|
|
It is currently Fri Apr 26, 2024 1:41 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 12 posts ] |
|
Employee's Rights to CCW parking areas on employers property
Author |
Message |
kpaul
|
Post subject: Employee's Rights to CCW parking areas on employers property Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:28 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:27 pm Posts: 144
|
c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.
MN 627.714
Does anyone know if this has been challenged yet in court?
Example
An employer has in a policy that guns are not allowed anywhere on the property to include parking lots/ramps. Employer is a CCW and brings his gun to work but leaves it locked in his car and then gets fired for doing so etc.
To me this concerns two laws the one mentioned above and MN law on private searches.
Thoughts ideas. The link below is a good read from Hennepin Co.
http://hennepin.timberlakepublishing.co ... =1&cat=147
[/url]
_________________ K. Paul
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
ttousi
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:44 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am Posts: 3311 Location: St. Paul, MN.
|
The 1st question is "how does the employer know it's in the vehicle"?
_________________ http://is.gd/37LKr
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Re: Employee's Rights to CCW parking areas on employers prop Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:49 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
kpaul wrote: c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area. MN 627.714
Does anyone know if this has been challenged yet in court?
Example An employer has in a policy that guns are not allowed anywhere on the property to include parking lots/ramps. Employer is a CCW and brings his gun to work but leaves it locked in his car and then gets fired for doing so etc.
Except, of course, he doesn't. His position is eliminated as part of a reorganization; he's found to have taken a ten-minute break instead of a five-minute one; he's offered a transfer to Zimbabew, and declines, whatever.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
ttousi
|
Post subject: Re: Employee's Rights to CCW parking areas on employers prop Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:58 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am Posts: 3311 Location: St. Paul, MN.
|
joelr wrote: kpaul wrote: c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area. MN 627.714
Does anyone know if this has been challenged yet in court?
Example An employer has in a policy that guns are not allowed anywhere on the property to include parking lots/ramps. Employer is a CCW and brings his gun to work but leaves it locked in his car and then gets fired for doing so etc.
Except, of course, he doesn't. His position is eliminated as part of a reorganization; he's found to have taken a ten-minute break instead of a five-minute one; he's offered a transfer to Zimbabew, and declines, whatever.
What is the term..........at will employment? or something similar?
_________________ http://is.gd/37LKr
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer_in_Training
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:01 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:22 pm Posts: 339 Location: Suburban Twin Cities, MN
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:30 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
No firings or other employee disciplinary actions have been reported.
No searches have been reported.
No pretextural firings have been reported.
Thus, there have been no lawsuits.
Quote: GOCRA Policy Statement {Revised 6/08}
Employers and Parking Lots
Minnesota Statutes, Section 624.714, Subdivision 18 provides:
"(a) An employer, whether public or private, may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment. Employment related civil sanctions may be invoked for a violation."
Acting "in the course and scope of employment" is a legal phrase of art that the case law has well defined. It encompasses a very narrow range of activities. It means, in layman's terms "at work while working." Only if you have agreed to use your vehicle for your employer's job related transportation (and are paid mileage), does your car become a temporary workplace but, even then, only during the hours and for the purpose that you are "at work."
Otherwise, paragraph (a) doesn't apply at all. It doesn't cover, for example, commuting to work, parking while at work, non-work activities off the employer's premises, activities at home, activities on the weekend, or during an employee's off hours, etc. It doesn't cover your home, car, motorcycle, boat, firearms and other personal property. You can shop, recreate, and live free of your employer's control. Minnesota employees are not serfs.
"(c) notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), an employer ... may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area." "Nothwithstanding" means "regardless of, in spite of." Thus, an employee may store his or her firearm (and accessories) in their locked vehicle in an employer's parking lot in spite of any company policy [i.e., one established under paragraph (a)] to the contrary. An employer can not lawfully prohibit the possession of firearms in your car wherever it is parked. Since you can "carry" there, you may possess ammunition as well. Your car is your property. However, when the permit holder is not in the vicinity of the vehicle, any firearms should be properly secured.
