Take our survey: Guns at workplace parking lots?
August 7, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
Following Florida’s lead, the Lousiana legislature recently passed a bill allowing employees to keep guns in their locked cars while parked on employers’ property. Several states have similar laws, some of which are being challenged on in federal court. So, what do you think?
Should employees be allowed to store guns in their cars while parked on company property, even if the employer objects? Tell us what you think by answering this survey. We’ll publish the results next week.
Loading ...
August 11th, 2008 at 9:30 am
It is my feeling that there is no good reason to carry a gun in a vehicle, especially an employee bringing it onto the workplace parking lot. It makes it too easy for an angry or confused employee to get to. It also increases the chance of someone breaking into the vehicle to get the gun. I feel people should have the right to own guns, but there is no need to carry them around on the person or in a vehicle, etc. Also, if guns can be carried in a vehicle to the workplace parking lot–what’s the difference in high schoolers being allowed to carry them in their vehicles to school parking lots or teachers carrying them in their vechicles? Come on, some answers speak for themselves, and I believe carrying a gun to a public place in a vehicle is one of them. At that point, it becomes a public concern.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Where does the Second Ammendment right end? Will the next thing say that I can’t stop a workman from bringing a holstered pistol into my house because they have a “right to bear arms”. The owner of a property should be able to say what comes on to their property. And if the right to bear arms is sto strong, why are some locations excluded such as nuclear plants? Either there is this right, or there isn’t. Can’t say security concerns only apply for selected locations.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Here in Texas we really get excited about guns. The opening day of deer hunting season is second only to Christmas as vacation request time for many businesses in our area, and a new deer rifle, shotgun, or crossbow is a source of excitement and entertainment for friendly co-workers.
However, a business should always have the right to dictate what is acceptable on the business premises. I can understand a state law prohibiting employees from bringing guns to work but I can not understand a state law protecting that as a right.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
The difference of going on school property for kids or teachers is, Federal Buildings, Schools, State Offices, etc. do not allow it even if you do have a concealed handgun license. To get a Concealed Handgun License, you have to go to an instructing course, you cannot be a criminal (past or present), can not be charged/convicted of domestic violence, so therefore, that takes out most of the crazies. The most of the rest of the people who have the licenses are peace officers, judges, retired police officers, security guards, etc. The remainder are the ones who respect guns, know how to use them, know the rules and regulations and only bring guns for protection from the ones who are criminals, who didn’t follow the licensing regulations or where denied a permit, license or purchase of a gun, and are mentally unstable. I hope someone can have their gun readily available for them to use in case you ever find yourself in a situation where one is needed.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
There is no good reason for a firearm to be in an employee’s vehicle on company property whether it be parking lot of inside the facility. Companies should always have the right to dictate what is acceptable on the company’s premises.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
A company should always have the right to determine what is (or is not) allowable on their property. If an employee insists that they have the right to carry a gun in their personal vehicle, - go right ahead - just don’t park it on company property. Actually, this is just as much an extreme as allowing the gun on the property in the first place. What everyone keeps forgetting is the rest of the 2nd amendment which refers to a “well-regulated militia” in relation to owning a gun. Somehow or other, this has translated to individual rights to bear arms. Even some police forces in the world do not carry guns (the British for one). I do not understand the “need” for anyone outside of “well-regulated militia (i.e. police officers, military personnel and the like) to own a handgun - they are only meant to kill people and nothing else - you certainly don’t go hunting with one! Rifles for the purpose of hunting and providing food - sure. AK-47s (just because you like to collect them) does not make much sense to me. No one needs a “killing machine” on their person or property).
August 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Keeping firearms in your vehicle is very different from taking one into the workplace. The workplace should be governed by the owner of the property, but keeping a firearm in your vehicle, even if on private property, should be acceptable because the vehicle is the employee’s private property.
I do not like the fallacy of the argument that says it will make it easier for an angry employee to get to a firearm; if the employee is unstable enough to get his gun from his car an shoot someone, he is not going to listen to the policy that tells him not to do it.
