Guns in vehicles while at work

[IndyMedic]

My part time job states that we are supposed to notify security if we keep a gun in the car and I believe it also says something about unloaded and ammo separate from gun. I follow the keep it quiet and out of site rule.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

@dross. How does this law violate the 4th amendment? Thanks.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Regarding this discussion of private property rights...
It seems to me you have 2 parties involved, each with private property rights that overlap when the employer allows the employee to park his property on his parking lot.

It seems to me what is in or on my property, as long as it is reasonably secured and/or otherwise not a hazard to your rights, it's not any of your business. These laws seem to me to be a common sense compromise to accommodate both parties' rights.

If an employer doesn't want firearms, Fords, motorcycles, alcohol, or whatever else on his property, I agree it's his/her right. But how would it be different if some body had Obama or ditch Mitch stickers plastered all over their car and the employer decided that was not acceptable? I suspect no body would support an employer trying to stifle somebody's 1st amendment rights...

 

[bigg cheese]

best thing is to say nothing if told you're to be fired. You may get lucky and have it in writing that the firearm was the reason -- then you've a lawsuit on your hands.

 

[doubleshock]

I says keep it outta sight and yer pie hole closed. It's none of their beeswax what's in yer vehicle.

 

[ljadayton]

Before the July 2010 law (about guns in locked cars on company property) I kept it totally quiet about having a gun in my truck. My company prohibited "weapons" on company property, including the parking lot. Now, since that law was passed, I don't care if my boss (at the store level) knows I carry. It opens up a dialogue for him to ask me gun related questions and it doesn't impact my performance at work any. I wish I was able to carry IN work but that will never happen. I was warned yesterday to "be careful" and to "watch out for" a possibly unstable employee that's currently suspended but facing almost certain termination. This person may or may not have his own weapon, we're not sure. But the best I can do is call 911 and we had to get permission to do that

 

[sporter]

Keep it out of site, keep the vehicle locked and your good to go.

Don't worry about it, nothing they can do anyway (and they know it).

 

[sj kahr k40]

Don't talk about guns at work! It really simple, unless you are 100% sure, which means you own the company, don't talk about guns at work!

Unless of course you work at a gun shop

 

[ATM]

I talk about guns at work.

If they could fire me without a decent reason, they'd have already done it years ago.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I talk about guns at work.

If they could fire me without a decent reason, they'd have already done it years ago.

Or you are like ATM and are 100% sure they won't fire you

 

[dross]

If an employer doesn't want firearms, Fords, motorcycles, alcohol, or whatever else on his property, I agree it's his/her right. But how would it be different if some body had Obama or ditch Mitch stickers plastered all over their car and the employer decided that was not acceptable? I suspect no body would support an employer trying to stifle somebody's 1st amendment rights...

First of all, I don't support any employer making stupid rules. I just support their RIGHT to make stupid rules.

There is NO conflict of rights here. The only rights involved here are the employer's property rights. They are being violated by the government. Since you have NO RIGHTS to remain on someone else's property, yours aren't being violated.

As to employers being able to regulate bumper stickers on their property, I absolutely support their right.

When I was in Kokomo when I lived in IN, I rembember seeing a sign at a union's office that threatened to two vehicles not made by union workers. How is that any different?

 

[finity]

As I've said other threads, I agree that you don't have any "rights" when on someone else's property.

But you do have Rights on (or "in") your own property (your vehicle).

You have a Right to carry a firearm when on the street.

Your employer can tell you not to "carry" on their property but they can't tell you not to carry to & from work (which in effect is what they are doing by banning guns on their property).

I also said that I agreed that the government can make laws (& have) that balance the Rights of two people who's Rights collide.

In this case the government made a law that was narrowly tailored & very specific to a special case as a (yes, I'm going to sway it...) COMPROMISE between those two Rights.

I also agree that you TECHNICALLY have the option to not work there but it has been determined that there is a special relationship between employer & employee that restricts the completely unfettered rights of the employer.

