Fired From Work For Having Gun In Car

[88GT]

Regardless or "not taking into consideration." Try reading that way, and the context might take hold.

I know you were stirring the pot. But you can't separate the two because by definition, company policy itself was a violation of the law. The termination is just a bad fruit, so to speak.

Change "firearm in vehicle" for "having black skin."

 

[KLB]

Should the OP's friend NOT have been fired even though it violated company policy; regardless of the law on the books? Seems like an over-reach by govt, to me.

I see it this way.

No. The gun is in the private property of the employee. If the employee takes the gun out of the car, then the company would be in their rights to terminate the employee.

 

[Rookie]

I see it this way.

No. The gun is in the private property of the employee. If the employee takes the gun out of the car, then the company would be in their rights to terminate the employee.

Good point.

 

[88GT]

I see it this way.

No. The gun is in the private property of the employee. If the employee takes the gun out of the car, then the company would be in their rights to terminate the employee.

But the vehicle is on the private property of the employer.

If all that is required to negate private property rights is that the firearm is on the private property or the person himself, then no restaurant could ever be justified in asking someone to take the firearm to the car or leave the premises.

 

[VERT]

I see it this way.

No. The gun is in the private property of the employee. If the employee takes the gun out of the car, then the company would be in their rights to terminate the employee.

That is how I reconcile private property rights. I own the car, I pay taxes on the car, the car is my personal property, what is in my car is my business.

Personally I think IN needs to be like some other states and define a vehicle as the private property that it is.

 

[PGRChaplain]

A good friend of mine was Fired for the same offence, having a hand gun in his car. This was upheld because the gun was visible from outside. The grip was visible (sticking out) in the pocket on the door. The gun was not in the Trunk or Glove Box as stated in the Law.

 

[1775usmarine]

I work for the railroad and our company has the same policy about firearms on company property. It doesn't say though in the rule book about firearms in vehicles. Not sure how this works as Norfolk Southern is everywhere.

 

[E'villeGunner]

Its just not "in the trunk or in the glove box". As long as its locked inside vehicle, and out of plain sight. However you want to interpret that....

(d) This section may be not construed:
(1) to prohibit a person who owns, leases, rents, or otherwise
legally controls private property from regulating or prohibiting
the possession of firearms on the private property;
(2) to allow a person to adopt or enforce an ordinance,
resolution, policy, or rule that:
(A) prohibits; or
(B) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or
ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's
vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked
vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked
vehicle, unless the person's adoption or enforcement of the
ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule is allowed under
IC 34-28-7-2(b); or
(3) to allow a person to adopt or enforce a law, statute

 

[timsdl72]

Should the OP's friend NOT have been fired even though it violated company policy; regardless of the law on the books? Seems like an over-reach by govt, to me.

If I understand this point correctly, following this logic would negate OSHA, minimum wage, sexual harassment, etc. Even taxation would come into question carried far enough. Oh wait.....maybe I agree!

 

[88GT]

That is how I reconcile private property rights. I own the car, I pay taxes on the car, the car is my personal property, what is in my car is my business.

Personally I think IN needs to be like some other states and define a vehicle as the private property that it is.

And if your car is parked on the property owned by the employer?

 

[arthrimus]

And if your car is parked on the property owned by the employer?

I think it's fair to say that a vehicle is something quite different from a bag or clothing. While all of these things are private property, a vehicle is a substantial piece of mobile property which is capable of fully enclosing the owner and his personal effects, not much unlike a dwelling. Keeping a firearm locked away in your vehicle should be a right afforded to you as the owner of that property. While locked in the vehicle, the firearm in question is not directly in contact with the property that the vehicle rests on, nor is it in the immediate possession of someone who is on or about the property in question.

My truck is a small parcel of my property no matter who else's property it may rest on at any given time. Should you be able to tell me that my vehicle may not rest on your property? Yes! Should you be able to tell me that my vehicle is welcome, but that my personal effects may not reside within my vehicle while it rests on your property? I think not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If I understand this point correctly, following this logic would negate OSHA, minimum wage, sexual harassment, etc. Even taxation would come into question carried far enough. Oh wait.....maybe I agree!

I'm a firm believer in private property rights. If a person owns a business, and wants to deny service because someone is black, white, gay, straight, short, tall, ugly, cute, that's their right. And while some people think I'm anti-Capitalist (rolling eyes), I have a firm belief that the free market will reconcile all these issues. The color green tend to trump everything else.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think it's fair to say that a vehicle is something quite different from a bag or clothing. While all of these things are private property, a vehicle is a substantial piece of mobile property which is capable of fully enclosing the owner and his personal effects, not much unlike a dwelling. Keeping a firearm locked away in your vehicle should be a right afforded to you as the owner of that property. While locked in the vehicle, the firearm in question is not directly in contact with the property that the vehicle rests on, nor is it in the immediate possession of someone who is on or about the property in question.

My truck is a small parcel of my property no matter who else's property it may rest on at any given time. Should you be able to tell me that my vehicle may not rest on your property? Yes! Should you be able to tell me that my vehicle is welcome, but that my personal effects may not reside within my vehicle while it rests on your property? I think not.

If your truck is on my property, without my permission, should I be able to move it?

 

[arthrimus]

If your truck is on my property, without my permission, should I be able to move it?

Yessir, I think I made that sentiment fairly clear in the sentence that follows the one in question.

EDIT: I think that a more clear illustration of what I am saying is this. If my truck is on your property without permission then you have the right to remove it from your property. However, if my truck is on your property with your permission, and it so happens that you do not want the gun that is in my truck on your property, then you do not have a right to smash my window and remove my gun from your property. Your property right only extends to my truck's presence on your property, it does not extend to the contents of my truck as that is firmly within the domain of my personal property.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.....

GUY RELFORD GUY RELFORD GUY RELFORD


and


then Wait



That is all I have to add

 

[VERT]

And if your car is parked on the property owned by the employer?

Arthrimus summed it up nicely.

 

[Steell]

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.....

GUY RELFORD GUY RELFORD GUY RELFORD


and


then Wait



That is all I have to add

So, you didn't read the original post? Or you just like getting hysterical?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I think it's fair to say that a vehicle is something quite different from a bag or clothing. While all of these things are private property, a vehicle is a substantial piece of mobile property which is capable of fully enclosing the owner and his personal effects, not much unlike a dwelling. Keeping a firearm locked away in your vehicle should be a right afforded to you as the owner of that property. While locked in the vehicle, the firearm in question is not directly in contact with the property that the vehicle rests on, nor is it in the immediate possession of someone who is on or about the property in question.

My truck is a small parcel of my property no matter who else's property it may rest on at any given time. Should you be able to tell me that my vehicle may not rest on your property? Yes! Should you be able to tell me that my vehicle is welcome, but that my personal effects may not reside within my vehicle while it rests on your property? I think not.

Isn't your vehicle defined as curtilage in terms of the self defense statutes? Would that apply in this case?

IANAL. Just asking.

 

[arthrimus]

Isn't your vehicle defined as curtilage in terms of the self defense statutes? Would that apply in this case?

IANAL. Just asking.

What would be the effect of that as it pertains to this conversation? If it is defined as curtilage does that not reinforce the position that I put forth? I am not a lawyer either but I fail to see how that changes anything?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

What would be the effect of that as it pertains to this conversation? If it is defined as curtilage does that not reinforce the position that I put forth? I am not a lawyer either but I fail to see how that changes anything?

Tap the brakes. I am reinforcing your point.