Carry at work -- a prototype law for PA?

[renegadephoenix]

^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^

More People need to get off their Duff and meet their legislattors face to face if you want real change. Work with those who have been writing Pro Gun Legislation, not "i saw this in this state so i'll copy it and give it to my legislator to introduce." Bad unintended consequences happen when you don't know how to write legislation. The best thing you can do is work with Pro-Gun Legislators who are passionate about gun rights to work toward a common goal of getting our rights back.

[Big Chuck]

OHIO REVISED CODE 2923.126
"A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer."

Given that prohibition of carry on an employer's property makes one more susceptible to attack, does anyone know if the current Workman's Comp laws provide for coverage should an employee be attacked on company property, including the parking lot??

...

You might be on to the best compromise I have heard of for this issue. Instead of mandating employers allow employees to keep firearms in their car on company property, just make it more beneficial for them to allow it.

Ohio has the first part already set up, by taking away any liability for them allowing firearms on company property.

The next step would be to make the employers liable for the safety of their employees from violent crime while on company property, if they do not allow employees the ability to protect themselves with firearms.



I'm no law maker but it might look something like this.

(C)(1) Nothing in this section shall negate or restrict a rule, policy, or practice of a private employer that is not a private college, university, or other institution of higher education concerning or prohibiting the presence of firearms on the private employer’s premises or property, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer. Nothing in this section shall require a private employer of that nature to adopt a rule, policy, or practice concerning or prohibiting the presence of firearms on the private employer’s premises or property, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer.

(2)(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. A private employer shall be considered liable in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, “private employer” includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

I would like to see something like that apply not only to employees but patrons as well. If a place like Toy R Us won't allow you to bring a firearm into their store, and you get mugged on the way out of the store, they should be held liable. If we aren't allowed to be responsible for our own safety while on their property, then they should have to be responsible for it.

I don't see how this would infringe on property rights or violate any part of the state or federal Constitution.

[Siobhra]

We can also work from the other side of the coin. When we hear of a work site shooting we let our employers know how we will sue the company for damages should we get harmed at work from a shooting. When they stripped us of our protection they took on the responsibility for the cost.

[headcase]

Some might have missed this thread with actually dealing with this very subject with changing PA law, so you might want to review this one and read past language of PA bill HB 2049



Rep Pyle had introduced HB 2049 in the 2009-2010 session.

Spoke with Rep Jeff Pyle right before christmas and Jeff is indeed reintroducing the "PARKING LOT" in the 2011-2012 session.

No sponsorship memo has gone out yet, but soon will be released.

Really could use everyone help gather sponsors then, IF you want this concept passed in PA you will have the chance to do so or NOT.


donm you are correct that most companies don't allow this for liability reasons.

Rep Pyle bill provides that any employer that allows firearms locked in vehicles on their property (parking lot) would enjoy civil liability protection for any misuse of lawfully owned firearms, something that no one current has in PA.

I would be all for a bill allowing companies to let people keep what they like in their cars without fear of a lawsuit, but will vigorously fight a bill that forces companies to capitulate to gun owners who want to infringe upon their property rights.

[headcase]

<snip> If a place like Toy R Us won't allow you to bring a firearm into their store, and you get mugged on the way out of the store, they should be held liable. If we aren't allowed to be responsible for our own safety while on their property, then they should have to be responsible for it.

I don't see how this would infringe on property rights or violate any part of the state or federal Constitution.

No, you should be held liable for disregarding your own safety by entering their property unarmed, as if you were forced to do so. You choose where to shop, where to work, where to be. No one forces you to purchase goods from places that don't allow you to arm yourself. No one forces you to work for a company that doesn't allow you to arm yourself. You don't see how it infringes upon property rights because you assume you should be able to do what you like, where you like.

[johnnysquire]

In the real world Rep Pyle bill is going to be reintroduced his "parking lot" bill whether people want argue how many fairies can dance on the head of pin.

No offense, but I come to PaFOA for the pinhead fairy arguments.

I'm conservative - to me that means change is suspect, and should be undertaken deliberately with lots of debate. Pyle's bill has big problems in my view (the lack of a definition for "locked", especially) , so I'd like to hear both sides on whether the benefits outweigh the problems.

If you're saying it's HB2049 or nothing, no further debate, then "nothing" is obviously the right choice. We both know that's not how the legislative process works, though.

[Big Chuck]

No, you should be held liable for disregarding your own safety by entering their property unarmed, as if you were forced to do so. You choose where to shop, where to work, where to be. No one forces you to purchase goods from places that don't allow you to arm yourself. No one forces you to work for a company that doesn't allow you to arm yourself. You don't see how it infringes upon property rights because you assume you should be able to do what you like, where you like.