Do you also have a problem with OSHA laws that mandate that an employer has to provide a safe working environment? Do you disagree with the laws that say the employer can't legally make you work off the clock (IOW, for free) as a requirement to keep your job? As an employer you have SOME legal responsibilities to your employees.

This law is along those same lines, IMHO. It minimally restricts the property Rights of the employer while allowing the employee to exercise his Rights as well, but to a lesser degree (locked up out of sight).

I think it's reasonable.

 

[dross]

As I've said other threads, I agree that you don't have any "rights" when on someone else's property.

But you do have Rights on (or "in") your own property (your vehicle).

You have a Right to carry a firearm when on the street.

Your employer can tell you not to "carry" on their property but they can't tell you not to carry to & from work (which in effect is what they are doing by banning guns on their property).

I also said that I agreed that the government can make laws (& have) that balance the Rights of two people who's Rights collide.

In this case the government made a law that was narrowly tailored & very specific to a special case as a (yes, I'm going to sway it...) COMPROMISE between those two Rights.

I also agree that you TECHNICALLY have the option to not work there but it has been determined that there is a special relationship between employer & employee that restricts the completely unfettered rights of the employer.

Do you also have a problem with OSHA laws that mandate that an employer has to provide a safe working environment? Do you disagree with the laws that say the employer can't legally make you work off the clock (IOW, for free) as a requirement to keep your job? As an employer you have SOME legal responsibilities to your employees.

This law is along those same lines, IMHO. It minimally restricts the property Rights of the employer while allowing the employee to exercise his Rights as well, but to a lesser degree (locked up out of sight).

I think it's reasonable.

This is the core of the problem, IMO. I disagree with this, regardless of whether it's legal precedent or not.

I appreciate the argument that says, "Yes, by the strictest interpretation of natural rights, this is a violation of property rights, but in the real world in which we live, where employer's rights have been already limited, is this not a reasonable limitation?"

In that context, the answer would be, "Yes."

Yet, many of the people I'm addressing here have argued very absolutist positions for the rights THEY hold dear. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.

 

[finity]

This is the core of the problem, IMO. I disagree with this, regardless of whether it's legal precedent or not.

I appreciate the argument that says, "Yes, by the strictest interpretation of natural rights, this is a violation of property rights, but in the real world in which we live, where employer's rights have been already limited, is this not a reasonable limitation?"

In that context, the answer would be, "Yes."

Yet, many of the people I'm addressing here have argued very absolutist positions for the rights THEY hold dear. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.

& I can appreciate that, too.

That's why I try to NEVER be an absolutist. Notice I said try .

When you see EVERYTHING in black & white it definitely limits your options.

There are some things that everyone says they will never compromise on. & as soon as they say that then suddenly they are confronted with a situation which forces them to admit that, "well, Ok, I might compromise on that...but just this once!" Suddenly your credibility is in question.

No Right is absolute. No legal theorist in history has ever HONESTLY promoted that idea. Even the Founders with their "inalienable" Rights didn't ACTUALLY fully believe that. There were laws even then that limited ones Rights so as not to infringe on those of others. The goal, though, should be the most limited restriction on either party's Rights as possible.

It's the whole "your Rights end where others begin" concept.

Property owners Rights do not trump EVERYTHING else.

No one would suggest that it would be a property owners right to set off nuclear explosions on their land (or any other less extreme example you can think of in which ones actions on their property affect the Rights of others ), would they?

In this case, the employers Right to control their property is minimally limited by the Right of the employee to carry to & from work.

 

[dross]

& I can appreciate that, too.

That's why I try to NEVER be an absolutist. Notice I said try .

When you see EVERYTHING in black & white it definitely limits your options.

There are some things that everyone says they will never compromise on. & as soon as they say that then suddenly they are confronted with a situation which forces them to admit that, "well, Ok, I might compromise on that...but just this once!" Suddenly your credibility is in question.

