Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
ALL THE GUYS AT MY WORK CARRY AND I HEARD A RUMOR FROM THEM THAT AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE YOU A SECURE PLACE TO STORE YOUR WEAPON IF THEY WILL NOT LET YOU CARRY. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS WAS TRUE. IF SO, WHAT IF YOU WORK FOR A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
There is no law against carrying at work (unless you work in a place that it is otherwise off limits like the secure area of an airport). If your company has rules against it then you could get fired if caught. Unless you work at a place that legally requires a safe lockup area then they do not have to provide one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I WORK FOR A FEDERAL/STATE FACILITY, I KNOW IT SOUNDS WEIRD BUT IT DEPENDS ON IF IT'S DURING THE WEEK OR ON THE WEEKENDS. I HAVE HEARD THAT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO CARRY, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING TO BACK IT UP. IF I NEED TO CLARIFY WHERE I WORK FOR AN ANSWER TO THIS SCENARIO I CAN UPON REQUEST, BUT I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE IT IN THE OPEN FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
If you are in a federal building you CAN'T carry. If you are in a state building that is not on the restricted list you CAN carry, but you may still be fired. If you need to know what that list is let me know and I will post it. but here LINKY is a link to the section.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
WTTHEHEL,

Would you please not post in all caps. It is difficult to read easily and, in internet usage, signifies shouting. Thanks.

A federal facility would not be required to abide by state CCW regulations or laws. Nor are private employers required, at this time, to provide secure storage for their employees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
WTTHEHEL said:
ALL THE GUYS AT MY WORK CARRY AND I HEARD A RUMOR FROM THEM THAT AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE YOU A SECURE PLACE TO STORE YOUR WEAPON IF THEY WILL NOT LET YOU CARRY. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS WAS TRUE. IF SO, WHAT IF YOU WORK FOR A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY?
I work where they have a "Policy" against weapons so I can and probably would get fired, but not against State Law. But I would rather like to find a new job rather that to find a new life due to the fact that I could NOT defend myself while at work. Look at all the "Gun free" Zones how well it protects the defenseless due to the fact that the CRIMINAL does NOT follow the law and "policies"

TJ
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
UTOC-45-44 said:
But I would rather like to find a new job rather that to find a new life due to the fact that I could NOT defend myself while at work.
I, however, am of a different mindset. I have similar restrictions at my work and I choose to obey their rules because my first concern is about my family, NOT myself. I also enjoy my job. I enjoy what I do and the people I work with and feel that my company treats me fairly and pays me well for a day's work. I work to support my family. I work so that they can have a roof over their heads. I work to keep food in their tummies. I also have a seriously healthy life insurance policy that would provide for them should I perish. Don't get me wrong, when I am at home or with my family, I will do everything in my power to protect their lives and keep them safe. But I will not sacrifice their long-term security for my immediate safety a few hours of the day, if that makes sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
tapehoser said:
I, however, am of a different mindset. I have similar restrictions at my work and I chose to obey their rules because my first concern is about my family, NOT myself. I also enjoy my job. I enjoy what I do and feel that my company treats me fairly and pays me well for a day's work. I work to support my family. I work so that they can have a roof over their heads. I work to keep food in their tummies. I also have a seriously healthy life insurance policy that would provide for them should I perish. Don't get me wrong, when I am at home or with my family, I will do everything in my power to protect their lives and keep them safe. But I will not sacrifice their security for my own, if that makes sense.
+1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
xmirage2kx said:
If you are in a federal building you CAN'T carry. If you are in a state building that is not on the restricted list you CAN carry, but you may still be fired. If you need to know what that list is let me know and I will post it. but here LINKY is a link to the section.
As a "State Entity" their "policy" is illegal I believe per 76-10-500

76-10-500. Uniform law.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

TJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
UTOC,

There is a difference between making laws, ordinances, or regulations pertaining to the Residence of a municipality, and having Policies regulating Employees. The law you posted pertains to municipalities (cities, Counties, etc.) creating laws or Ordinances regulating the Right for the public to possess firearms. This law does Not apply to businesses or government agencies having policies dictating whether or not their employees can carry firearms. Every employer, including state and federal agencies, has the right to create policies regulating their employees. If they choose to restrict employees from carrying a firearms at work, they may legally do so.

Obviously violating your companies policies is, in most cases, Not a criminal act, and carrying a firearms at work probably wont land you in jail. If I worked in a place where my life was in jeopardy daily, I would quite or insist on carrying a weapon; I would risk being fired for violating policy. BUT, Since there are Very few places in Utah where this type of work environment exists, I would probably adhere to policy since the likely hood of dying at the workplace is pretty slim. jmho.
E
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,252 Posts
TMG said:
UTOC,

There is a difference between making laws, ordinances, or regulations pertaining to the Residence of a municipality, and having Policies regulating Employees. The law you posted pertains to municipalities (cities, Counties, etc.) creating laws or Ordinances regulating the Right for the public to possess firearms. This law does Not apply to businesses or government agencies having policies dictating whether or not their employees can carry firearms. Every employer, including state and federal agencies, has the right to create policies regulating their employees. If they choose to restrict employees from carrying a firearms at work, they may legally do so.

