Can you get sued for “gun-owner discrimination”?
March 27, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Recent Decisions, Terminations
If a few pending laws are passed, employers in some states soon won’t be allowed to tell employees to keep firearms off of company property. Will your state be next?
Last fall, the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted employers the authority to enforce no-gun policies for employees on company property, even if a gun is legally owned by an employee. But that hasn’t stopped several other states from trying to pass legislation that allows employees to bring guns on employer premises.
For instance, Florida has just passed a law that makes it illegal for people and businesses to bar people from bringing legally-owned firearms onto their property. For employers, that means workers are allowed to keep guns locked in their cars in the parking lot, regardless of the company’s policy. Companies are no longer allowed to discipline people for having guns, or even ask them if they’re bringing firearms on the premises.
A similar bill is in the works in Tennessee, which would also let employees sue if they suffer an adverse action (i.e., get fired or disciplined) because they keep guns in their cars.
Most likely, these won’t be the only states to try and tackle the issue. We’ll keep you posted on how things shape up.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Anyone that legally owns a gun and also has a concealed handgun permit should be allowed to carry a gun ANYWHERE. There is no way that an employer can GUARANTEE an employee’s safety so the employee should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary. Besides, if someone wants to bring a gun on the property they will do it anyway regardless of the law or the rules. Gun laws do nothing but penalize the people that abide by the law and obtain the proper licensing. Criminals don’t care what the law say—duh, that’s why they’re criminals!
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Good point, Kim! I am glad to see that the State of Florida, and several others now, are beginning to defend gun owners from invideous employment discrimination. As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Although a person that has gone through the proper channels (classes, applications, license, etc.) to obtain a conceal and carry permit (CCW), in most states, if a place of business posts a sign stating the possession of firearms on their premises is prohibited, it is only applicable the actual building and not the parking lot around the building. There are laws that protect “federal” facilities from ever being entered with a legally permitted concealed firearm (other than by law enforcement officials). Some of these facilities include police stations, court houses, federal buildings, churches, national parks, schools, airports, and some stadiums to name a few. People with a CCW permit are allowed to possess a firearm on or near these properties, but it must be kept in their locked vehicle and not brandished if they wish to enter the facility, otherwise they face a criminal offense. If a person does not possess a CCW, they cannot even keep a firearm in their locked vehicle if they are on the previous mentioned protected areas.
In states where a CCW is legal, properties that choose to post signs stating they wish to prohibit firearms on their premises have the right to do so, and they are usually required to post the signs on a main entrance with a certain size of a sign (i.e. 18 X 18). However, any business has the right to ask a person carrying a concealed weapon to leave if they choose to do so. If someone refuses, the business can call the police and the police will issue a ticket and fine to that person. The fines usually have probation periods associated with them and if a person has repeated situations like this, they will lose their CCW privileges.
I agree with the previous persons reply that law abiding citizens that go through the proper channels and pay the fees to carry a concealed weapon are the people we should be the least worried about. It is the people that go around the system and break the laws that we want to get off the streets and keep out of our offices.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
That’s rediculous! I’m all for the right to bear arms, but what about the right to a peaceful workplace? I work at a bank, you don’t seriously think we should allow guns to be carried at the bank do you? What about Federal buildings? If I’m licensed I get to carry a gun into a court building? That’s just crazy!
April 24th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Well David, don’t you think that everyone should be able to defend themselves wherever they are? As I said before, criminals will carry a gun anywhere they wish and I should have the right to defend myself from them. What would you have me do—-throw my keys at them?! If I’m at a bank or a post office or wherever and someone with a gun comes in threatening to kill people you can bet your bottom dollar that I will do everything I can to stop them and damn the consquences–I can deal with that at the courthouse. I carry my gun EVERYWHERE except Federal buildings and I’d carry there if it weren’t for the metal detectors. It makes me feel secure and as long as it’s concealed, no one even knows it there. Of course, if I have to take it out to defend myself or someone else, the legal consequences would be well worth it if I saved my own life or the life of someone else. I wonder how many lives could have been saved at the church shootings around the country if only someone had been carrying a weapon? We can no longer afford to live in a dream world. I am proud to call myself someone that will defend myself or someone else no matter the cost or the political correctness of it all. My life is worth defending no matter what! Isn’t yours?
