Ok, hypothetically speaking, your car is your property. To me, it then stands to reason that you can have "inside" your property, whatever as long as it does not violate "a law". (i.e. drugs, etc) Now if the employer makes it policy that you can not park your car on their property, with a firearm in it, they have you??


    While I agree with Don to an extent, I agree moreso with JP. Your car is an extention of your home, IMO. Cops can't just search your car without permission, without a warrent. So this should show somehow that your car IS an extention of your home, and deemed "not a public" place open for inspection at anyone's whim. A weapon is nothing but a tool. I carry wrenches and many other things in my vehicles. Can property owners decide what your vehicle may contain, as well as your choice of music?
    Where is the indiviuals rights in this matter? So long as whatever is locked inside the owners vehicle, and NOT brought OUT of it, I belive the car owners has all the right in the world to have what they want in their vehicle.
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    Ok, hypothetically speaking, your car is your property. To me, it then stands to reason that you can have "inside" your property, whateve, as long as it does not violate "a law". (i.e. drugs, etc) Now if the employer makes it policy that you can not park your car on their property, with a firearm in it, they have you?? Do not lay the firearm on the parking lot?? There is a "property line" where the rubber meets the parking lot.

    In CO, your vehicle is an extension of your home. So, this would be akin to telling you what you can have in your home. Don't think it would pass muster with a good attorney, if it came to that. (Here, anyway)


    Jp,

    Good point. I never looked at it from that angle, but I believe you may be onto something.[;)]
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    Ok, hypothetically speaking, your car is your property. To me, it then stands to reason that you can have "inside" your property, whateve, as long as it does not violate "a law". (i.e. drugs, etc) Now if the employer makes it policy that you can not park your car on their property, with a firearm in it, they have you?? Do not lay the firearm on the parking lot?? There is a "property line" where the rubber meets the parking lot.

    In CO, your vehicle is an extension of your home. So, this would be akin to telling you what you can have in your home. Don't think it would pass muster with a good attorney, if it came to that. (Here, anyway)
    JP:

    If you sign an employment contract that accepts the policy of the employer, you would be in violation of your contract. If you enter a parking lot with a firearm against the posted wishes of the owner of that parking lot, you are in violation of the implied contract for entry.

    You may be correct regarding the legalities of what constitutes an extension of your home in the State of Colorado, and certainly the employer / owner would not be able to search your car without your consent. I personally, would think that the 'extension of your home' would only apply upon a request for a search. At that point, you would have the choice to allow the search, or comply with the owner's request that you leave.

    Again, I do not wish to sound like I am siding with some idiot who demands that no one have a firearm locked in a car on his parking lot. I am only suggesting that one could look at a firearm in the car in a manner similar to traces of narcotics in the bloodstream. The employer can ask for a search of the car or a test of your blood. You do not have to comply if you do not wish to stay.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    Ok, hypothetically speaking, your car is your property. To me, it then stands to reason that you can have "inside" your property, whateve, as long as it does not violate "a law". (i.e. drugs, etc) Now if the employer makes it policy that you can not park your car on their property, with a firearm in it, they have you?? Do not lay the firearm on the parking lot?? There is a "property line" where the rubber meets the parking lot.

    In CO, your vehicle is an extension of your home. So, this would be akin to telling you what you can have in your home. Don't think it would pass muster with a good attorney, if it came to that. (Here, anyway)
    JP:

    If you sign an employment contract that accepts the policy of the employer, you would be in violation of your contract. If you enter a parking lot with a firearm against the posted wishes of the owner of that parking lot, you are in violation of the implied contract for entry.

    You may be correct regarding the legalities of what constitutes an extension of your home in the State of Colorado, and certainly the employer / owner would not be able to search your car without your consent. I personally, would think that the 'extension of your home' would only apply upon a request for a search. At that point, you would have the choice to allow the search, or comply with the owner's request that you leave.

    Again, I do not wish to sound like I am siding with some idiot who demands that no one have a firearm locked in a car on his parking lot. I am only suggesting that one could look at a firearm in the car in a manner similar to traces of narcotics in the bloodstream. The employer can ask for a search of the car or a test of your blood. You do not have to comply if you do not wish to stay.


    The point I would like to make Don:

    If the constitution places limit on government, does it also not place those SAME limits on idividuals?

    To that I mean, if the feds are prohibited from barring your RTKABA, in the very least, on your own property (think your car) then how can some individual place restriction on you either? It may be their parking lot, but the car is NOT theirs. Your example of blood test VS arms in your car are apples and oranges IMO. Your body IS in their business, and you are functioning in the capacity of an employee on the owners property. Your arms in your vehicle do no harm to the employer, nor have any bearing on your functions at work. I see this akin to telling an employee what music they may listen to, or what they may eat and when.