Obviously violating your companies policies is, in most cases, Not a criminal act, and carrying a firearms at work probably wont land you in jail. If I worked in a place where my life was in jeopardy daily, I would quite or insist on carrying a weapon; I would risk being fired for violating policy. BUT, Since there are Very few places in Utah where this type of work environment exists, I would probably adhere to policy since the likely hood of dying at the workplace is pretty slim. jmho.
E
I disagree, and I think this may be one that a court would have to decide, but IMO the law clearly says that no state entity may make or enforce ANY ...Rule regarding firearms... This to me says they can't communicate in any way to anyone that firearms are prohibited, it also means they can't do anything about it if someone does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
TMG said:
The law you posted pertains to municipalities (cities, Counties, etc.) creating laws or Ordinances regulating the Right for the public to possess firearms. This law does Not apply to businesses or government agencies having policies dictating whether or not their employees can carry firearms.
That's not what the law says. It says nothing about municipalities (though they're included within its language), it says "a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms".

So, is a state agency a "local authority or state entity"? Check, it's a state agency and an agency is an "entity".

Is a policy about employees carrying an "ordinance, regulation, rule or policy"? Check, it's a policy.

Is a policy about employees carrying guns "pertaining to firearms"? Clearly.

Does a policy prohibiting employees from carrying one that "inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms"? Check.

There's nothing in the law specifying that it applies only to municipalities, and nothing granting an exception for rulemaking that pertains to employees.

Obviously, IANAL, but this seems extremely clear-cut to me. The only loophole I can see is an agency might decide not to create an official policy, because that would be illegal, but could still terminate employees who carry without giving the firearm as the reason. I think anyone fired that way could probably make the case that it doesn't matter that the policy is unofficial, it's still real and still illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
That's not what the law says. It says nothing about municipalities (though they're included within its language), it says "a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms".
Maybe I wasn't clear in my last post. I was differentiating between laws that apply to the public, and policies that apply to Employees. This law has Nothing to do with Employer policies set up for employees. This law simply applies to Laws that are enacted by municipalities regulating the Public, not employees of the state or any other agency. EMPLOYEES, whether they work for private entities, or for government agencies, Can be regulated by their company or department policy when it comes to being allowed to carry firearms during work hours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Car Knocker said:
WTTHEHEL,

Would you please not post in all caps. It is difficult to read easily and, in internet usage, signifies shouting. Thanks.
Yeah... that's the rumor I heard.

:shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,252 Posts
TMG said:
That's not what the law says. It says nothing about municipalities (though they're included within its language), it says "a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms".
Maybe I wasn't clear in my last post. I was differentiating between laws that apply to the public, and policies that apply to Employees. This law has Nothing to do with Employer policies set up for employees. This law simply applies to Laws that are enacted by municipalities regulating the Public, not employees of the state or any other agency. EMPLOYEES, whether they work for private entities, or for government agencies, Can be regulated by their company or department policy when it comes to being allowed to carry firearms during work hours.
Where did you come up with that? Is there some case law I've missed or some part of the statute that I'm not reading? As clearly and open mindedly as I can, I read it to mean that...

(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

I see no exception for Government Employers/Employees, or state run businesses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Maybe I should answer the question With a question. Are you saying this law allows all state and local government EMPLOYEEs to carry while they are at their respective places of employement?? Regardless if they have a Department or Agency policy that states they cannot? I would say their HR Director would Completely disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
TMG said:
Maybe I should answer the question With a question. Are you saying this law allows all state and local government EMPLOYEEs to carry while they are at their respective places of employement?? Regardless if they have a Department or Agency policy that states they cannot? I would say their HR Director would Completely disagree.
This is exactly right. Any policy against legal carrying is contradictory to state law and as such is invalid. Such policies should be removed because they open the government up to A LOT of liability (I would have carried and protected myself, but the policy said I couldn't). The HR directory can disagree all he wants, there's nothing he can do about it. Any actions (discipline, demotion, firing, etc.) against a state or municipality employee due to their lawful carry of firearms would be grounds for a nice lawsuit - and from the sounds of it, maybe that's what we need to inform and educate these folks that think they can get away with restricting our constitutional rights.