April 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Apparently David feels that only CRIMINALS should be allowed to carry wherever they want. After all - the government never punishes THEM for violatig gun control laws - only the innocent, against whom they have NO OTHER charges to levy! Plus, the US Supreme Court has SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED criminals from having to comply with gun registration laws, since they are forbidden to own them anyway, they said that would constitute sself-incrimination. PS: There is NO RIGHT to be safe anywhere, certainly not in the Constitution. Safety has to be EARNED evey day.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Kim,
In situations like you describe the statistics for injuries and death increase exponentially when a second gun is introduced. Let’s look at a bank robbery for example. In most cases when it is armed robbery the gun is never fired because there are no other threats in the building to the criminal, so he has no reason to use his gun for anything other than intimidation. In almost all cases in bank robberies, when there is a shooting it is because of police or public intervention. As for the church shooting example, some criminals have violent intentions and those are always hard circumstances to come to terms with, however I would argue that shooting back at a violent criminal will only increase the number of stray bullets in the area and thus increase the likelyhood of injury to all involved. Now, that said, I do believe in the right to bear arms and feel that carrying a weapon can greatly decrease violent crimes such as rape, assault, and abductions. I simply think that the work place is not a good place is not a good place for them.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Wendy,
Your argument above is what is known as the Fallacy of “false dilema”. You assume that because I don’t believe that guns should be allowed in the work place that I also believe that criminals should be allowed to carry weapons. These two issues are completely unrelated. I do not believe that criminals should be allowed to carry weapons of any kind, and really I don’t think that they are. Wouldn’t possesion of a weapon be a violation of their parol and thus send them back to prison? This hardly seems like an allowance. That said, who cares if a criminal registers a gun or not, simply possessing one whether it is theirs or not will send them back to prison. As you said “After all - the government never punishes THEM for violatig gun control laws”, that’s just a silly staatement. The government does punish them for it, it’s called commiting another crime. It’s not like once you become a criminal you are exempt from being tried for any future crimes on the grounds of “well he’s already a criminal so I guess it’s expected …”
Thank you for your well thought out and carefully written comments though, they are always appreciated. I’m sure those on your side of the argument are happy to have you with them, I know I am.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
David–
So since you don’t think the workplace is a good place for weapons, I assume that you think work places are always safe. Let’s count how many post office shootings and workplace shootings have occurred in the last few years by disgruntled employees. There is NO place that is 100% safe. For crying out loud, if someone can assasinate the President with all the security surrounding him, what kind of chance does a regular Joe Blow have? Criminals are naturally attracted to places they THINK no one will be armed at. As for me, I don’t intend to go down like a chump. I will defend myself and other people if the opportunity presents itself no matter where I am. If I have to use my weapon in a place where I’m not supposed to have it and I wind up saving my own life or someone else’s life then it will definitely be worth it. If someone enters any establishment be it a school, a church, a bank, an office building, sports stadium, mall, whatever and has intentions of committing a crime, I assume that they’ve already decided that whatever it is they’re there to do or steal is worth dying for. That’s a decision THEY made BEFORE they went in.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Kim,
Again with the falacies and assumptions, I’m really at a loss as to why people can’t debate the position I am taking and feel that they must claim that I must think something all together different and then proceed to argue against that. Perhaps it is because you have no decent argument against what I am actually saying? Let’s all stick to the point shall we.
There is nothing in this Universe that can claim “always”, not even gravity. So, no I don’t think that the workplace is “always safe”. I do however think that it should “always” be kept as safe as possible, and that means NO WEAPONS. Someone can always sneak one in, those with intentions of ill deeds and those with no ill intentions, such as yourself. As you claimed, you have and will continue to carry a fire arm and given the opportunity would carry them into places where they are prohibited (which by the way makes you a criminal, although as of yet unconvicted). If attempts to restrict weapons from work locations are successful then it will be a safe place to be. I would challenge to to find a case of a shooting in a location that did not have weapons on the premises. That said, this is a slippery slope and there is a point at which the restrictions must stop. I DO NOT propose that we do not allow weapons to be carried at all, it is after all one of our constitutional rights. I do however think that a company, organization, or property owner should have the unequivicable right to keep weapons off of their property. This comes down to a Property Rights issue. Do I as a property owner have the right to tell you, a licensed gun carrier, that I do not want you to carry a weapon on my property? I say yes! If that is true than an employer should ahve the same right since the work place is their property.