    What your suggesting gives employers the power to become tyrants. It is just like the smoking issue at work. If an employer bans smoking at home AND at work, and this is a "condition" of employment, it is over-reaching into private life of the citizens. If you don't want government dictating how and what we MAY do, neither should anyone else Mr. McManus.
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Shane,since one of the few responsibilities the government has is to see that the rights of a citizen are not violated by another citizen, you may have another argument.
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    What your suggesting gives employers the power to become tyrants. It is just like the smoking issue at work. If an employer bans smoking at home AND at work, and this is a "condition" of employment, it is over-reaching into private life of the citizens. If you don't want government dictating how and what we MAY do, neither should anyone else Mr. McManus.

    A reasonable point, Shane, and I will think about it.

    At present, I guess I come down on the side that the individuals should handle it themselves, and that the property owner has the right to dictate what is on his property and the employee or customer has the right to not go on the property. Anything else requires government interference to enforce the rights of one at the expense of the rights of the other, in effect, a governmental dictate to the owner. As noted, I will give this more thought.

    As an aside, a local company had a policy that their tractor-trailer drivers could not have traces of narcotics in their system at anytime. The union successfully petitioned for a maximum level of narcotics in the bloodstream of the drivers. The company is now closed, so the issue has solved itself, but I was always curious what would have happened in the event of an accident and the driver had a narcotic level at the negotiated maximum.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    BGHillbillyBGHillbilly Member Posts: 1,927 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Much as I disagree that it is fair and just, the employer has every right to make such rules for the condition of employment with them. If it ain't something you can accept then accept being fired, quiting,leaving your weapon home, or just keeping it locked in the vehicle and keeping your mouth shut that it is there, hopefully it will never need to be used. If you ever need the weapon on company grounds then deal with it at that time. You always have choices, maybe not a choice you want but they are always there.
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Did I change my name to Shane? [:o)]

    I am James, for those who have sometimers. [;)]
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    As an aside, a local company had a policy that their tractor-trailer drivers could not have traces of narcotics in their system at anytime. The union successfully petitioned for a maximum level of narcotics in the bloodstream of the drivers. The company is now closed, so the issue has solved itself, but I was always curious what would have happened in the event of an accident and the driver had a narcotic level at the negotiated maximum.


    Don, with this we can agree. I see no wrong in a comapny requiring that employees are drug free to work. I see no wrong in a person destroying themselves with whatever their choice of means. However, that does NOT give them a license to kill and mame others around them. Laws about operating under the influence are just IMO, and I side with the employers in this case.

    Do what you choose on your free time, but that by no means gives anyone a right to harm others. A high or drunk trucker is a ticking time bomb.
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    Did I change my name to Shane? [:o)]

    I am James, for those who have sometimers. [;)]


    I apologize, James. I followed JP's post, and apparently turned off the brain.[:I]
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    While I like Jeff's arguement, at the end of the day CO is an at will state and unless you can prove some sort of discrimniation or whatever, employer can do pretty much whatever they want concerning your employment.
  • Options
    zinkzink Member Posts: 6,456 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
    While I like Jeff's arguement, at the end of the day CO is an at will state and unless you can prove some sort of discrimniation or whatever, employer can do pretty much whatever they want concerning your employment.





    Happened to me the day YOUR president was sworn into office in Alamosa! Big R sucks.
  • Options
    Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    It amazes me that this would even be a discussion with individualists.

    Private property, you have no say in what they allow on/off property. This is like saying you should be allowed to bring booze, or drugs to work.

    If I have lawnwork done, and tell you not to use a riding mower, push mower only, don't tell me you think you have the right to tell me you're using a rider anyway. If you do not like the rules on the private property you avaoid it. Period
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:If I have lawnwork done, and tell you not to use a riding mower, push mower only, don't tell me you think you have the right to tell me you're using a rider anyway. If you do not like the rules on the private property you avaoid it. PeriodThe problem, of course ;
    We are not discussing lawnmowers, or tulips, or color of drapes.

    We are discussing personal safety, and the safety of other people when an armed, decent man IS armed ..even when the means is in a vehicle many yards away.

    Perhaps you that insist upon personal property rights (a powerful argument) will also be willing to allow an injured individual the power to sue the business owner for his last penny...because the owner took away the means of self-defense for said individual ? Even if the individual AGREES with the `contract' in order to find a job..that should never nullify the basic Right of preservation of human life.

