Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Cannot have firearms or ammo in your vehicle in the parking lot!

That is/was a federal law. Its actual status is somewhat perplexing. It was tossed out by SCOTUS, who said the federal government over-reached the commerce clause to include an area of legislation that belonged to the state. Congress then effectively said, "We can too do that." They changed the wording very slightly, and passed the law again. I don't think anybody expects that law to be enforced again, but I guess it's still on the books.

There are also states and cities that have 1,000 foot �gun free school zone� laws in place.

Anti-Gun groups and legislators have used these types of laws for years whenever they have failed at total banning of firearms. Their philosophy seems to be: �If we can�t ban the firearms we will pass laws that pretty much restrict them to a persons house.�

Have you ever wondered how much screaming would be going on from the left if each state and city in the USA was allowed to have their own versions of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Indeed.

I have very high hopes for the Heller/Parker case. I cannot believe that the antis were blind enough to go forward with it.

The law blogs have had mixed discussion about the recent events, but it seems to me that DC has already conceded on long guns.

If we can get a declaration of "individual right", we will severely restrict the ability of state and local governments to do stuff like that.

Firearms are like cigarettes and air polution...they are easy targets (no pun intended.)

In my copious amounts of free time I sometimes browse through my state and federal Gun Law books from the ATF and it does make for some very interesting (comical?) reading.

It�s scary to think that these yahoos actually get paid (and quite well, thank you) to write these nonsensical and totally ridiculous laws...and even scarier that the public actually believes they will have any effect whatsoever on the activities of people bent on violence against their fellow man. People have been killing, maiming and forcing their will on others since we first set foot on the planet and its pretty silly to assume that removing (or trying to remove) one of the means of accomplishing it will magically halt that human behavior.

Unless you feel that you need more government regulation in your life, it is sort of nonsensical to elect a new crop of legislators every couple of years, and to give them the job of making more laws for you.

Hey, what Uncle Sugar "gives," he can surely take away. I have absolutely no faith [anymore] in a benevolent bureaucracy or government.

The point about states' laws should be carefully contemplated, too.

I didn't expound at all on last post regarding this topic, but when it comes to trap shooting after work or "recreating" to deer camp or favorite quail-thickets, I decided the best thing for me to do is park off of any work property, or go home from work FIRST and then load my gear.

As for a "get-me-home" or "SHTF or TEOTWAWKI" piece, there may be a couple places to deeply conceal something in my rig, that a cursory search would miss ...... But I'm talking about something as small as a .357 or 9mm, too.

No one mentioned what would happen if your rig was car-jacked, or the "authorities" set up some really draconian road-block efforts (who besides me thinks they could be in the works? - give enough demon-craps enough time ......). I'm sure some things we/d each need to play 'by ear.'

But my policy will likely be ...... Go home first to load my gear, and ALWAYS park away from an employer's property where he can't "nose" his way into my private vehicle. Besides, if I pay to park in a private parking garage and don't take a company parking sticker, how is an employer going to force me to park in his lot?

As for the 1000' rule regarding schools, we each need to examine where we each live on a case by case basis.

The 1,000 foot Gun Free Schools Zones do not apply (yet!) to firearms in your home. It only applies to carrying and/or transporting firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.

Technically, if you were stopped by a cop within 1,000 feet of a school while on your way to the range, hunting, or to your gunsmith, and you had a firearm in your vehicle that was not in a locked case then you would be in violation of this law.

I live within 1,000 feet of a school so I always inform my customers that they must have their firearms in a locked case when delivering them to me. I also have a locking bed-box in my pickup that I use for transporting customers firearms to and from the post office, and I keep a copy of my FFL in my glove box and also in my wallet. You can never be too careful as far as I�m concerned, and I plan on staying as far off the old radar screen as I can.

Super advice, Rick. My goals and attitude are exactly the same.

The company I work for has the same policy. I do not see how my company can enforce it since the site manager has a concealed carry permit and has a gun in his truck. Also he brought gun in to work and posted a sign gun for sale sign in the break room saying see him for details.