The difference from a high schooler having a gun and a grown adult having a gun is obvious; please. I think any teacher that is properly trained to use a firearm should be able to keep a gun in the classroom. (The key word is “properly”.) Again, if you have a teacher that is unstable enough to shoot someone, they will not listen to school policy.
Why punish law abiding citizens for the actions of a few lawbreakers? Gun control does not make the population safer; it actually puts you and I in jeopardy because then only the lawbreakers will carry firearms and we will not be able to defend ourselves or others.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, which supports nearly all states permitting their residents to carry concealed. Legal gun permit holders are at least 21, law-abiding as verified by law enforcement, have submitted fingerprints and undergone a background check, passed firearms and weapons handling and training, and know the laws and justified use of force. Criminals, intent on committing a crime, look for the places with “no firearms” signs, knowing NO ONE is there able to stop them! You never hear of a sporting goods/gun store being the place an illegal shooter stalks. No, it is the school/university/shopping center with its “no guns” signs that make it safe for them to strike. Accurate studies show that banning legal firearms actually increases the risk of violent crime (and when states implement concealed carry, crimes decrease). In the 48 states that allow concealed firearms, there are numerous cases where the legal gun prevented or stopped a violent attack - 98% without any shots being fired. Many state codes grant businesses immunity from any action taken by legal firearm carriers and hold the business liable for injuries that result from prohibiting self-defense. Personally, should a disturbed individual come for me at work, I would prefer to be carrying my own concealed firearm or know that my other employees are, to stop the unfortunate event from escalating/or even starting (versus waiting for however many minutes for police to arrive and investigate the aftermath).
August 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Well Said Roger!!!
August 11th, 2008 at 11:42 am
For all of us in HR this is a hot topic. Personally, I understand both sides and the concerns. I drive 1 1/2 hours to work (each way) through some very rural and wooded areas where there are very few opportunities to find a business (gas station, etc) should a breakdown occur. For me, I could not carry a gun for MY OWN PROTECTION to and from work because of work rules, but with the change, this should not be an issue. Reality is we all probably have employees with concealed weapons in their cars TODAY and anyone who wants to harm employees on company property is not going to be concerned with with law and they are not “law abiding” citizens to begin with.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I agree with Roger, and i have the same traveling concerns as Jackie. I am permitted, and my gun is in my car locked. I fortunately have a intelligent lawyer for a boss who is an avid hunter and not a pansy about gun issues. The bumper sticker that says “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is an absolute truth. And have anyone of you non-believers ever waited for a policeman to arrive with help. In the 20 something years I have been permitted, I have only had to show my gun once (not point it) when a couple of smart alects crowded me at a night drop deposit. I never left my car, I only raised it to show I had one, and they left QUICKLY. I do understand the fears and concerns of the un-educated, and the people with small children (maybe even large children). If you lock your car, and you lock your weapon in your car (say a glove or console box) and you are permitted, this should be allowed.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I’m from Massachusets and unless the law has changed, it is not legal to have a weapon in your car on a public way unless you are with the car. If the employee parking lot is property of the employer, then I am in favor of allowing the employer to set the policy.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Some of the respondents may want to reread what they wrote: that the employer has all the rights and the employee be damned! First, remember back to your history lessons: when employers thought they could set work conditions, hours of labor, no ages for employees, if employees went on strike they would be fired, and more. And what happened? The government came in and said business’ you are wrong and here are all the new laws and agencies to enforce them. Second, because some uninformed employers do trample on their employees (and their rights), the government is again coming out with new laws. Many states are now implementing bills that allow the employee their right to carry in their cars onto a business parking lot. This to ensure the individual in not overridden by the oppressive, uninformed employer. From my perspective, it would seem that employers would be better off letting their employees keep their guns in the car (IF they have to restrict their rights), than have the employees go to “court” so that they can carry to their work station!