    I know how I handled it for many years ;
    My safety trumped the businessman's phobia.
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:If I have lawnwork done, and tell you not to use a riding mower, push mower only, don't tell me you think you have the right to tell me you're using a rider anyway. If you do not like the rules on the private property you avaoid it. PeriodThe problem, of course ;
    We are not discussing lawnmowers, or tulips, or color of drapes.

    We are discussing personal safety, and the safety of other people when an armed, decent man IS armed ..even when the means is in a vehicle many yards away.

    Perhaps you that insist upon personal property rights (a powerful argument) will also be willing to allow an injured individual the power to sue the business owner for his last penny...because the owner took away the means of self-defense for said individual ? Even if the individual AGREES with the `contract' in order to find a job..that should never nullify the basic Right of preservation of human life.

    I know how I handled it for many years ;
    My safety trumped the businessman's phobia.



    HB,

    Please do not misinterpret what I have stated in this post. I believe in the rights of property owners to decide what they can and cannot do on their own property, independent of governmental interference. But above that, I believe in the right of any free man to be armed at any time and at any place he wishes.[;)]
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    A simple hypothetical, since we are talking about the BOR, particularly Amendment II.

    You are the private owner of a business with a lot, owned by you, immediately adjacent. The public is allowed to come and go onto and off of your property, under the implied business/commerce contract that exists, since you are selling 'something'.

    A group of mopes decides that they want to stand on your lot, out of the way of any patrons, and stage a protest in support of gun prohibition and communism, under the color of Amendment I.

    For those who say the private citizen, who is also the property owner, has no say in prohibiting your ability to protest or display their 'freedom of speech', is not defensible.

    Limitations and prohibitions are placed on government, related to suppression of individual liberties.

    A private property owner is the one who is master of what occurs on his private property.

    Now, the argument, in my mind, comes down to obedience to that property owner and what consequences there are for a willful deviation from the property owners dictate. I stay armed when outside the home, always.

    A classic conflict of another individual's 'general right' to dictate and my specific right and decision to remain armed.
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Friendly
    It amazes me that this would even be a discussion with individualists.

    Private property, you have no say in what they allow on/off property. This is like saying you should be allowed to bring booze, or drugs to work.

    If I have lawnwork done, and tell you not to use a riding mower, push mower only, don't tell me you think you have the right to tell me you're using a rider anyway. If you do not like the rules on the private property you avaoid it. Period


    Why would individualists not be upset at having their rights trampled by another citizens. Legal firearms posession and drug posession are completely different.
  • Options
    Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Friendly
    It amazes me that this would even be a discussion with individualists.

    Private property, you have no say in what they allow on/off property. This is like saying you should be allowed to bring booze, or drugs to work.

    If I have lawnwork done, and tell you not to use a riding mower, push mower only, don't tell me you think you have the right to tell me you're using a rider anyway. If you do not like the rules on the private property you avaoid it. Period


    Why would individualists not be upset at having their rights trampled by another citizens. Legal firearms posession and drug posession are completely different.
    You're looking at this incorrectly. No individual citizen can violate your rights by prohibiting behavior on their property, because you have no rights on their property, you have privilages. Just as you would not allow me to smoke in your house, others prohibit certain behavior in theirs. A business also has the same rights, just as you have thr right not to purchase their product, or frequent their establishments. Rights do not exist on privately owned property, period.
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Firedude ;
    No disrespect intended..at all.

    Merely an interesting discussion that I have had in real life a time or two...and generally resulting in my walking away with the comment.."I will never be visiting you at home"...
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Firedude ;
    No disrespect intended..at all.



    Never perceived it as such.[;)]

    Brother HB.[:)]
  • Options
    Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:If I have lawnwork done, and tell you not to use a riding mower, push mower only, don't tell me you think you have the right to tell me you're using a rider anyway. If you do not like the rules on the private property you avaoid it. PeriodThe problem, of course ;
    We are not discussing lawnmowers, or tulips, or color of drapes.

    We are discussing personal safety, and the safety of other people when an armed, decent man IS armed ..even when the means is in a vehicle many yards away.

    Perhaps you that insist upon personal property rights (a powerful argument) will also be willing to allow an injured individual the power to sue the business owner for his last penny...because the owner took away the means of self-defense for said individual ? Even if the individual AGREES with the `contract' in order to find a job..that should never nullify the basic Right of preservation of human life.

    I know how I handled it for many years ;
    My safety trumped the businessman's phobia.