Disney and Epcot do the same thing here in Florida. If I remember correctly a husband and wife who worked at one of those places were fired because one of them had a gun in their car in the parking lot. Only one of them was working that day but they fired them both. Disney and Epcot fought successfully to defeat the bill that was supposed to make that illegal.

I had no use for Disney or Epcot before that and wouldn't go to either place even if they turned around 180 degrees today.

I think that any employer that has that policy should be held partly liable for what happens to their employees since they have denied them the ability to defend themselves.

I'm glad to see that Stubbleduck uses the term "demon-craps." We might as well describe them accurately and to me that's the most accurate description I've seen!

I�ve been a life member of the NRA for allot of years and I am a big believer in the 2nd Amendment and a persons right to self defense. However, I also am a big believer that a private employer has every right to restrict/prohibit certain things of their employees while said employees are at work and on their private property since the employer can ultimately be held responsible for the actions of their employees.

Can you imagine the flurry of bankrupting law suits should some wacko employee go �postal� on his/her fellow employees or customers with a firearm that the employer allowed them to bring to work?

Next time you are at some amusement park or your local Wall Mart ask yourself how many of these brain-dead minimum wage workers you would want packing a gun around you and your family.

I don�t know about everyone else, but I even get nervous around some Law Enforcement types being allowed to carry firearms.

Dick....this seems a little out there for me, any actual companies that you can remember? I could see if there was a potential threat, but this is a little expensive just to find if an employee might be violating company policy.

RickB.....Great post, agree 100%.

J

Jason,

The name of the game in today�s litigious society is RISK AVOIDANCE. It seems as though everyone is so totally occupied in CYA that common sense and efficiency has gone right out the window.

They know (or I would hope they do) that NONE of this stupid crap is going to ever stop a person with violence or mayhem on their mind, but when and if something does happen they can pull out all of their precautionary procedures to show that it wasn�t their fault and they aren�t liable.

I guess all of this stuff is the logical result of years and years of politicians trying to convince everyone that they and their laws can make your life a totally safe endeavor free of accidents and the acts of others.

I would like someone to provide an instance where ANY law or policy has EVER prevented something from happening.

My freind was fired for having his bow in his truck at work, the arrows had field tips on them for target shooting (BEST COMPANY EVER)= TARGET

I agree with you on the right to carry and have the firearm in your vehicle. Companies today are just too anti in their policies. In Pa there is legislation pending to rescind such anti tactics. We shall see what happens. I do have a question for you? Have you ever heard of Northern Outdoors Outfitters in Maine? I am interested in booking a hunt with them? I have seen their website at www.northernoutdoors.com and it looks great. I was looking for some reference contacts besides just the ones they post on the website or include in their brochures. Any information would be helpful.

Is this the nail in the coffin?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/arti...1_A1_hHeis85083
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules


By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
10/6/2007

He issues an injunction against an Oklahoma law.


A Tulsa federal judge has ruled against the state in its attempt to make sure employees can take guns onto their employers' property.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."

Whirlpool, which later bowed out of the case, filed the lawsuit on Oct. 27, 2004, against Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Gov. Brad Henry.

The company challenged amendments to the state firearms and self-defense laws, which, had they gone into effect, would have prevented business owners from prohibiting guns inside locked vehicles on company property.

Whirlpool alleged that the legislation, which was to go into effect on Nov. 1, 2004, was unconstitutional and would undermine its policies to protect its workers.

Then-U.S. Chief District Judge Sven Erik Holmes issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 29, 2004, which prevented the amendments from going into effect while the court further analyzed the issues.

In June 2005, Henry signed HB 1243, which exempts employers from legal liability if the use of a gun stored in a worker's vehicle results in injury or death at the work site because of the acts of a third party.

Whirlpool Corp. opted out of the Tulsa lawsuit in November 2004, and the Williams Cos. and ConocoPhillips took over as the primary plaintiffs.

Williams later dropped out of the lawsuit, leaving ConocoPhillips, which is based in Houston but employs more than 3,000 people in Oklahoma, to carry on with the case.

