Carry at work -- a prototype law for PA?

[donm]

There have been numerous threads concerning carry at work and guns in private vehicles on company property. I've researched a number of human resources web sites and found that the biggest (and pretty much only) reason given for forbidding weapons is liability to the company should the unthinkable happen. It has been suggested by some that the correct approach is not to force employers to allow carry or storage in private vehicles, but to eliminate that liability. I was reviewing the carry laws in -- of all places -- Ohio, and came across this law:

OHIO REVISED CODE 2923.126

(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, or 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.

[tl_3237]

OK law would seem to be much stronger WRT private vehicle storage in that it mandates the ability to have a firearm in your vehicle whereby the Ohio seems to allow but not mandate. Not saying on which side I'm on regarding carry v. property right issue but OK certainly didn't mince words.

§21-1289.7a. Transporting or Storing Firearms in Locked Motor Vehicle on Private Premises – Prohibition Proscribed – Liability Enforcement.

A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for occurrences which result from the storing of firearms in a locked motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or owner of the business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearms. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to claims pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act.

C. An individual may bring a civil action to enforce this section. If a plaintiff prevails in a civil action related to the personnel manual against a person, property owner, tenant, employer or business for a violation of this section, the court shall award actual damages, enjoin further violations of this section, and award court costs and attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff.

D. As used in this section, “motor vehicle” means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, and any other vehicle required to be registered under the Oklahoma Vehicle License and Registration Act.

Added by Laws 2004, c. 39, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2004. Amended by Laws 2005, c. 448, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2005.

[Gun]

The Ohio code; OHIO REVISED CODE 2923.126 C(1) does not tell the private employer what policy, or rule the employer has to follow with regards to firearms carry on to the employer's property.

2(a) eliminates any liability of the employer with regards to the employer's policy, or rule on firearms.

OK law states explicitly that a private employer, property owner, etc, can not prohibit the carry of legally possessed firearms from a person's vehicle.

Two different laws!

[Metz]

OK law states explicitly that a private employer, property owner, etc, can not prohibit the carry of legally possessed firearms from a person's vehicle.

I see probem with that. With all the sympathy to the legitimate gun carriers like myself, I don't think that goverment should have right to tell us what we can and can't do on OUR property.

[donm]

I see probem with that. With all the sympathy to the legitimate gun carriers like myself, I don't think that government should have right to tell us what we can and can't do on OUR property.

That's the fundamental difference. Oklahoma and a few other states dictate that you must allow employees to have a gun in their vehicle on the property. Ohio leaves it up to the employer, but addresses the most common argument: the company's liability will be less if they can say "we told them not to do that." Ohio's is broader in that it also applies to employees carrying on the job.

[ImminentDanger]

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??

...

[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.

[WhiteFeather]

There have been numerous threads concerning carry at work and guns in private vehicles on company property. I've researched a number of human resources web sites and found that the biggest (and pretty much only) reason given for forbidding weapons is liability to the company should the unthinkable happen. It has been suggested by some that the correct approach is not to force employers to allow carry or storage in private vehicles, but to eliminate that liability. I was reviewing the carry laws in -- of all places -- Ohio, and came across this law:

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

Got response from Mr. Eachus

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/654...us-page-2.html

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.

[donm]

I don't think we need another thread to re-hash the employers rights (or not) question. Many of us will continue to disagree on that. The Ohio law leaves that decision up to the employer but addresses the liability question, not only in the parking lot but in the workplace as well. Basically it peels away the most commonly given (among HR people) reason for not allowing legal carry in the workplace. That would hopefully convince some companies, but of course most will move on to the next layer of "reasoning" based on an intensive legal/business analysis of numerous episodes of "Law and Order."

[Azzy]

I would think that many employers would be open to the idea (mine included) if the liability nightmare was not there.