    No sir, I do not believe in the argument that one has the right to sue in such an instence. Every person makes their own decisions in this life. The only person who is responsible for the actions of a deginerate who is hell bent on harming others is that individual. If I decide you cannot go armed on my property, you agree to such terms and are eating ribs on my patio when some idiot shoots you, it is not my fault anymore than yours. You knew my terms prior to sitting down at my table, and upon agreeing upon them you assume the risks that stem from this decision. The only person you should have any legal recourse against would be the shooter, bot the property owner. When you agree to terms that violate your own personal beliefs that should throw the first red flag, and weigh heavily on your decision.
  • Options
    miker4_umiker4_u Member Posts: 110 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 4406v
    Question is: Can an employer fire you for having a legally stored firearm in your vehicle in the parking lot at work???They just handed out a new company policy stating "no firearms on the premises".I am in Pennsylvania if it matters.
    After reading all the post's I see JP's and others view and they make sense. I also see the property owner's or employers side.

    Think about this because this is how it works I don't like it nor is it fair because the current laws put the property owner at risk should someone get angry, run out to their car run back into the business and start blasting every one.

    Argument can be made that if people had guns they could have stopped him but you know whats going to happen? The company owner is going to be dragged to court and spend thousand of dollars to all the dead peoples families because he did not give notice to all employee's that guns are not permitted on his property.

    Its not right! you and I know that just as we knew OJ should not have walked but this is what has happened to society. They sue the gun manufacturers when someone gets shot.

    I think if you really knew the company owner he probably loves guns and hates to have to give out this notice to people but if he did not he would be liable if one of his employee's went nuts in the parking lot and started shooting. Again I don't agree with what the employer is doing but I see why.

    Society has become a blame some one else for the bad deeds of others! its called socialism and that is why this country is so screwed up.
    Kalifoolian is the worst! When you purchase a firearm here you have to bring a gun lock with you to pick it up and sign a statement it will be locked in a safe place or in a Guns safe. Why?

    Because some kids stole their fathers guns went to school and killed some kids. If a minor breaks into my house and steals my gun and uses it in a crime Because I did not have it locked in a gun safe or locked with a gun lock, I could be fined or even go to prison. So now its my fault right! I say hell no! But that's the Law hear in California and it suck's big time!.

    This country is full of nuts and every year it gets worse. They want to blame everyone for someone else's bad deeds.
    There is no such thing as taking responsibility or making one pay for their actions anymore and that is why the company owner is covering his behind.

    Your rights can not impose on his and you also have a right not to work there. When you reach the point that your rights impose on the rights others and is greater than others you have become a Tyrant.

    You chose to work for this Company Owner he has a right to say no Guns on his property! That is his right. You can follow the rule or not follow the rule that is your chose.
    If you do not follow the rule and get fired because you got caught! then accept the fact that you are responsible for breaking the rule and suffer the consequences.
  • Options
    woodguruwoodguru Member Posts: 2,850
    edited November -1
    If it's in the car why would your employer have the ability to ever see what is in your car? I've worked with some people that I wouldn't like to think of as having a gun out in their car.

    Does the company have the right, they have the right to do whatever they want on the premises that they own. You do have the right in this free country to do other things like refuse to work under that kind of control or my personal favorite, start your own company and then you can be as liberal or as controlling to your employees as you want.

    I've had a few companies, my favorite conversations were those that involved hearing an employee telling me what I could or could not legally do. I've had a few laughs and asked those making bold statements like that to my face if they wanted to see me let them go because I didn't like the way they were talking to me. Just the straight up question "do you want to see me let you go because I don't like the tone of your voice?" I've asked it just like that and invariably got an apology and a much more deferential attitude. It was fairly clear that I was prepared to do exactly what I was asking about. I've always said that I do not need a reason to let someone go if I don't like anything about them or the job they are doing.

    It has always been my premise that certain businesses have jobs that are highly sensitive to being representative of the owner and how the business will be run. I fired a customer service person because they were abrasive and lacked diplomatic skills. That would have been an unappropriate reason in other positions but their personality was a direct reflection of my business. It had it's humor when I was asked by the person for an explanation and told them I didn't like their attitude.
  • Options
    BeeramidBeeramid Member, Moderator Posts: 7,264 ******
    edited November -1
    I'm sorry, gun? What gun?[;)]
  • Options
    wittynbearwittynbear Member Posts: 4,518
    edited November -1
    As long as you are not caught they can not fire you for it. They can not search your vehicle either in a publicly accessable parking lot. If its a secure area they can search your vehicle upon entry, and require you to pass through a metal detector upon entry. They are not the police, they can not physically search you, and they can not search your car in any publicly accessable parking lot. If they do they are violating your rights to privacy and may be sued, and if you were fired they may be forced to give you your job back with back pay, and any promotions you may have received.
Sign In or Register to comment.