I think the same would be fore someone who is renting. When the landlord says that they don't allow weapons or guns on their property and have it stated in the lease, you sign the lease, but is that going to stop me from having a gun in my apartment? NO!! I can always find somewhere else to live, and like Thomas said I can find a new job. There are no legal ramifications on carrying a gun when it is against a policy of a business or property owner. I have never had a job where they have searched through my desk or car even though the policy might state that. I think that if you are at that point in your job it's time to look for a new job anyways. If I were a business owner I would base my policy on the state laws. You will be backed up much more when problems arise. Could you refuse service to someone because of their race, maybe, but BIG problems would arise. Where you own property that invites the public you must welcome all types of people who will obey the law on your property. People are more familiar with laws than policies. I think the word 'Policy' has a negative conotation for businesses. You try and return something and they say, "No, it is our policy." It really ticks off the customer. I do think that policies have their place, but not when they conflict with law. Restricting someones rights on your property is asking for trouble. Now, when someone breaks the law, not your policy, then you call the police and police issue a trespass and a citation for the crime that was committed and then you can get rid of the customer/employee. It looks a whole lot better. In Utah though, you need no reason to fire an employee, which is not good in most cases. Like some other threads that talk about business signs, maybe the law should state that illegal weapons will not be allowed in cars or on the property. That would make it legal for CFP holder to legally posses his weapon in his car.UtahCFP said:
Hope Utah will follow
Hope this happens in Utah. Then we can pretty much carry wherever, except federal buildings and secure areas. This was passed in Florida.
Guns at work
Guns at work
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
G
I understand and it is difficult to resolve the practical implementation with the ideal of property rights. In the case of a store searching my car I would suspect that, in a court room, a policy on a web page is not sufficient; I doubt a sign would be either. In a case where they have the intent of such an invasive nature they had better know you know, as in a customer signed declaration.UtahCFP said:Would you expect the statement to be posted on a sign by the entrance to their parking lot, or would you consider a line or two in the "privacy policy" on the store's Web site be sufficient?Eukatae said:If they state that by parking they have implied consent to search my car then yes I do.
To draw an analogy, I know I am giving permission for search if I enter the secure area of an airport. I don't feel I have given permission for search when entering a WalMart.
Yes it would be impractical for a store but not impractical for an employer to get signed recognition of the parking use policy.
I hate company rules like that.....
The last place I worked at there was a group of us that brought our guns to work and left them in the car because we would go shooting after work. We knew the rules but I guess it was implied by the group of us that nothing was to be said.
I wish they would let CCP holders to bring secured guns on Hill AFB but that will never happen. So I can’t bring guns to work and never will I have a lot to loose if I got caught. I have however thought I could park just outside the base leave my gun in the car locked up and walk to work from there, it would only be a 10min walk, and the building I work in is right near the gate. This would be good for me because it takes 20min to drive to work and I don’t always go straight home.
I've noticed that some of you say you break your company’s policies (not in just this tread), watch what you say it is the internet and anyone can see.
The last place I worked at there was a group of us that brought our guns to work and left them in the car because we would go shooting after work. We knew the rules but I guess it was implied by the group of us that nothing was to be said.
I wish they would let CCP holders to bring secured guns on Hill AFB but that will never happen. So I can’t bring guns to work and never will I have a lot to loose if I got caught. I have however thought I could park just outside the base leave my gun in the car locked up and walk to work from there, it would only be a 10min walk, and the building I work in is right near the gate. This would be good for me because it takes 20min to drive to work and I don’t always go straight home.
I've noticed that some of you say you break your company’s policies (not in just this tread), watch what you say it is the internet and anyone can see.
I understand what you are saying, however, company policy is not law, it is just policy. You are not criminal for breaking a policy. Most of us believe that our lives are more important than our jobs, so it is a risk we are willing to take.usSiR said:I've noticed that some of you say you break your company’s policies (not in just this tread), watch what you say it is the internet and anyone can see.
:agree: There are a few employers whose policy carries the weight of law... I do not envy those federal employees. :disgusted:GeneticsDave said:I understand what you are saying, however, company policy is not law, it is just policy. You are not criminal for breaking a policy. Most of us believe that our lives are more important than our jobs, so it is a risk we are willing to take.
yeah, very very true and I do agree with you.GeneticsDave said:I understand what you are saying, however, company policy is not law, it is just policy. You are not criminal for breaking a policy. Most of us believe that our lives are more important than our jobs, so it is a risk we are willing to take.