August 11th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Bottom line. Company owned property no guns allowed means no guns allowed. Park on the street.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:26 am
We are very lucky that we all have rights in this country, both employee and employer. If any debate turns into an “us against them” confrontation then it ends up being costly for both sides. Look at any issue and try to work out a solution. Toss it around and use common sense. I am in full support of our 2nd amendment right and I practice it within full compliance of the local and state laws of Massachusetts. However, I cannot bring my weapon to an airport, court or school for common sense reasons. Bringing a weapon to work may be justified in some cases but that need could just as well infringe on someone elses rights also. The trampling of someones’s rights can go both ways.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I am not a gun carrier, the only time I ever fired one was for the required potshots in boot camp. (yes I was a sailor). The issue is not if the person has the priviledge (I refuse to use the word right as that has to do with something noone can take away, if we had the right to carry guns there would be no debate) to carry the gun in the vehicle. That issue has been settled. The issue is does a business owner have the obligation to do what he feels necessary to protect the employees under his care. It does not have to do with employee privilleges, it does not have to do with employers stomping all over his employees. It is a safety issue for the business to decide and should be determined by the business, not by government. If the employees have a problem with it, that is what discussion is for and if the employee feels not being able to carry a gun on the business premise is a hardship and a deal breaker, then the employee can find an employee who will allow this or open his own business. Remember, government rarely ever gives up power, first it will be the businesses and the next thing you know the government will be saying that I cannot prevent someone from coming in my house with a gun, but I cannot keep a gun in the house.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Workplace violence is a subject that I provide training on and I can’t tell you how many times I have been “informed” by employers that the access to legally owned guns on their property “will” increase the likelyhood of workplace violence. I am in my 21st year as a Police Officer, there are handguns all about our workplace and every other Police department around the country. Even so, with the prevalence of firearms, workplace violence involving guns is relatively rare at these departments. These Officers have the same emotions, frustrations, etc. as any other human and yet this is not even a topic of discussion.
What one of you would not applaud an employee who was properly trained, had legal access and the moral courage to stand up to a crazed “active shooter” and ended the violence before many unarmed employees were seriously injured or killed? Or, would you terminate them because of the violation of the policy? For those of you counting on the Police to protect you, we are not able to be everywhere at all times, therefor, it is encumbant that you be willing and able to protect you, your family and yes, your co-workers should the need arise.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Problem is, most of the time, it is difficult to tell the “crazies” from the “normal” guy at work with his gun in his car. How many times have we heard about the seemingly normal guy (or gal) who kept to himself and suddenly went on a shooting spree without any warning? If we had some kind of gun control measures in place and the employer was able to make the decisions, maybe this would not even be an issue.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
JA, Gun control is for “law abiding” citizens and where is the employer when my wife or your loved one is on their way to and from the workplace. That is the one of the original arguments that brought the suit up in the first place. Let’s all face it, the world does have evil people in it and and therefor, the need of the profession I am honored to serve through and possibly a weapon with which to protect yourself.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
AOL faced this in Utah several years ago and won their case at the State Supreme Court level.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/hansen072004.htm
August 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Roger, you are obviosly pro-gun and that is fine. Nor am I a complete anti-gun person. I believe in the right to own guns (and not just for militia’s), just not on my property. What about my question concerning the law allowing guns on private property but not ALL private property? If the law is good, why are certain areas exempt? And if the right to carry a gun trumps everything, do I have to allow someone to carry a gun into my home?
August 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I agree with Roger Pence and Jackie as well as several others. I don’t think any individual or company for any reason should tell another individual what they can and can’t keep in their cars as long as the law supports them. I have been around guns for a very long time and know how to use them. I plan on putting one in my glove compartment as protection to and from work. I have to travel a very dark country road and portion of the interstate that has nothing open after normal businesses close. Since I often work after dark during the winter, I would feel better knowing I have that gun. I’m certainly not going to bring the gun inside the work building and my glove compartment will be locked. I don’t think anyone will be able to get into the compartment to get my gun but me! Marsha B.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
If there is an “incident” involving a gun, is my company’s worker’s compensation insurance supposed to cover the injury? Is my company to be held liable in court if the person is permanently disabled or killed, or is that the owner of the gun? If it is the company that is held responsible, then the company should be able to dictate whether or not a gun be allowed on the property, including the parking lot if it is company-owned. If my company is not criminally liable, would the injured person or their family still be able to sue and win in a civil suit? What if the car is broken into and the gun stolen? Who is liable then?