Now, just to clarify for all those who have trouble with understanding what I am and am not saying. The point here is that I believe a property owner should have the right to restrict weapons from his/her property, whether that owner is a private land owner or a business. If it is private property then the owner should have a say as to who carries what. This does not exclude criminal actions, as they are by definition against the law, if someone breaks that law and attacks or threatens another individual then it is a crime and thus obviously not allowed by the law. Thus my view does not “allow” for criminals to break the law.
Let’s see if we can avoid the assumptions and falacious arguments in the future, no one likes having words put in their mouths. I have not made any about you or what you believe, and I would appreciate the same consideration in return.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Oh, I completely forgot to comment on Kim’s example of The President. Kim states, “For crying out loud, if someone can assasinate the President with all the security surrounding him, what kind of chance does a regular Joe Blow have?”
This is exactly my point, if the President can get assasinated with all of those highly trained guns surrounding him, what makes you think that the gun you carry would help you in a situation where a crime is being committed? In fact, the Secret Service are vigorously trained NOT to fire their weapons in return or exchange circumstances, they are taught “one shot, one kill”. What you are proposing is a potentially untrained private citizen returning fire. How does that make a situation like this safer for the public?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
It may or it may not help but it’s certainly alot better to TRY to protect myself instead of just being a sitting duck and hoping nothing happens. I may go out or be taken out but it won’t be without a fight I can assure you.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Oh, and I didn’t say I didn’t think businesses shouldn’t have the right to prohibit weapons—all I’m saying is that regardless of what a business owner thinks or wants or what sign they post, it is MY safety that I’m worried about and that trumps everything else as far as I’m concerned. If no one tries to hurt me then I won’t hurt them but I’ll certainly be ready if they do no matter where I am. And if that makes me a criminal, so be it. I hardly think any jury in the world would convict someone of trying to defend themselves but that’s a chance I’m definitely willing to take.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
So by your last statement: “I didn’t think businesses shouldn’t have the right to prohibit weapons—all I’m saying is that regardless of what a business owner thinks or wants or what sign they post, it is MY safety that I’m worried about and that trumps everything else as far as I’m concerned.” It sounds as if you are saying that they have the right to prohibit weapons but you won’t pay attention to it and bring them on premises anyway, is that so? If so, what makes you so special that you don’t have to follow the rules about when and where you can carry a weapon, denying someone elses right to prohibit weapons on their personal property?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I didn’t say I was special—all I’m saying is that I will do whatever it takes to protect myself no matter what. No one is going to be able to guarantee my safety while I’m on their property so I’ll guarantee it as well as possible myself.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
So you will ignore prohibitions of weaponry?
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Yes. The only exceptions are bars, airports and federal buildings with metal detectors. If I am carrying my gun somewhere it is prohibited to do so and there is no cause for me to use it then no one will even know it’s there. No threat, no one hurt, no problem. However, if I am somewhere where it is prohibited and someone threatens me or someone else’s life and I feel the need to use it, it’s TOTALLY worth it to me to go through the legal battle. At least I’ll have a good chance of living instead of dying. And even if I die anyway, at least I put up a fight. My life is worth saving to me. As I said before, I have a hard time believing a jury would convict anyone of saving their own life or the life of someone else just because someone put up a “sign”. Picture this: a courtroom with a thief, murderer, rapist or worse sitting on one side and me sitting on the other side being someone that was just trying to protect myself or someone else. Hmmm, that’s a bet I’d bank on winning any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
My point is then that you must think you are special some how. If you think that it is okay for you to deny someone their right to control what is brought onto their property. If it is my right to prohibit weaponry from being carried on my property and you ignore that, then you are acting against my personal rights. My question is no longer about the legal ramifications, as you have made it clear that you do not care what the law says you will carry your weapon almost everywhere no matter what. My question is now why the law and other peoples personal rights do not apply to you, what makes you so special? If you would suggest conferring this right to carry weapons anywhere to everyone (except convicted criminals I would hope), then you are denying everyone the right to control what is brought onto their personal property.
So, which do believe:
The right to carry weapons everywhere and noone has the right to control their private property.
or
The right to control your private property and the right to carry weapons anywhere that it is allowed.
Or is it only you that the rights of others do not apply to?
