Ugh...Superior Court Strikes Again

[knight0334]

Which begs the question:

"Can an employer search your private vehicle on company property or fire you when you refuse them a free search?"

Sure thing, and this ruling made it law of the land. PA's Superior Court rulings are binding precedence for all lower courts, across the entire Commonwealth.

Only a PA Supreme Court, US 3rd Circuit, or US Supreme Court ruling could undo this via judicial opinion. (there might be another Appeals court in there somewhere though)

[Gunowner99]

How did the company know he had a gun in his car unless he was flapping his gums?

If it was locked in the glove box , why didn't he say "I don't have the key!"

My company has the same 'no firearms or weapons on company property' policy and in the 10yrs I've worked there , nobody has had their car searched for any reason. Not even guys with NRA or other pro-gun stickers and plates.

Yup, same here but I can tell you I don't want to be the example.

[R L Suehr]

How did the company know he had a gun in his car unless he was flapping his gums?

If it was locked in the glove box , why didn't he say "I don't have the key!"

My company has the same 'no firearms or weapons on company property' policy and in the 10yrs I've worked there , nobody has had their car searched for any reason. Not even guys with NRA or other pro-gun stickers and plates.

I've been with the same company for quite a long time. I know many people there that keep a firearm locked in their vehicle. Hell, during hunting season I would bet better than half the cars have a firearm in them. Even though they have a policy, it has always operated on a "don't ask don't tell" kinda policy. I've never seen a car searched for a weapon.

[rckeystone]

Meanwhile in Tennessee


Tennessee governor amends 'Guns in Parking Lots' law to protect workers

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-workers-from/



/

[twency]

The Superior Court was unfortunately correct, there's no basis in the law for the fired employee's claim.

This wasn't a case of a zany citizen ignoring a path to victory and pulling a loss from a winnable situation, after the lower courts misbehaved.

This was a case where no foundation had been laid for his claims. Much like the Hollis case against ATF, which the Heller case set up to lose. We can't win "because gun rights & stuff"; we win where we ask the court to make one small step in the right direction, and then in the next case we make the next step. Small wins, not so flashy, but "wins", not losses that further erode our future ability to win. Big losses now sabotage the future small victories.

The "at least we tried" crowd is actively helping the enemy.

Or, as you suggest, we can win by getting the laws passed that give us a cause of action. In this case, while I oppose all legislation that gives one person a right to use another person's property against his will, and I favor letting the market decide whether employers are free to disarm employees, or skip lunch, or pay $1 per hour...I'm in favor of allowing licensed citizens to keep their legal guns in their own cars, while traveling for work, or while parked on company property. That kind of law strikes the right balance between the competing rights of employers and employees.

(I'm also in favor of legislatively creating strict liability for ANYONE who intentionally disarms others, but fails to protect them. If your employer creates a victim disarmament zone and you're shot at your desk or on a sales call, there should be strict liability against your employer.

We need this to give the bean-counters pause; right now, your employer faces more legal tort liability if an employee shoots someone than if a stranger kills an employee. The cold, smart employer would rather have a dozen of you employees killed than have an employee kill a suspected intruder. It's why most of the pizza places and cab companies forbid their employees from carrying guns, or other weapons.)

This. Right here. This, this, this.

There are good arguments against forcing employers to allow employers to store particular kinds of goods in parked cars on their property, firearms or otherwise. (There may also be good arguments for forcing them to allow stored firearms, since firearms are arguably a special class of object which should enjoy particular exceptions.)

But there is NO good argument against forcing employers or other persons controlling circumstances or venues to assume liability when they deliberately and affirmatively disarm others.

[JrFreak]

We need this law in PA...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-workers-from/

[Mush]

Here is another twist....

Federal Law prohibits "weapons" on federal property ( says so on signs at the doors to federal offices). If a Federal agency rents commercial office space they consider the rental space "Federal Property" including the parking lot even if they only rent one office out of dozens. We were briefed that we could not have weapons in the parking lot. I replied that a car could be a "weapon" and asked what was considered "a weapon". My boss said he was only required to brief us on what the building signs meant. I never got an answer and I don't think any one in the building knows what a "weapon" is. I keep enough tools in my car to keep it running. I would consider my tire iron, any hammer, some large wrenches, and a small folding shovel could be considered a weapon. I am not trying to be a pain here but,

How crazy can this go??

[tl_3237]

Here is another twist....

Federal Law prohibits "weapons" on federal property ( says so on signs at the doors to federal offices). If a Federal agency rents commercial office space they consider the rental space "Federal Property" including the parking lot even if they only rent one office out of dozens. We were briefed that we could not have weapons in the parking lot. I replied that a car could be a "weapon" and asked what was considered "a weapon". My boss said he was only required to brief us on what the building signs meant. I never got an answer and I don't think any one in the building knows what a "weapon" is. I keep enough tools in my car to keep it running. I would consider my tire iron, any hammer, some large wrenches, and a small folding shovel could be considered a weapon. I am not trying to be a pain here but,

How crazy can this go??

Actually the Federal statute forbidding having weapons applies only to"Federal Facilities" (18 USC 930). This only applies to within qualifying buildings - not external parking lots or other properties outside the facilty. I'm not aware of any US Code blanket proscription on Federal properties.

18 USC §930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

...


(g) As used in this section:

(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

Link

There are certain Federal agencies that, by regulation, ban weapons extending to their properties beyond their buildings - post office property, VA property, ACE property to name a few.

[Mush]

"(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

So would "part thereof" mean the parking lot if it were part of the lease? The wording of the lease could specify office and parking space for employees, ... and would this mean the non federal employees who also work in that office and use the same parking lot and be held to the same law?

[Bang]

Bottom line, though, is that federal law posted at the entrance to a VA cemetery creates a situation wherein the law effectively disarms one between home and cemetery and return home. That is not righteous.