Leaving gun in vehicle at work? Fired

[dansgotguns]

Dan,have you been down this road? Or was this covered in training?

Time and time again ive seen people barred for this and it ticks me off every time.

 

[dansgotguns]

If you're looking for stolen property, call the police. They'll still tell them unless I consent, they need a warrant.

Give me a few minutes ill explain.

 

[dansgotguns]

.

 

[stephen87]

However, if they have let me go, they have breached the contract we have and you should no longer be bound to it. However, I would make the police be present for the "legal" search and I would demand proof that I've been stealing. Otherwise, they have no grounds for a search. Maybe it's me and my bullheadedness, but you are not getting in my car without my permission and/or a warrant.

 

[dansgotguns]

If you're looking for stolen property, call the police. They'll still tell them unless I consent, they need a warrant.

Entry is consent to search besides refusal to comply with a search gets you barred from property.

 

[dansgotguns]

It doesn't say being an employee or contractor is consent to search it says entry. Anyone on property can be searched at any time. Contractual agreement

 

[stephen87]

You can still refuse a search. Once you enter, do they search EVERY car? If not, they are targeting you for a specific reason and I would be getting a LEO involved. I will not be unlocking my door, and the police will be present either before or after breaking into my car. That would be a nice blemish on a company report.

 

[jkaetz]

Entry is consent to search besides refusal to comply with a search gets you barred fron property.

As with most signs, it can still be argued by an attorney willing to take the case. That sign reminds me of the signs sometimes seen on gravel trucks claiming they are not responsible for damage. In that case at least the sign means absolutely nothing. Once I'm no longer an employee I would definitely have the police involved if they want to search my vehicle before I leave. The only reason to submit to a search while employed is to maintain your paycheck. Once that motivation is gone you can fall back to the law instead of an employer's draconian rules.

 

[stephen87]

After they have fired you though, you are no longer subject to their contract because you are to leave the premises immediately. You were subject to search when you entered. Once they breached a written contract, you should no longer be held to the contract due to having to leave immediately.


IANAL

 

[CathyInBlue]

Dan: Why did you further scribble out "USS" on the sign? Doesn't that just mean "United States Service", or is that just for naval vessels? Or is there a naval vessel USS Property?

And what about cars with back-up cameras? Just playing devil's advocate there.

 

[dansgotguns]

Entry is consent to search besides refusal to comply with a search gets you barred from property.

Dan: Why did you further scribble out "USS" on the sign? Doesn't that just mean "United States Service", or is that just for naval vessels? Or is there a naval vessel USS Property?

And what about cars with back-up cameras? Just playing devil's advocate there.

Way to call me out lol. Dont want too much tied to me here. Ive probably already said too much.

 

[T2D4]

in any case I am not going to risk my job over this is any regard, need my check too bad.

you're smarter than most on this board. too many idiots out to prove a point.

 

[actaeon277]

Nope they will say they are looking for stolen property

If you're looking for stolen property, call the police. They'll still tell them unless I consent, they need a warrant.

They pay probably the most taxes to the city out of any other company, by far. They buy half the cars for the police department.
I'm kinda thinking how that would go.
Besides, it is their property. They can require a search.

You can still refuse a search. Once you enter, do they search EVERY car? If not, they are targeting you for a specific reason and I would be getting a LEO involved. I will not be unlocking my door, and the police will be present either before or after breaking into my car. That would be a nice blemish on a company report.

They search random cars going it/out. Certain details make it more likely.
They search cars in the company owned parking lot only for certain reasons.

After they have fired you though, you are no longer subject to their contract because you are to leave the premises immediately. You were subject to search when you entered. Once they breached a written contract, you should no longer be held to the contract due to having to leave immediately.

IANAL

But, if you are removed for a 5 day suspension, you are still employed.
And depending on what the charge was, you can fight it through a procedure and arbitration.
But, refusing to allow a search of the car means immediate termination.
So, even if you were going to get the 5 day suspension removed, you're now out of luck.

 

[dansgotguns]

They pay probably the most taxes to the city out of any other company, by far. They buy half the cars for the police department.
I'm kinda thinking how that would go.
Besides, it is their property. They can require a search.

They do a lot more than just that for gpd. And besides gpd doesnt care about your rights on the streets let alone on the property owned by their main source of income.

 

[T2D4]

After they have fired you though, you are no longer subject to their contract because you are to leave the premises immediately. You were subject to search when you entered. Once they breached a written contract, you should no longer be held to the contract due to having to leave immediately.


IANAL

that's obvious. keep that day job.

 

[wolfy2]

that's obvious. keep that day job.

Understand this T2D4. For me it's like Rosa Parks on the bus. How far will we each bend when are rights are taken.

 

[ModernGunner]

The (redacted) is exempt from the Indiana law that allows it. It has a special classification based on Homeland Security rules. If you have a gun in your car on their property, you are screwed.

Im 99% positive this doesn't apply to parking lots outside the plant due to not being a "secured area" wide open parking lots.

And that would be 100% incorrect, IF that parking lot is owned or rented by USS G.W., ALL areas of the Gary property are part of the secured facility.

Not sure about the other USS plants, as I've not been to most of them (but some). However, it MAY be that USS falls under DHS in general as a 'secured facility', therefore ALL areas at ALL USS plants MAY be considered secured facilities.

This is not necessarily because they do or do not have ports / waterways. It's typically because the nature of the business and/or industry. For example, ALL oil refineries come under that designation. Same is true with chemical plants, etc., generally speaking.

Not sure exactly what company ?*$@#%* is, but if it's a secured facility, then that specific facility, or the company in general, falls under the designation and firearms, knives, etc. are prohibited.

Of course, no one 'has' to work at that specific facility. But for those that do, the prohibitions apply.

 

[dansgotguns]

And that would be 100% incorrect, IF that parking lot is owned or rented by USS G.W., ALL areas of the Gary property are part of the secured facility.

Not sure about the other USS plants, as I've not been to most of them (but some). However, it MAY be that USS falls under DHS in general as a 'secured facility', therefore ALL areas at ALL USS plants MAY be considered secured facilities.

This is not necessarily because they do or do not have ports / waterways. It's typically because the nature of the business and/or industry. For example, ALL oil refineries come under that designation. Same is true with chemical plants, etc., generally speaking.

Not sure exactly what company ?*$@#%* is, but if it's a secured facility, then that specific facility, or the company in general, falls under the designation and firearms, knives, etc. are prohibited.

Of course, no one 'has' to work at that specific facility. But for those that do, the prohibitions apply.

Can you cite a source that proves open lots owned by a certain "secured facility" are also considered secure facilities?

 

[KW730]

Can you cite a source that proves open lots owned by a certain "secured facility" are also considered secure facilities?

(8)(8) on the property of a person that is:
(A) subject to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards issued April 9, 2007; and
(B) licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(9) on property owned by:
(A) a public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1) that generates and transmits electric power; or
(B) a department of public utilities created under IC 8-1-11.1;

I think this covers it.

 

[dansgotguns]

I think this covers it.

I dont see how that covers it.