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
So if you are a property owner what would make YOUR rights any more important than my rights then? It seems that you are on one side and I am on the other. You are worried about property owners rights and I’m worry about not only my rights but more importantly MY LIFE. Neither person’s rights are more important than the other’s. All I am saying is that for ME, I intend to protect MYSELF anywhere I can. Nothing more, nothing less. If that means that I carry my weapon some place I’m not supposed to then so be it. If I don’t have to use it, then there’s nothing for you or anyone else to worry about. If I do have to use it and I save my life or someone else’s then it’s worth it to me. I must say that this whole string of messages has been quite comical to me. I’m not sure what part of all this you don’t get. I will protect myself however and wherever I am. Everything else is irrelevant. I refuse to be a victim. I will fight for my life to the death if necessary. PERIOD.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Whew! Kim and David - you are wearing me out! Let’s get back to the original question - Should we be allowed to have a firearm on the property but in a locked car in parking area regardless of “no firearm policy”. I hold a conceal/carry permit, carry a pistol for personal protection since I am on the road alone 3 or 4 hours a day. I feel I should be allowed to keep my pistol in my locked car in the parking lot when I am at work. Not allowing me to bring it on to company property would mean that I would not be able to have it with me when I commute the 70 miles to and from the office each day. I am not asking to be able to carry it in my purse in the office “just in case”. I am not afraid of being put in a position that I would have to protect myself or someone else while I am in my office at work but I am afraid of having a flat tire on the interstate and being at the mercy of some rapist or murderer. I respect my employers rights, rules, and regulations but I would have difficulty following a ban on being able to have it in my locked car. All of our facilities are clearly posted “No firearms Allowed” and I feel quite certain that mine is not the only car or truck in the parking lot that is packin’.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
I don’t have a problem with guns in locked cars, my problem begins when the gun comes in the building. Once that occurs the gun bearer is then endangering everyone else in the building. But assuming that the gun stays, locked away, in the car, I don’t think many employers would have a problem. Now, if people new about the gun then that may change things. One would assume that the employee carrying would have had to show it, or talk about it in the work place and that would constitute harrassment/hostile work environment (at least here in CA it would). But, to stay on point, if an employee has a gun locked in their car and they do not advertise that fact then I don’t think anyone would care (mostly because they wouldn’t know), but once someone knows about it, then it becomes a problem.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The issue of firearms on property is far from moot. Living in the great State of Texas and in a town with a very strong military presence, firearms and concealed carry permits are the rule not the exception. That being said, the people that carry concealed under license are law abiding (hence the license), honest (as evidenced by the background checks), and they’re people concerned with personal and legal community protections. Rules and regulations are always promulgated with the desire to control aberrant behavior but restrict only those that choose to abide by them. No amount of legislation or policy writing will ever stop a disturbed individual from committing a crime like the one at Virginia Tech. Making more laws that criminals and crazies disregard does no one any good. Having the right to search employee vehicles and restrict personal rights is in my opinion, short sighted and acts only to distract from the more difficult, politically perilous, and expensive issue of dealing with behaviorally aberrant individuals through our legal, insurance and healthcare systems.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
David, you have made my point exactly. You said “if an employee has a gun locked in their car and they do not advertise that fact then I don’t think anyone would care (mostly because they wouldn’t know), but once someone knows about it, then it becomes a problem.” That is EXACTLY my point about carrying a weapon ANYWHERE. If you don’t have to use it then no one will know and there’s not a problem. But if you DO have to use it then it’s worth everything. Keeping a weapon locked in a car out of reach makes about as much sense as locking one up inside a lockbox in your home. If someone breaks into your home I doubt very seriously if you’ll be able to ask him to kindly hold off a couple of minutes while you unlock your lockbox and get your weapon out. The same applies to being in any building etc. When and if it hits the fan, you’d better be ready to protect yourself because a weapon in a locked car won’t do you any good. That’s a chance I’m not willing to take.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Kim,
As you said, a gun in the car is different from a gun in your hand. While you are at work it is your employers responsibility to keep you safe. If you do not feel they are doing an adequate job of that then don’t work there. But when you bring a gun into the building you are putting everyone else at danger. This is not to say that you will use it against them (on purpose), as I am assuming that you are not the crazy person that we keep referencing. However, by having the gun in the building you create the possibility of a co-worker, vendor, or customer taking your gun and using it, unless you keep it strapped to your body at all times, but even then it is only less likely that someone could take it from you, but still possible. Also, if someone were to bring their own weapon inside the building and start waving it around, the statistics tell us that in the majoity of cases the person will not use the weapon unless they are threatened, such as by introducing another gun into the fray, that is when the actual shooting begins. When there are bullets flying there is no guaruntee that only the bad guy gets hit, you put yourself in more danger by pulling the gun, and all of those around you and around the bad guy (unless you are a perfect shot, which no one is). This makes you just as guilty as the person who came in the building with their gun. You both have the same argument, “well I didn’t intend to use it, but then he/she pulled his/her gun and I only acted in self defense”. Now it has been your argument that the “bad guy” is breaking the law by having the gun so you should be able to protect yourself, but you fail to admit that you are breaking the law too, again putting you and the “bad guy” in the same boat. The only difference between you is that the “bad guy” is planning in advance a time to pull the gun, and you are only waiting for the first opportunity to pull yours.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