It just reminds me when a friend of mine and I were employed at wal-mart back in high school, he stole something from a store at the mall, got cought, our manager read it in the paper and he got fired because he figured he was probably stealing from wal-mart too. It was just a high school job so he brushed it off, but gave the manager a mouth full really really loud at the front of the store at the time it was quite funny.
Wowzers! That must have been a sight! :shock:
I can understand what you're saying. However, my own life is my property too. I believe that I have the right to be able to defend the most important property I have. In this sense, the employer's property rights conflict with my property rights. Which one should trump? This is not a trivial issue.Eukatae said:...
As much as I am a fan of being free to carry where I like I am a bigger fan of liberty in general. Telling property owners what to do with their property is a sin. If I as the lot owner say you can park your car why can I not delineate the conditions under which a car may be parked; including the contents of the car and included in that a firearm? Why does the state have the right to tell me how to dispose of my property? The old saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" comes to mind.
The employer is saying that I cannot keep a self-defense firearm locked in my own car in their parking lot. In effect, they're saying that I cannot defend my life from my front door, to their site, and back to my front door. They will not provide me proper physical security within the workplace, let alone all along the route of my commute to and from work. That is unconscionable. This is a 'feel-good' policy that is anti-gun in nature.
Have you worked for a company that prohibits guns on their property, yet provides real security for employees? I've never seen that. I used to work for a large company in Provo that was (and still is) known for frequent layoffs. I can imagine that they might someday have a disgruntled ex-employee come back for revenge, though I hope and pray that this never happens. What security do they have? Not a thing that would ever stop somebody from coming in with ill-intent. Their anti-gun policy puts employees at risk.
I can see an employer not wanting firearms in the work place. They could potentially have liability issues if something were to happen. The parking lot is totally different. You don't work in the parking lot and provided that you lock your car, nobody should have access to your firearm. Being able to lock your firearm in your car allows you (as Jeff said) to protect yourself to and from work, which you wouldn't be able to do otherwise.
I see what Eukatae is saying, but why should an employer care what is in your car? The car is your property right? Your employer recognizes that you need to park your property on his, that's where his involvement ends. Whatever may be in your vehicle is your business, not his.
I see what Eukatae is saying, but why should an employer care what is in your car? The car is your property right? Your employer recognizes that you need to park your property on his, that's where his involvement ends. Whatever may be in your vehicle is your business, not his.
We need to work toward ensuring that employers who disarm their employees are liable in the event of an active shooter incident, or similar. Make the liability analysis work in favor of self-defense.GeneticsDave said:I can see an employer not wanting firearms in the work place. They could potentially have liability issues if something were to happen
There was a thread a while back similar to this. Here is some language I wrote into my company handbook, actually I just modified and inserted a few words and added a few items.
"Disorderly conduct on Company premises, including fighting or attempted bodily injury, or the use of profane, abusive, or threatening language toward others, or unauthorized possession of a weapon; Employees with a concealed firearm permit must request and receive written permission from the Company President to carry a concealed weapon on Company premises."
This is the only specific reference to a CFP in my handbook. I also have in my handbook a policy that I can search employees personal property including vehicles. However in 10 years I have never personally excersiced this option or seen previous owners or management do this either. As the owner though, I will NEVER remove this policy (searching personal property) from my handbook. I hope to never have to do it, but if I have reason to need to do it, you can bet I will.
It is really about knowing your employer and where they stand. You should be able to sense the overall attitude of an employer towards their employees. Employers that respect their employees treat then well. Employers that don't respect and trust their employees, well thats a different story. Guns are just one indicator of an overall attitude.
"Disorderly conduct on Company premises, including fighting or attempted bodily injury, or the use of profane, abusive, or threatening language toward others, or unauthorized possession of a weapon; Employees with a concealed firearm permit must request and receive written permission from the Company President to carry a concealed weapon on Company premises."
This is the only specific reference to a CFP in my handbook. I also have in my handbook a policy that I can search employees personal property including vehicles. However in 10 years I have never personally excersiced this option or seen previous owners or management do this either. As the owner though, I will NEVER remove this policy (searching personal property) from my handbook. I hope to never have to do it, but if I have reason to need to do it, you can bet I will.
