Legal Carry ???

[jimg]

Lets say Joe works for Company A which bans CCW holders from carrying on their property. Joe does not want to be fired so he does not carry. A nut walks into work and murders Joe and a bunch of other coworkers.

Is it reasonable to assume that the company assumed more responsibility for Joe's safety when it took away his ability to defend himself?

Joe's survivors cannot sue law enforcement for failing to protect Joe. UNLESS a officer said they would protect Joe.

Does Company A's restriction of Joe's right to protect himself in turn obligate them to protect Joe?

It will be a very interesting case if it ever goes to court.

In NC there are criminal charges that can be filed if a CCW carries onto property with the do not carry here signs.

Later,
Dan

Hi Dan
I understand the logic but our govt bodies arent places of logic or even whats right.

I dont think its a shoe in just b/c they restricted guns on their property. Doing so doesnt necessarily mean theyve assumed responsibility for your protection/safety. Youre free to walk if you dont like the arrangement. Im sure theyd *never* sign a statement saying theyre responsible for your safety beyond workplace issues. How it turned out *if* it went to court would completely depend on where it happened.

OTOH signage must comply w/ the law. I believe NC stipulates how they must be posted and what they look like. If they dont comply then those criminal charges would be dropped.

 

[kennyd]

The NRA has covered this extensively, due to the uproar at a [SIZE=-1]Weyerhaeuser[/SIZE] plant in OK where employees where fired...
You can read some about it HERE

 

[jimg]

I'm sure the company could/would argue it was protecting its other employees from Joe blazing away, and that the odds were that Joe was more likely to shoot someone by accident than having a nut case walk in and start firing.

That would be a very hard sell as carry holders are some of the best 'risks'. Stats pretty much prove theyre a very trustworthy lot. I think the co would rather take the position that their restriction only meant they didnt want guns on premises and had nothing to do w/ assuming risk for employee safety.

 

[George2615]

There was a case a few years ago. (I think its the case mentioned by kennyd). I recall reading it in the NRA magazine. It too was about a company that had a ban on firearms on company property and they would do random vehicle searches. There were several employees who had both pistol permits and hunting licenses. They figured that they had a legal right to carry their firearm in their vehicle and they proceeded to do so during hunting season. Well, sure enough security did a random search and found several (I don't know the actual count) employees had firearms in their vehicles while parked on company property. They were called to HR and fired on the spot.

The fired group hired an attorney and took the company to court to get their jobs back because they felt their state issued permits and hunting licenses gave them the right to have them in their vehicles. The judge ruled in favor of the company saying their rules allowed them to ban any firearms on their property. He said the state also bans legal gun owners from carrying on or in state or federal buildings, post offices, school grounds, etc. so the company also had that right.

 

[kennyd]

There was a case a few years ago. (I think its the case mentioned by kennyd). I recall reading it in the NRA magazine. It too was about a company that had a ban on firearms on company property and they would do random vehicle searches. There were several employees who had both pistol permits and hunting licenses. They figured that they had a legal right to carry their firearm in their vehicle and they proceeded to do so during hunting season. Well, sure enough security did a random search and found several (I don't know the actual count) employees had firearms in their vehicles while parked on company property. They were called to HR and fired on the spot.

The fired group hired an attorney and took the company to court to get their jobs back because they felt their state issued permits and hunting licenses gave them the right to have them in their vehicles. The judge ruled in favor of the company saying their rules allowed them to ban any firearms on their property. He said the state also bans legal gun owners from carrying on or in state or federal buildings, post offices, school grounds, etc. so the company also had that right.

That is EXACTLY the case I referred to, you can read the details in the link I posted.

 

[the_sandman_454]

One law I want to see passed is a restriction on places which restrict concealed weapon permit holders from having weapons. The law should read that there needs to be a secure area in which to leave weapons (think individual safes/lockers with a guard) if a location is going to restrict people from having weapons.

This way at least you get to have your weapon in the parking lot, and on the road, even if you can't have it at your workstation. I am of the opinion that the public should be able to carry weapons anyplace the police/feds can. The police and feds aren't anything special and shouldn't have special rights over everyone else.

 

[SnowRidge]

One law I want to see passed is a restriction on places which restrict concealed weapon permit holders from having weapons. The law should read that there needs to be a secure area in which to leave weapons (think individual safes/lockers with a guard) if a location is going to restrict people from having weapons.

All guns must be checked at the bar!

 

[RollTideRam]

I guess I'm just taking a chance they will not search my truck. I work in an industrial park with many businesses. There is really nowhere else to park my truck without walking 1/4 mile, and it would still be at another business. I don't mind walking, just not at 5ish in the morning and after 6 when I get off. The place is not in a nice part of town. I remember my brother telling me about taking his gun to work. He used to work on a military base (Redstone Arsenal). He talked to a MP one afternoon about it. They were also subject to being searched, but the MP told him if his pistol was in a locked box (even the Ruger box it came in) he could not make my brother open it. I wonder how that would fly? I could lock it up when I get to work, and slide it under the back seat of my truck. Then hide the key. JC

 

[BillyP]

There was a case a few years ago. (I think its the case mentioned by kennyd). I recall reading it in the NRA magazine. It too was about a company that had a ban on firearms on company property and they would do random vehicle searches. There were several employees who had both pistol permits and hunting licenses. They figured that they had a legal right to carry their firearm in their vehicle and they proceeded to do so during hunting season. Well, sure enough security did a random search and found several (I don't know the actual count) employees had firearms in their vehicles while parked on company property. They were called to HR and fired on the spot.

The fired group hired an attorney and took the company to court to get their jobs back because they felt their state issued permits and hunting licenses gave them the right to have them in their vehicles. The judge ruled in favor of the company saying their rules allowed them to ban any firearms on their property. He said the state also bans legal gun owners from carrying on or in state or federal buildings, post offices, school grounds, etc. so the company also had that right.

Actually

most of the employees that were fired had no concealed carry permit.

It was mostly rifles and shotguns that were found.

It wasn't a random vehicle search but a company parking lot search for drugs by a drug dog that could detect guns also.

The no gun on company premises was in their employee handbook and had been for several years.

 

[SnowRidge]

Here's an interesting one. It happened a long time ago, but has some connection to carrying and other peoples' reaction to it.

I was taking night classes at a community college. The class was cultural anthropology. One of the students was a police officer. The instructor, an odd young woman who never ever used a contraction in her speech, asked him if he was allowed or required to carry a gun off duty.

He told her he wasn't required to carry, but was permitted to if he so chose. She then asked if he was carrying there in her classroom. He refused to answer, stating that was the sort of information an off duty officer did not broadcast. She then said he could either answer or leave the class, making it clear that if the answer was yes, she would kick him out anyway. He got up and left.

A lot of us were stunned, and a few were pretty angry. We were hoping that he would file a complaint and come back to class, but we never saw him again or heard anything more about it.