Can an employer fire you ????
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.
0
-
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. 0 -
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. 0 -
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=3944080 -
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. 0 -
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.0 -
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??? 0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
PA is an "at will" employment state. Your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason (or no reason). 0 -
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!0 -
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.0 -
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!0 -
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.0 -
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)0 -
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.0 -
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.[;)]0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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. 0 -
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.0 -
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. 0 -
Did I change my name to Shane? [:o)]
I am James, for those who have sometimers. [;)]0 -
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.0 -
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]0 -
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. 0 -
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.0 -
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. Period0 -
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.0 -
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.[;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
41 comments