Results 11 to 20 of 20
-
June 6th, 2019, 10:24 AM #11Grand Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
-
DeepInTheWoods,
Pennsylvania
(Warren County) - Posts
- 2,429
- Rep Power
- 21474854
-
June 6th, 2019, 11:17 AM #12
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
The Gun is the Badge of a Free Man
-
June 6th, 2019, 11:56 AM #13
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
I believe the shooter acquired and carried his firearms legally. His argument could have been that he carried at work for his own self defense. Until he goes postal and shoots the place up. Now all of the other employees want to be able to carry for their self defense. Until one of them go postal. That firefight would be epic. And probably something the employer would want to avoid. I don’t think there is a simple answer.
-
June 6th, 2019, 04:12 PM #14
-
June 6th, 2019, 05:20 PM #15
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
I am not a lawyer so this is my best lay judgement. The words “in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition” seem to preclude any PA government entity for restricting the right to possess a firearm on the job and work premises. Why would condition of employment be exempt from the “in any manner stipulation?” Under PA law there a very few places you cannot legally carry a gun including private property that is posted since such signage does not have the force of law. A private employer can set any legal condition of employment it chooses, but county, municipal, etc governments seem to be restricted from. stopping possession of a firearm. I sure would like to know the correct answer to the OP’s question.
-
June 6th, 2019, 06:07 PM #16
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
I had to check to make sure this was not the ‘Moms Demand Action’ or ‘Everytown for Gun Safety’ forums. Every argument that has been made in favor of the disarmament of municipal employees at work is just as applicable against why the public in general shouldn’t carry protection. Or why teachers shouldn’t carry protection. I thought that experience has shown that the arguments against the public being able to legally carry firearms do not pan out. This is an example of the government regulating upon a preempted activity, and dare I say questioning and infringing upon a constitutional right.
-
June 6th, 2019, 06:22 PM #17
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
Pretty sure this has already been through the courts (last year or so?). School bus driver or maintenance employee got fired. The court didn't go with the " on school grounds" issue but went with the "terms of employment" issue. LTCF or Section 6120 didn't even come into play.
-
June 6th, 2019, 07:30 PM #18
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
Was that person actually employed by a "county, municipality, or township"?
Around here, busing is done by private contractors, who would not be bound by preemption even if it did extend to employment scenarios, and school districts themselves are not bound by preemption either, though I think they should be. Any entity that can levy taxes is certainly "government".Get your "Guns Save Lives" stickers today! PM for more info.
-
June 6th, 2019, 08:42 PM #19
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
The latest change to Section 6109, as an add-on, limits any "Commonwealth agency" from regulating firearms. Is a school district a commonwealth agency? And, are terms of employment separate from regulating firearms?
They may well be a commonwealth agency since they're created under the power of the state, but terms of employment and regulating anything applicable to all are two separate things.
-
June 6th, 2019, 09:43 PM #20
Re: Question on County or Municipal Employee Carry Rights
Our courts would almost certainly allow any employer to ban guns on their own property, but not allow a govt entity to criminalize it.
I wrote a version of this here back in 2006, when some here argued that no municipality could ban guns on city property. They pushed it and we got the Erie decision, which overturned a summary criminal conviction for possession in a city park, but added (sua sponte) a suggestion that the city AS PROPERTY OWNER might have the same rights as any other property owner to regulate who could use their property and in what manner, clearly telling them to just make a "policy" against guns.
So far, I've been right as to what the courts would say. Doesn't mean I agree with them, just that it was predictable to anyone who understands how things work, and what words mean.
"Regulate" is not what you do when you tell guests in your home "no smoking". "Regulate" is using govt power to enforce something using the criminal laws, directly or indirectly (regulations usually are ultimately enforced by criminal sanctions). In this case it means that a govt entity can tell you "no guns in our house", ask you to leave, and use the trespassing laws if you refuse. But they can't make possession of guns on their property a summary offense, without more, such as that refusal to leave, or threats.
There are good arguments the other way. Maybe your boss at ACME Products can restrict your speech, maybe a football team can fire an employee for offensive speech elsewhere, but the 1st Amendment likely restricts what a government employer can do to employees (although they seem to have no trouble firing employees for offensive Facebook postings). Maybe your govt employer has less rights in controlling its property if they are affecting an enumerated civil right, like speech or arms. But I doubt you'll get that ruling in our state courts.Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.
Similar Threads
-
Quick Philadelphia Municipal Building carry question. . .
By biggs88 in forum Concealed & Open CarryReplies: 8Last Post: February 18th, 2010, 10:08 PM
Bookmarks