David-
Again, you assume that the world is perfect by thinking that an employer can keep all employees safe. NO PLACE is 100% safe. As I’ve mentioned before, if the President can be assasinated then anyone can. I simply believe that I have a right to protect myself any way I can wherever I am. And before you go off in a rant as usual, I don’t think I’m special but I do think my life is worth saving and I’ll do whatever I have to do to make sure that I feel as secure as possible. A person’s right to protect their own life trumps everything else. Period. If that makes me a “bad guy” too then so be it. And if that does make me a “bad guy” then at least I’ll be a breathing “bad guy” instead of a dead chump.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Oh, and David look at this link: 5 DEAD IN PLASTICS FACTORY SHOOTING RAMPAGE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25361852/from/ET/
You say that introducing a 2nd gun into a situation is bad because the shooter will feel threatenend but no one at this factory had a gun to threaten the guy and the shooter STILL shot people. He just walked in and opened fire. Don’t be fooled–no place is safe. Maybe if some CHL holder had his or her weapon at this factory they could have taken this guy out BEFORE he shot all those people. The same thing goes for the mass church and school shootings. If just one single CHL holder had used their own weapon all these situations might have turned out completely different. It’s not guaranteed that it would have turned out differently but at least there would have been a chance. As it was, everyone was a sitting duck.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Quit it already. You are way off the subject. Perhaps you both should get to work at your respective workplaces and not worry about a gun in the workplace. My boss, the owner of the company, has made it well known that their are a few guns in his drawers of his desk in his office if the situation were to arise that someone would need one of those guns, they are fully loaded with boxes of amo laying around. We have women that work late sometimes to 10pm here and men that can’t wait til 4:58 so they can lock up shop to get home. I feel very safe knowing those guns are in that office. I am considering a concealed weapons license. I want a gun. This world is coming to more and more poor lazy people who want what me and others have but can’t get and so they try to steal and rob us.
David you act as if you are the most eloquent writer in the world, get over yourself. Kim you will be breaking the law provided you walk in past the sign that states “No Guns Allowed”, which making yourself a criminal in the process. Back to work all. We are on this site for HR info not a NRA Discusion….
August 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The laws talk about concealed unloaded guns in locked cars. Does the employer have to allow ammunition?
August 6th, 2008 at 11:48 am
It does not say “unloaded” anywhere. What good is an unloaded gun? None. If someone is jacking your car, you can’t say, “Oh wait, let me load my gun, then hold you at bay from stealing my car”. DUH…..
August 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Wow Private Party! That is so awesome that your boss is being proactive against potential workplace violence. He is obviously smart enough to know that violence can happen ANYWHERE at ANYTIME and doesn’t want himself or his employees to be sitting ducks.
Please DO get a CHL. It’s my most prized possession because it is the license for me to legally carry an item than can potentially save my life or someone else’s. It means the world to me to know that I have the power to protect myself.
I don’t think anyone is really “off topic” here. Anything related to limiting or prohibiting my right to protect my life is all the same to me whether it is the workplace, the parking lot of the workplace, church, school or wherever. No one else is going to take responsibility for my safety so I’ll gladly do it myself.
And yes, I do realize that I am technically breaking the law by carrying a weapon in certain places but I’m more than willing to accept the consequences of doing so. If I save my own life or the life of someone else, I’ll gladly handle the legal part of it at the courthouse. Everything has a cost and my life is worth it to me.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Mainly that reply was for David, a know-it-all, the off topic comment was because he was spinning everything you or anyone else said. Maybe he needs a trip to the O’Reily Factor, the “NO SPIN ZONE” on the Fox News Network. He was wearing me out with all that…
We are actually less than one block from the Police Station & Municipal Courts Building, that brings alot of crazies out in the general area of our parking lot and stationed outside at the bus stop going to pled on tickets or court cases. Most people who are at the police station are criminals, drug users and have no means to support their habits and have not conscience. We have alot of weidos outside. I am not scared walking through the parking lot to my car by any means, but I promise I am very aware of the things going on around me when going outside and have keys in hand ready for the car or a keycard in hand ready to go back in the building. I will probably get a license as soon as I can. I have 3 children 14, 12 & 10 and I am a little concerned with that, but I was raised in Texas, around guns and have a GREAT respect for them and I just wish that my husband would have allowed me to raise them the same as myself and then at this time in their lives I wouldn’t have a fear as to what would happen if they found my gun….