And this applies to BOTH employees and the public. The U of U's efforts are the most clear-cut here. They cannot restrict either employees, student, or the public from carrying there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
WTTHEHEL said:
ALL THE GUYS AT MY WORK CARRY AND I HEARD A RUMOR FROM THEM THAT AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE YOU A SECURE PLACE TO STORE YOUR WEAPON IF THEY WILL NOT LET YOU CARRY. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS WAS TRUE. IF SO, WHAT IF YOU WORK FOR A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY?
Your rumor almost sounds like the attempt Utah's AG made to get the State of Utah to supply lockers of CFP holders if they went to a court or other secure state facility, so they could store their gun when they got there.

But Hay what do I know :dunno:

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Tarzan1888 said:
WTTHEHEL said:
ALL THE GUYS AT MY WORK CARRY AND I HEARD A RUMOR FROM THEM THAT AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE YOU A SECURE PLACE TO STORE YOUR WEAPON IF THEY WILL NOT LET YOU CARRY. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS WAS TRUE. IF SO, WHAT IF YOU WORK FOR A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY?
Your rumor almost sounds like the attempt Utah's AG made to get the State of Utah to supply lockers of CFP holders if they went to a court or other secure state facility, so they could store their gun when they got there.
Yeah, this is where things are a bit hazy. This would not apply to regular employers. But the law does dictate that in order for STATE secure facilities (state courts, mental health facilities, jails, police stations, etc.) to actually be secure areas, they must be clearly posted AND there must be a place to secure and store your weapon. A lot of places have the signs, but not a place to store your gun. The AG was trying to clarify that the lockers must be provided in order for the facility to restrict weapons. Again, this only applies to secure areas as defined in the law, not to private businesses .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
This is what the AG has to say about it (the bolding and italics are mine):

AG Opinion 2001-2
The Honorable L. Alma (Al) Mansell
President of the Senate
The Honorable Martin R. Stephens
Speaker of the House of Representatives

Re: Your request regarding the Legality of Department of Human Resource Management Rule 477-9-1(5) pertaining to firearms.

Gentlemen:

By letter dated October 26, 2001 you requested a formal written opinion from me on whether the Department of Human Resource Management's rule 477-9-1(5) prohibiting state employees from carrying firearms "in any facility owned or operated by the state, or in any state vehicle, or at any time or any place while on state business" is contrary to Utah law. (1) This opinion responds to that specific request.

Background of Utah's Laws Concerning Firearms

Article I section 6 of the Utah Constitution clearly recognizes the "individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes," but also provides the Legislature with the authority to define the "lawful use of arms." (2) U.C.A. § 76-10-500 affirms this constitutional limitation of authority as a function of the Legislature in order to "provide uniform laws throughout the state" and protect this constitutional right. (3) Subsection (2) of that statute declares, "[a]ll authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms." [emphasis added.]

The Legislature has only provided specific statutory authorization to regulate firearms under prescribed limitations to the following entities: municipalities, (4) mental health facilities, law enforcement facilities, correctional facilities, (5) the Olympic Public Safety Commander, (6) airports, (7) courts, (8) houses of worship, private residences, (9) inns, (10) elementary and secondary schools, (11) buses and bus terminals. (12) Because the Legislature has provided such limited statutory authorization to regulate firearms to only a few entities, all other ordinances, regulations, and rules pertaining to firearms that are promulgated by any other local authorities or state entities would be illegally promulgated. (13)
The Department of Human Resource Management's Rule

The Legislature has provided that the Department of Human Resource Management "shall establish a career service system" that provides for "recruiting, selecting, and advancing employees . . . equitable and competitive compensation . . . training employees as needed to assure high-quality performance . . . [and] retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance." U.C.A. § 67-19-3.1. Since the Legislature has not specifically delegated the authority to enact or enforce ordinances, regulations or rules pertaining to firearms to the Department of Human Resource Management, the only issue is whether U.A.C. R 477-9-1(5) pertains to firearms. By its own terms it does. Consequently, the rule is not only unenforceable, it is also null and void because it has been promulgated in direct contravention of a statutory provision forbidding such a rule. It is my understanding that based on a similar informal opinion provided to the Governor's Office on October 22, 2001, DHRM is currently in the process of rescinding the rule by January 1, 2002.Sincerely

MARK SHURTLEFF
Attorney General

______________________

1 U.A.C. Rule 477-9-1. The full text reads:

Administration--Employee Conduct--Standards of Conduct.
. . .

5) Employees shall not carry firearms in any facility owned or operated by the state, or in any state vehicle, or at any time or any place while on state business.
(a) This rule shall not apply to sworn officers as defined by Section 53-13-103, or employees whose assigned duties require them to use a firearm.
(b) Employees who violate this rule shall be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to R477-11.
2. Ut. Const. art. I § 6 The text of the provision reads: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

3. U.C.A. § 76-10-500 provides: (1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

4. In U.C.A. § 10-8-47, the legislature has authorized municipalities to "regulate and prevent the discharge of firearms, rockets, powder, fireworks or any other dangerous or combustible material." [Emphasis added.]
U.C.A. § 10-8-94 grants towns the same authority as cities, but prohibits towns from attempting "to regulate an area which by the nature of the subject requires uniform state regulation."