No Right is absolute. No legal theorist in history has ever HONESTLY promoted that idea. Even the Founders with their "inalienable" Rights didn't ACTUALLY fully believe that. There were laws even then that limited ones Rights so as not to infringe on those of others. The goal, though, should be the most limited restriction on either party's Rights as possible.

It's the whole "your Rights end where others begin" concept.

Property owners Rights do not trump EVERYTHING else.

No one would suggest that it would be a property owners right to set off nuclear explosions on their land (or any other less extreme example you can think of in which ones actions on their property affect the Rights of others ), would they?

In this case, the employers Right to control their property is minimally limited by the Right of the employee to carry to & from work.

I actually think it's possible to construct examples that are absolutist that work. It's just that they'll never work in the real world, because the - might is right - faction of the human animal is always lurking. As soon as you make an exception for might makes right in one place, you need a compensating MMR adjustment somewhere else.

I have a perfect right, IMO, to set off a nuclear device on my property. The only restriction is that I have to keep the noise, the concussion, the radiation, and the heat confined strictly to my property lines. If I can't, then I'm forcing my fellows to endure it. To me, that's not a restriction of my rights at all. It's preventing me from using force against my fellow man.

I agree that the founders began to limit rights, but it was the moment they became politicians. Politicians have to deal with different factions of society, some of whom will always want the law to enforce their particular issue, much like the parking lot bill. The fact our founders began to limit rights when they took off their statesmen's hats and put on their politician's hats isn't proof to me that the Constitution meant to limit those rights, it just means that our founders were just like pretty much every other human who enters politics.

That said, life under an absolute libertarian ideal is as utopian as every other utopian scheme. One of the failing of utopia is that they require human perfection, and unfortunately there will always be humans perfectly willing to use force in violation of principle as long as the outcome is something that benefits themselves. Like the parking lot bill.

 

[ljadayton]

I talk about guns at work.

If they could fire me without a decent reason, they'd have already done it years ago.

Then I'm like ATM......yeah,

 

[nascar6829]

I guess I am to new this site to realize how blown up this discussion could become.
I agree with most about keeping the gun in the car and not discussing it with anyone.
I was just curious if anybody had the same B.S. to put up with as far as employers disregarding the law and our rights.
They claim that their fear is somebody bringing into work to settle a score. First of all if a guy wants to do that he is going to anyway, and to my knowledge the people who commited these crimes have not had a license to carry in the first place. It is not the responsible gun owner that you have to worry about.

 

[jd42k]

Well I'm curious if an individual is driving a company car to and from work. Does the employer have the right to not allow the employee to carry a firearm in the company owned car?
My employer doesn't allow firearms in the building but have no issues keeping them in a locked vehicle in the parking lot. But we've never discussed the company car issue. Not even sure I'd want to bring it up at work.
Anyone care to comment??
JD

 

[snowman46919]

A lot of this discussion has gone how I expected and what I didn't see discussed was the private property issue. Yes the business is private property but therein also is your car not your private property? Therefore you are permissable to carry within your property as long as you don't leave your vehicle while carrying? What bothers me is that we are completely responsible for the contents of our vehicle HOWEVER it seems that we can not contain anything we want in our vehicle by some of the opinions expressed here. I am not insulting or stirring the pot but where do we draw the line on who's property is what and who is responsible for what?

 

[dross]

A lot of this discussion has gone how I expected and what I didn't see discussed was the private property issue. Yes the business is private property but therein also is your car not your private property? Therefore you are permissable to carry within your property as long as you don't leave your vehicle while carrying? What bothers me is that we are completely responsible for the contents of our vehicle HOWEVER it seems that we can not contain anything we want in our vehicle by some of the opinions expressed here. I am not insulting or stirring the pot but where do we draw the line on who's property is what and who is responsible for what?

You can carry anything within your property that you want. If I'm your employer, I can't prevent you from carrying and I can't search your vehicle unless you give me persmission. All your property rights are intact. Carry anything and everything you want.

Just don't do it on my property.