Tulsa attorney Steve Broussard, representing ConocoPhillips, said Friday that the company is pleased with the ruling.

Kern concluded that the proposed changes to Oklahoma law conflict with -- and are legally pre-empted by -- the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act.

That federal law requires employers to lessen hazards in their workplaces that could lead to death or serious bodily harm. The measure also encourages employers to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.

According to Kern's opinion, Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota and Kentucky have passed similar laws, while 13 states have rejected such measures.

Kern's opinion is the first to address the constitutionality of these laws, it says.

Rep. Jerry Ellis, D-Valliant, the principal author of the 2004 bill in the House, said Friday, "I guess federal judges can do anything they want. They don't have to worry about the voters."

He said disgruntled workers who shoot people in the workplace are going to do so no matter what laws are on the books.

Ellis said this week's decision increases the chances that someone will kill a lot of people before law enforcement personnel can respond to a 911 call.

"A hand on a gun is better than a cop on the phone," he said.

Ellis also said the ruling decreases the chances that employees can protect themselves on the way home from work.

Assistant Attorney General Sherry Todd said Friday that Kern's opinion likely will be appealed.

Roughly 1,000 people are killed at work each year, and guns are used in 80 percent of those deaths, according to the American Bar Association.

The ABA went on record earlier this year supporting the right of employers "to exclude from the workplace and other private property persons in possession of firearms or other weapons."

Proponents of such company policies point to a 2003 massacre in Mississippi.

In July 2003, a Lockheed Martin employee abruptly left a training session at the company's Meridian, Miss., plant and retrieved a shotgun and semiautomatic rifle from his truck in the employee parking lot.

He opened fire on co-workers, killing six and wounding eight. Afterward, authorities retrieved three more guns from his truck.

Brian Siebel, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was quoted by the Associated Press earlier this year as saying, "Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common event. A gun is available in the parking lot for an employee who may be unstable and who reaches a snapping point."

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has embarked on a state-by-state campaign to get legislatures to enact laws that require employers to allow their workers to bring guns onto company parking lots.

"When you get off work at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock and you're driving home, you have the right to protect yourself if you're accosted on the highway," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president has said.

The amendments to Oklahoma law were made after forest products giant Weyerhauser Corp. fired eight employees in 2002 when guns were found in their cars on company lots in Oklahoma. Federal courts later upheld the firings.



David Harper 581-8359
david.harpertulsaworld.com

This sucks big time!

Michael

become a law enforcement officer then you get to carry a gun at work

I don't remember the specifics, but a while back I read an article in the paper about a couple employees of a large company being fired for having guns in their cars. They'd been found when the company used a dog. If I remember right, they were actually checking for drugs but the dog found the guns, too.

Dick

Haven't visited this thread for awhile.

The examples posted since my last post only help reinforce my desire to NOT PARK IN EMPLOYER PARKING LOTS if I want to have any kind of a weapon or "sharp tool" in my vehicle, when I'm at work!

My expample of the suspended high school student and the fellow who who got fired from Target for having his bow in his truck, are really over the top in my opinion.

I suppose if I worked for an employer who insisted on searching my vehicle decided to fire me for not allowing him to do so, the issue would then become whether they could force me to park in their juristiction as a requirement for employment.

I respect anyone's right to manage their private property the way they like, employers and churches included. But by parking where I choose I won't have to go all the way home for 'protection.' Plus, why should a "searcher" be allowed to ransack a tacklebox? A camping kit? A walk-me-home/72-hour scrampack?

What about highway flares? And tools kept with a 4X4 that goes off-road a lot and can get "stuck" deep? Is some company pizz-ant lawyer going to advise their client-company to also put those items on a prohibited list?

I'd rather walk an extra block to work to help maintain my privacy if njeed-be. Such are the [interesting] times we live in.

After further investigation it turns out I can't even have gun parts/subassemblies of any firearm or even a bow!
Nothing more annoying than hyper-paranoid anti-logic.

Unfortunately, there are no other semi-convenient places to park.