5. The Legislature, in U.C.A. § 76-8-311.1 (2), has specifically delegated authority to correctional, law enforcement, and mental health facilities wherein they "may establish secure areas within the facility and may prohibit or control by rule any firearm." [Emphasis added.]

6. The Legislature, in U.C.A. § 53-12-301.1 (2)(a), has specifically delegated to the Olympic law enforcement commander the authority to establish rules "designating the locations of secure areas within Olympic venues where a firearm . . . is prohibited between January 25, 2002, and April 1, 2002."

7. The Legislature, in U.C.A. § 76-10-529, has specifically authorized an "airport authority, county or municipality regulating the airport" to establish a secure area where firearms are prohibited. In addition, the airport authority, county or municipality regulating the airport may use "reasonable means . . . to detect . . . firearms" and shall provide notice at the entrance of each secure area that firearms are prohibited.

8. The Legislature, in U.C.A. § 78-7-6, has specifically authorized the judicial council to "provide, through the rules of judicial administration, for security in or about the courthouse or courtroom, or establish a secure area" where a person may not possess a firearm unless authorized by the rules of judicial administration. In addition, the court may also prohibit an abusive cohabitant under protective order (U.C.A. § 30-6-4.2), a person convicted of domestic violence (U.C.A. §77-36-5.1), or a defendant whose conviction is on appeal, while on bail (U.C.A. §77-20-10), from possessing a firearm.

9. The Legislature, in U.C.A. § 76-10-530, has specifically delegated the authority to religious organizations operating a house of worship or an owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of a private residence to post signs prohibiting firearms or communicate the prohibition directly to a person transporting a firearm so that the person in possession of a firearm may not enter or remain in a house of worship or private residence with his or her firearm.

10. The Legislature, in U.C.A. § 29-2-103 (1), has specifically delegated the authority to innkeepers wherein they may "refuse or deny accommodations, facilities, or privileges of a lodging establishment to any person who is "in the reasonable belief of the innkeeper, bringing in property that may be dangerous to other persons, including firearms." [Emphasis added.] A "lodging establishment" is defined as a place providing temporary sleeping accommodations to the public, including: a bed and breakfast establishment, a boarding house, a hotel, an inn a lodging house, a motel, a resort, or a rooming house.

11. The Legislature, in U.C.A. §§ 76-10-505.5(1) and 76-3-203.2(1), has prohibited the possession of firearms "on or about school premises" or within 1,000 feet of school grounds. Section 76-3-203.2(1) defines "school premises" as public or private elementary, secondary, vocational or postsecondary school. This prohibition does not apply to concealed firearm permit holders. U.C.A. §76-10-505.5(3). However, the Legislature, in U.C.A. § 53A-3-502(2), has delegated authority to "the responsible school administrator" to approve the possession of firearms but only at public or private elementary and secondary school premises. These schools may approve a lawful activity where firearms are present and to be used in connection with the activity. Consequently, since the legislature has only authorized elementary and secondary school administrators to approve the possession of firearms, postsecondary schools, such as universities, and vocational schools have not been delegated authority to approve possession of firearms on their campuses.

12. The Legislature, in U.C.A. § 76-10-1504 and § 76-10-1507, has prohibited the possession of firearms aboard buses or in bus terminals. In § 1504, the legislature made it a second degree felony for a person to board a bus while carrying a concealed dangerous weapon, but the legislature has provided an exception for "a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon." However in § 1507 the legislature has made it a third degree felony for a person to carry a firearm into a bus terminal or aboard a bus and there is no exception for a concealed weapon permit holder. In 76-10-1507, the Legislature has authorized the bus company to "employ reasonable means, including mechanical, electronic or x-ray devices to detect [a firearm] concealed in baggage or upon the person of any passenger. Upon the discovery of any [firearm], the company may obtain possession and retain custody thereof until it is transferred to a peace officer."

13. The administrative rule that is the subject of your inquiry, R 477-9-1(5) may not be the only rule that has been promulgated without authorization from the Legislature. For instance, your letter requesting this opinion had as an attachment, Formal Opinion No. 98-01 from the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. That opinion concludes that the University of Utah's policy prohibiting students and faculty from possessing firearms on University premises was contrary to law. [As of this date, those policies are still listed in the University of Utah Policy and Procedures Manual: Policy: 8-10, Rev. 3, July 14, 1997 and Policy 2-9, Rev. 7, July 13, 1998 Section IV Subsection F.] I agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Legislative General Counsel that those policies are unlawful and in violation of the laws of this State.

http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/AGOpinion2001-2.html
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top