Your not forcing any property owners to do anything, so the infringement of private property rights is not an argument here.

Companies and businesses are responsible for maintaining a safe work environment. If you disagree you simply are wrong.

What if we changed your sentence from:

"No one forces you to work for a company that doesn't allow you to arm yourself."

into:

"No one forces you to work for a company that doesn't provide you a respirator."

The same argument you make applies to both. However the later example is protected by law.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

1926.28(a)

The employer is responsible for requiring the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment in all operations where there is an exposure to hazardous conditions or where this part indicates the need for using such equipment to reduce the hazards to the employees.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...RDS&p_id=10614

Perhaps you don't understand what I am proposing.

Right now, I believe businesses should be held liable if any negligence on their part results in a worker or patron being the victim of a violent crime on their property. For example, a parking lot having no lights, or not contacting police when a group of teenagers are observed harassing customers.

Separately, a law could be passed stating that if a business allows the carrying of firearms on their property, they can not be considered negligent, and hence, can't be held liable.


In no way does something like that infringe on private property rights. It is only providing incentive for businesses to allow the carrying of firearms on their property.

[The_War_Wagon]

Geez... you need a better job. I can carry at MY workplace!

[P7hk9]

Your not forcing any property owners to do anything, so the infringement of private property rights is not an argument here.

Companies and businesses are responsible for maintaining a safe work environment. If you disagree you simply are wrong.

What if we changed your sentence from:

"No one forces you to work for a company that doesn't allow you to arm yourself."

into:

"No one forces you to work for a company that doesn't provide you a respirator."

The same argument you make applies to both. However the later example is protected by law.

With all respect, I believe it is you that are wrong.

If my employer requires me to work in a hazardous environment like dusty areas, around radiation, or around asbestos, they should provide their employees with the appropriate protective gear. That's occupational safety.

While at work, I could be struck by an asteroid falling from space, and that impact could kill me. Should we therefore mandate that all employers install and maintain asteroid shielding? No. My employer has no reason to protect me from things that will not occur as a result of my normal duties. Things like violent attacks.

Disregarding my employer's private property rights by forcing him to allow me to be armed is just wrong. Private property rights trump all. If my boss says "No guns," then I am free to seek other work with less restrictive rules. His place, his rules. What will be next, legislation allowing the police to enter my home whenever they want just to make sure there's no illegal behavior occurring? Why not? If we can strip employer's property rights, why not individual property rights? Not a trend I want to see.

[Big Chuck]

With all respect, I believe it is you that are wrong.

If my employer requires me to work in a hazardous environment like dusty areas, around radiation, or around asbestos, they should provide their employees with the appropriate protective gear. That's occupational safety.

While at work, I could be struck by an asteroid falling from space, and that impact could kill me. Should we therefore mandate that all employers install and maintain asteroid shielding? No. My employer has no reason to protect me from things that will not occur as a result of my normal duties. Things like violent attacks.

Disregarding my employer's private property rights by forcing him to allow me to be armed is just wrong. Private property rights trump all. If my boss says "No guns," then I am free to seek other work with less restrictive rules. His place, his rules. What will be next, legislation allowing the police to enter my home whenever they want just to make sure there's no illegal behavior occurring? Why not? If we can strip employer's property rights, why not individual property rights? Not a trend I want to see.

With all respect it is you who are still wrong.

First and foremost, I am not saying an employer must allow employees to carry firearms, just advocating it be beneficial for the employer to do so. The employer still can make the decision. There will be no requirement. This has nothing at all to do with private property rights!

Your asteroid example has no comparison with an employer providing work environment safe from violent crime. Your employer can control aspects of that.

Let's say you work in construction, and your employer has a no firearm policy. Let's say you have a job at a halfway house in Camden. While you're walking from your vehicle, two crackheads corner you, stab you, and grab your wallet. Your employer created an unsafe work environment for you by not allowing you the best means to protect yourself. Your employer should be held financially responsible for putting you in that position. He currently isn't liable, but he should be.

Another example would be a factory worker getting mugged in the parking lot of his work. We're also going to say this isn't an isolated incident in this parking lot. The employer refuses to install any lighting, cameras, or fencing in this parking lot. Shouldn't the employer be responsible for creating a work environment safe from violent crime if they are already responsible for creating work environment safe from other hazards?

I'm not even suggesting mandating employers to allow carrying, just to absolve them of any liability if they allow carrying, from violent crime occurring at the workplace. This of course assume that employers would be held responsible for negligence resulting in a violent crime.