It is really about knowing your employer and where they stand. You should be able to sense the overall attitude of an employer towards their employees. Employers that respect their employees treat then well. Employers that don't respect and trust their employees, well thats a different story. Guns are just one indicator of an overall attitude.
Keeping in mind that if the employee refuses the search, you can't force the issue. You can fire the employee, and in any dispute over the termination can point to the policy to justify your action, but you don't actually have any authority to search the employee's personal items over the employee's objections.PW said:As the owner though, I will NEVER remove this policy (searching personal property) from my handbook. I hope to never have to do it, but if I have reason to need to do it, you can bet I will.
What's your rationale for requiring written permission to legally CC?
To your first statement, Yup!swillden said:Keeping in mind that if the employee refuses the search, you can't force the issue. You can fire the employee, and in any dispute over the termination can point to the policy to justify your action, but you don't actually have any authority to search the employee's personal items over the employee's objections.PW said:As the owner though, I will NEVER remove this policy (searching personal property) from my handbook. I hope to never have to do it, but if I have reason to need to do it, you can bet I will.
What's your rationale for requiring written permission to legally CC?
To your second question:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1694&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
I discussed this at lenght in this thread. Its a great thread and review for anyone that missed it the first time. Basically follow the same line as the thread we are in. If you want to know my feelings and rationale, read this thread as I have a bunch of posts in it and hate to retype the same stuff.
G
Jeff
I understand your thoughts on this subject, I have them too, especially the bit about from your front door to your employers lot. Prohibiting arms in employees cars has the side effect of prohibiting you arms anywhere you go if the destination or origination of the trip is the employer parking lot. The thing is they are not telling you have have to park there; that is something you choose for yourself. You can find another place to park or another place to work.
I find the idea of banning firearms in employees cars repugnant; you could even say I dispose those who would do it. When I use the government to force owners to dispose of their property in a certain way I am leaving them no choice. Whether or not it was a poor policy is non of my business as it is their property. I consider the rights of property owners as sacred, as sacred as that other amendment we often discuss here. In fact the two are inexorably linked as almost everything in the constitution is.
I understand your thoughts on this subject, I have them too, especially the bit about from your front door to your employers lot. Prohibiting arms in employees cars has the side effect of prohibiting you arms anywhere you go if the destination or origination of the trip is the employer parking lot. The thing is they are not telling you have have to park there; that is something you choose for yourself. You can find another place to park or another place to work.
I find the idea of banning firearms in employees cars repugnant; you could even say I dispose those who would do it. When I use the government to force owners to dispose of their property in a certain way I am leaving them no choice. Whether or not it was a poor policy is non of my business as it is their property. I consider the rights of property owners as sacred, as sacred as that other amendment we often discuss here. In fact the two are inexorably linked as almost everything in the constitution is.
G
My views on government being what they are, I kinda hope Utah doesn't force businesses to allow people to keep weapons in their cars or any other private property.
I'm one of those crazy people who thinks RKBA not only protects one's right to own firearms, but all weapons: Machine guns, grenade launchers, submarines, bomber planes, orbital bombardment satellites, etc..
I also feel like any business that says to its employees: "Your lives aren't worth protecting while you're at work" should be abandoned. Find a job elsewhere! Utah's economy is strong enough and our population is educated/skilled enough that we can boycott such rights-violating companies to death. Let the Californian immigrants work there. We don't need them.
But giving government the power to force people into a pro-gun position means that the government has the power to force people into an anti-gun position. I do not want that.
I'm one of those crazy people who thinks RKBA not only protects one's right to own firearms, but all weapons: Machine guns, grenade launchers, submarines, bomber planes, orbital bombardment satellites, etc..
I also feel like any business that says to its employees: "Your lives aren't worth protecting while you're at work" should be abandoned. Find a job elsewhere! Utah's economy is strong enough and our population is educated/skilled enough that we can boycott such rights-violating companies to death. Let the Californian immigrants work there. We don't need them.
But giving government the power to force people into a pro-gun position means that the government has the power to force people into an anti-gun position. I do not want that.
I agree with your point but I feel that this law (while it does have some weak points) would just be enforcing the castle law that many other states have (aka your car is an extention of your home).Ishpeck said:But giving government the power to force people into a pro-gun position means that the government has the power to force people into an anti-gun position. I do not want that.
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Utah Guns Forum
A forum community dedicated to firearm owners and enthusiasts in Utah. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