An employer can take no action whatsoever against an employee who complies with subdivision 18 (c). They can't discipline or fire you. Employment sanctions are expressly authorized only for violations of paragraph (a). That express authorization prevents reading an implied authorization into another paragraph of the same statute. The "notwithstanding" language makes this clear. The legislative history of the MPPA repeatedly makes it clear that a purpose of this restriction on employer prohibitions is to allow the employee to fully exercise his or her authority under a carry permit on the way to and from work. For the benefit of company lawyers, paragraph (c) says "firearms" not just "pistols". It covers all guns.
|
|
|
|
|
kpaul
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:59 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:27 pm Posts: 144
|
Wow that was fast-- Thanks!
Mr. kimberman it sound like you are very well versed in the matter.
_________________ K. Paul
Semper Fi
Last edited by kpaul on Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:32 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
kpaul wrote: Mr. kimberman it sound like you are very well versed in the matter.
He should be, he pretty much wrote the law (yet another round of thanks, Kimberman).
Locked in your car, with your mouth shut...hard to see where you'd have an issue.
Personally, I'd never be caught carrying at work. Regulars around here know what I mean.
-Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Lenny7
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:25 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:09 am Posts: 1060 Location: Savage, MN
|
I would never, ever, let my employer search my car, my person, or my bags. Even if I had nothing to hide. Even under threat of termination for not consenting to a search. Under such a threat, I'd walk out on my own.
No flippin' way.
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:55 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
Lenny7 wrote: I would never, ever, let my employer search my car, my person, or my bags. Even if I had nothing to hide. Even under threat of termination for not consenting to a search. Under such a threat, I'd walk out on my own.
No flippin' way.
I have to agree 100%.
-Mark
|
|
|
|
|
TopGear
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:26 am |
|
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:35 pm Posts: 82
|
Quote: from the article listed above at http://hennepin.timberlakepublishing.co ... mp;cat=147Notwithstanding which interpretation is adopted, the act does not contain any language prohibiting employers from banning loaded firearms and ammunition at all times from their parking facilities.
Nor does the act contain any explicit mention of stainless firearms, Glock firearms, camo-patterned firearms, or firearms the company deems ugly and menacing.
No, it just contains language prohibiting employers from banning ANY lawfully carried/possessed firearms from their parking facilities. I think "loaded" falls under the "ANY" category.
Are there judges that would fall for her bizarre word games?
- "'Firearms' is a subset of 'loaded firearms?'"
- "Maybe we can't ban employees directly, but if we ban 'everybody' then we can ban employees indirectly?"
IANAL, and maybe her arguments are too subtle for me, but it doesn't matter since Kimberman demolished them already anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
jdege
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:07 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm Posts: 1419 Location: SE MPLS
|
[ Quote: GOCRA Policy Statement {Revised 6/08} An employer can take no action whatsoever against an employee who complies with subdivision 18 (c). They can't discipline or fire you. Employment sanctions are expressly authorized only for violations of paragraph (a).
I understand that this is the GOCRA position. I may even agree that the courts may someday take this position.
But if an employer fired someone, after finding that they had been keeping a gun in their car, but claimed that there was some other reason for it, how likely would a court be to find that the claimed reason was a pretense, and that the real reason was the protected behavior?
When it comes to race, sex, and age discrimination, we have a history of court rulings, a general acceptance of the idea that these are protected classes, and it's still tough to build a case for unlawful firing.
We have no history of court rullings over guns in parking lots, we have no general acceptance of gun ownership as a protected class, and an attitude among many that anyone who is interested in guns must be nuts.
Given the language of the law, I expect that most employers firing people for keeping guns in their cars will find some unrelated pretense for the firing, and I've little confidence that a court would find that it was a pretense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 12 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 114 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|