To the police officer commenting on the low incidence in his workplace in spite of the fact that virtually every employee is carrying a gun, that is an obvious conclusion, since the police go through heavy and on-going training courses, as well as the fact that a gun is a tool of their job and not an additional item they choose to bring with them, as much as a hammer or saw is a tool at a construction site. Also, in many cities, police cars are kept in a gated parking lot and have additional security guarding them. In a “normal” office environment, there is little if any security in the parking lots, thereby making it an entirely different situation.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Greetings Andi; My point is that Law Enforcment Officers, being human, are also subject to the same emotions as any other in in other profession. The “conclusion” might be that since there are others trained and armed we are not likely targets in our workplace. The risk is fairly high that one might get immediate and certain negative consequences.
To utilize your argument in conjunction to the original argument that began the Supreme Sourt to consider this…Your company creates policy with the loss of employment if I were to carry a gun onto “your” property, I am licensed to carry a firearm for my protection. On my way to work I am injured/killed when I cannot defend myself with the “tool” I am most comfortable with and its’ use is appropriate. Your policy supercedes my Constitutionally upheld right? The Supreme Court says no.
As for being sued, your business, my business, you can and probably will get sued either way. We all must remember, if ones “right” is not defended then we all have no freedom.
Respectfully, Eddie
August 18th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I’m not saying you don’t have a right to protect yourself, merely that holding a company responsible for an incident resulting from your decision is not appropriate, either. I don’t honestly know what the “right” answer to this question is, because I can understand both sides of the arguement. What I am trying to point out is that other laws and regulations, as well as the “standard practices” of insurance companies, need to be updated to become more appropriate, too.
Frankly, I don’t agree that the intent of the Constitution was for every individual to be wandering around with weapons. On the other hand, how much good is the gun if it’s locked in the glove box at the time it is needed… you can hardly say “hold on a sec while I go get my gun, too.”
Lastly, when the Constitution and it’s Ammendments were written and ratified, there was no such thing as a car, and therefore, it is impossible to argue that they would have supported such a claim. All I am saying is that if the law protects this as a “right,” then the law should also hold the gun owner as the primary person of responsibility in the event that the gun is discharged. I do, however, agree with Albert, when he says that this is not a “right,” but rather a privledge, and those who abuse this privlidge, either by neglecting to ensure they are acting responsibly by keeping it in an appropriate and safe manner, or by abusing the fact that they are licensed to carry, need to be held accountable.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
With regards to Doug’s siting of the AOL case law: In reading the transcription it is evident that the State of Utah ruled in AOL’s favor solely due to their rights under the State’s Employment-at-will laws. The State’s opinion emphatically stayed away from a 2nd Amendment argument.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
No one has the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear amrs in my home or in my vehicle. When in the company premsies, actualy inside, then yes, guns may be restricted. But in my vehicle, even in the public accesible parking lot, then I have every right to keep my gun there, as well as my bible, qoran, steak knife, machete or any other legally owned item. My vehicle is an extension of my domicile. Having been a police officer for 11 years, a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen will always be a help to me, never a threat.
Here in Baton Rouge, the serial killer Derrick Todd Lee worked in a refinery that I also worked in. Many women parked in the same lot. Should none of them have the unalienable right to defend their life from a predator such as this rapist and serial killer? Certainly they have that right, and no one is above the law to tell them they do not.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Having all those rights would be great - for law abiding citizen. However, in some states, a license to operate a vehicle is a privilage not a right, and a vechicle on a public way is not an extension of your home and on someone elses property, the property owner has a right to set conditions on the vechicle being there or the owner of the vehicle can remove it. It’s been over 20 years since I took a gun safety course by the Essex County Sheriff Department in Massachusetts and we were instructed that it was illeagle to have a weapon (hand gun) in your vechicle unattended on public property or on a public way. As the saying goes “The law may not be fair but it is allways right”.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I’ll probably hear a lot of lip from this but here goes. I have been in emergency services for over 36 years. Police officer, firefighter, EMS technician. Police are, as they say themselves when they want to defend a shooting, “afraid for their lives”. Now let’s add this “I have to have my gun” fanfare to that equation. What I predict is more police shootings, more police fear predicated on the visibility and unhampered possession of guns. What in the world makes you think that a police officer will recognize you as a ‘friendly’ if you are confronted in an ‘active’ situation’ that you take upon yourself to intercede in. Police have shot their own undercover people for less reason than that.