If you have children, what do you suggest?
August 6th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
You are correct–I think David must live in some sort of bubble where everything is perfect and safe and there is not violence. Like you, I live in the REAL world and don’t try to fool myself into thinking that some places are safe and some aren’t. For crying out loud, if some idiot will randomly go into a CHURCH and start shooting they’ll go anywhere.
When you get your CHL you will (or I did anyway) get an instant feeling of security. If I walk through a parking garage or walk at night, I keep my hand on my gun inside my purse ready to go. Heck, I’ll shoot a hole clean through my purse if I need to! I can get a new purse but I can’t get a new life.
I don’t have children but it sounds like yours are certainly old enough to understand the rules about not touching guns. I remember when I was VERY young my Daddy showing me his hunting rifles and being told explicitly to NEVER touch them for any reason. It never even crossed my mind to touch them. I think if you explain in detail to them exactly why you feell the need to have the weapon in the house and the possible consequences if they disobey that it will work out fine. That lockbox stuff sounds really good until you realize that a criminal isn’t going to stop and wait for you to get the key to open it and take our your weapon any more than someone that goes into a workplace is going to wait for you to go down to your car and get your weapon.
Please don’t let anything deter your from getting your CHL. And, if you have to carry your weapon somewhere that you’re not supposed to but you wind up saving yourself or your children from harm, I guarantee you will think it’s worth it just like I do.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Thanks, that’s very well spoken….
And you are right, I never thought once about touching any gun my dad had until he let me and thought it was time. I will be applying for that license asap…
August 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
My earlier question regarding ammunition was legitimate. In Act 684 (SB51) State of Louisiana, a reference is made to employers that can provide storage for UNLOADED weapons on the property. that lead me to question the presence of ammunition at all. I am actually working here and trying to create a policy for our locations in different states. It is important to know the loopholes - like ammunition. I don’t really care one way or another, even though I have a personal preference which I don’t have the need to share. However, it is my job to write policy. I was trying to see if anyone had read any of the laws that included allowing ammunition.
My father was a 35-year cop shot early in his career while on duty. Dad was checking out an open back door to a business at midnight. His partner went to the front. The owner was asleep in the back, saw a shadow and reached for his shotgun. The rest is history. Now, having said that, I have brothers and live in Texas. We all had guns and hunted and didn’t make a federal case out of dad’s experience.
Like I said, I am working and doing my job. Just fishing for a loophole that I might need to cover.
Duh! What are you doing besides making cracks about my questions.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Ann - My comment was based upon all the reading materials provided on this site, news stories I’ve read, newscasts I’ve watched, etc., except the actual bill, I did not read that. I wish I had, seriously, what good is an unloaded gun. If you are writing laws and trying not to have loopholes, that is a good one to cover. My apologies.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Ann,
You raised very important point for HR and anyone else who’s in charge of writing policy. Here’s my understanding of the laws that have been passed so far (Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana):
Florida - Employers have to allow ammunition in employees’ cars in addition to firearms.
Georgia - The law doesn’t mention ammunition.
Louisiana - The law says that if access to the parking lot is “restricted or limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station, signage, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access,” employers can prohibit guns in the lot as long as they provide “facilities for the temporary storage of unloaded firearms.” Otherwise, ammunition isn’t mentioned in the law.
The texts of each law are available here:
FL - http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2008-007.pdf
GA - http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb89.htm (scroll to Section 7)
LA - http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=504213
Sam Narisi
Editor
HRLegalNews.com
August 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Thanks to both Private Party and Sam Narisi.
I was so hoping the laws would cover the ammo, and that maybe I had not read the bill in its entirety (I had). That would have made the policy easier to craft.
Now, I will have to either take advantage of the lawmakers’ oversight and cause a lot of anger over a ridiculous point or just allow ammo but REQUEST unloaded storage as a safety measure for workplace violence issues. Of course, the request will not be heeded.
HR, as well as the law, apparently has a lot of gray areas.