Listen this gun to defend and help out stuff is bogus. Sorry but every incident I have seen where a shooting is taking place the police where outside hiding behind trees while people inside with an active shooter were being killed. Everyone else that had good sense was hiding under desk or running. What good was having a gun? Please spare me this hero syndrome as a defense to carry a gun. It should be the property owner that has the right to allow or not allow guns on their property. A comparison to having a bible or Koran is a stretch by anyone’s imagination.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:08 am
Greetings John;
Firstly thanks for your service! Are you stating that in years of service your experience has led you to the opinion that A. Violent events don’t happen on the way to work and therefor no need to to have the choice of the weapon I legally can carry and feel most proficient with? B. The police are able and are responsible for each of our personal safety? C. The government’s duty to “protect the common wealth” precludes the individual’s right to self protection? D. An individual property owner is now totally responsible for my wife’s protection while at their business?
My experience as a Law Enforcement Officer has further steeled my belief that I cannot be the guarenteer of protection even for my own family as I can’t be everywhere at all times. Again the question before the Supreme Court was surrounding the individual’s right to protect themselves on their way to work with a firearm, not specifically at work on the business property.
Respectfully, Yours in Service,
Eddie
October 1st, 2008 at 8:43 am
Hi Eddie. You have some interesting questions. I’ll address them one at a time. And thanks for the recognition of my service.<?
“Are you stating that in years of service your experience has led you to the opinion that”:
“Violent events don’t happen on the way to work and therefore no need to have the choice of the weapon I legally can carry and feel most proficient with”.
Answer. No. I recognize the right of gun ownership and the potential for violence in today’s world. However I do not accept that having a gun in a person’s possession under any and all circumstances is helpful or lawful. Other people and their businesses should not lose their rights to prohibit guns from their property.
“The police are able and are responsible for each of our personal safety?”
Answer. As a matter of speaking, yes. However the phraseology of your question would lead any reasonable person to conclude that police can’t be everywhere at one time. So again to narrow the scope of my comment, I was referring too the workplace.
“The government’s duty to “protect the common wealth” precludes the individual’s right to self protection?”
Answer. No everyone has a right to self protection. Yet ‘self protection does not by it’s very nature have to include an armed person on the outside chance that a gun in your car is needed. Just does not add up to me.
“An individual property owner is now totally responsible for my wife’s protection while at their business?”
Answer: To a reasonable degree, yes. But once more your phraseology points to a simple all or nothing solution. One would conclude that the only protection a person will have is the gun they carry. A dangerous mentality for the gun carrier.
Eddie while I can see and with limits agree with some of your thoughts, I and many other law abiding citizens have a real problem with uncontrolled gun ownership and, present company excluded, some of the abject nuts you see fostering such ownership. I have a problem with my rights to be protected under the law from guns being shoved aside by erroneous ideology about gun ownership.
Lastly the USSC decision included/diminished the right of private businesses to limit guns on business property. That is my main problem.
Thanks for your service as well. You have a tough job and my respect.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Greetings John;
Respectful “give and take” in ideological and passionate conversations is somewhat rare and for that I appreciate your response. My concern is that a Republic’s pursuit of “freedom” is based upon an individual’s protection of rights and this theme seems to me to lead to an errosion of the right of self protection based upon another’s belief that property rights outweigh personal tights.
We may have to choose to be agreeably disagreeable on this matter, but I believe that I would enjoy sitting with you and discuss many other matters of importance.
Respectfully, Yours in Service,
Eddie
October 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Yeah. . one of those things that really has good arguable points from both sides. I enjoyed the interchange and look forward to other topics as well. Like I tell my people here, Eddie keep your head down and be safe out there. Everyone goes home at the end of the shift.