Protection at work?

[mauser]

OK, you'd think I've been here long enough to know where this should be posted specifically but it doesn't seem to fit into the concealed or open carry forums and I didn't see anywhere else that looked appropriate so I'm putting it here. If it needs to be moved please place it appropriately and I'll learn.

A friend of my son works a night shift in a large warehouse type environment. It's actually a shop in a huge building with several entrances and many, many windows. He's with a small crew and he's occasionally alone, (which is another topic for a different forum). Recently he's encountered "unexpected guests". Once it was a total stranger who managed to get in and just chat for a few minutes, seemed totally harmless after the fact but was worthy of at least a WTF moment. (Maybe a homeless person or a drunk but either way very unnerving). Another one was an unauthorized entry by someone with obvious ill intent, in other words they went to work and opened the shop to find intruders.
He doesn't have his LTCF yet, but decided really quickly that he wants to have protection with him while at work. His boss(es) are OK with him having a firearm at work. His wife told me that she wishes they would have just called the police to let them handle it, which they did, but even so, in the response time between police call and co-worker call what might have possibly transpired could have been deadly. (I think she just wants the police to be responsible for everyone's safety, we have to educate her about that).
I want to give him good advice so I advised him to apply for his LTCF ASAP, (I printed the instructions and application this morning and gave it to him this afternoon) and join PAFOA to read as much as he can absorb.
He's now looking for a handgun of some sort but that's for a different thread too. (He's familiar with shooting, is not recoil sensitive and is a pretty damn good shot, just needed his eyes opened to get his ass moving).
Please be patient, I'm getting to a specific question here.
The boss/owner is OK with any or all of the employees who are not prohibited persons to be armed while at work. His wife DOES NOT want a gun in the house. (We'll work on that one too but it's one step at a time).
If he buys a gun (his first) and keeps it at work (under lock and key while he's not there and with permission from the "higher ups") can he legally do that while he's waiting for his LTCF? As we all know it could take as long as 45 days but this shit happened VERY recently and his priorities have changed real quickly.
The statute reads:

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who
carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a
firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place
of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and
lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony
of the third degree.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a
valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any
vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or
about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place
of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and
has not committed any other criminal violation commits a
misdemeanor of the first degree.

My question is in regard to "or fixed place of business".
Is your place of full time employment considered your or fixed place of business or is that designation relegated to a business owner?
Is an employee allowed to be armed at work if it's not his own business but he has the blessing from above?
In other words, can he legally keep a gun handy while he works before his LTCF is approved? (Keeping in mind that he is not a prohibited person, it will be locked and secured while he's not there, and it's OK with upper management).

Sorry to be so long winded but so often I see simple questions get complicated responses and invariably will include a response saying 'Need more info'.

[rmagill]

IANAL, and I can be wrong on this, but as far as I know, "fixed place of business" refers to the physical building one works at. In this case, the warehouse would be covered.

However, I would personally avoid keeping a handgun anywhere that is not on me or at home as much as possible. Even though your son's friend may trust his coworkers, how well does he really know them? Also, someone without permission already wondered into the warehouse. How does your son's friend know that this won't happen again, but instead of striking up friendly conversation the person goes through lockers and finds the handgun?

Finally (and relevant after he gets his LTCF), how does your son's friend know that something wont happen on his way to or from work? The handgun he keeps at work may one day be needed just outside work.

It is ultimately his decision, but I would personally work with the S/O to keep the firearm at home instead of at work.

[dartagnan]

Wow, this situation stinks all around. Rmagill is spot on. He should get his LTCF and carry.

If he insist on keeping it at work. Well, if it was me, I would make sure it's not going to be a "communal" locker. Only I have access to where my gun is locked up. Anybody else's gun goes in their own locker. I would also get a written letter from my employer stating clearly that I can store my firearm at work, and how it is stored and expressly that only I have permission to retrieve or remove it.

I would also be worried about getting my gun if I was let go. How would you retrieve it if fired/laid-off or whatever? This would need to be addressed prior to keeping it there.

[Mitch10mm]

He needs to tell his wife this is something he needs to do and it's not negotiable. I could go on and on but won't.

[39flathead]

He needs to tell his wife this is something he needs to do and it's not negotiable. I could go on and on but won't.

^^^
This, or he needs to find a stay at home job and board up the windows and bar the doors.


I'll go on, does his wife want him to end up hurt or dead?
Seriously, is she that naive?

The guy needs to grow a pair.



As for keeping it at work, bad idea IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I used to keep a handgun locked in my roll away tool chest overnight, but it was under a drawer and unless someone took the entire chest weighing 1000lbs, they might have gotten my tools but prob not the gun.
It could be stolen, as said, he could need it while walking into the place, etc...


As for his LTCF, are they still doing it that slowly in your area?
Here, it's walk in, they do a glorified PICS, take your photo and out you go with your shiny new card.
My ex-GF got hers in less than 15 mins in Indiana Co.

Might be worth checking into.

[csmith]

He needs to tell his wife this is something he needs to do and it's not negotiable. I could go on and on but won't.

^ this

I see too many people stuck in this situation and it makes me sick. The only reason I'm even speaking to this point is a discussion I had with a colleague recently wherein he stated he would love to get into shooting, but his "possible future fiance" won't allow it, along with video games, TV and several other hobbies he is into. Long story short I cautioned him about proceeding forward with a relationship where he is not allowed to do the things he wants to do or be the person he wants to be. Yet we wonder why there is such a high divorce rate....

When we first got together my wife was not comfortable with guns, she asked me to keep them locked up. That was easy, they are always locked up. When I wanted to start carrying she was uncomfortable so we compromised, I carry and she doesn't. Over the years she has picked up plenty of hobbies that I'm just not into, some of them even made me uncomfortable at first mention. But I recognize that any hobby she picks up gives her something to do while I clean the guns. Win win.

[Mitch10mm]

I have a locker in my truck that sits in my lot on a country road and I won't leave my gun in overnight. My gun is one thing I don't feel comfortable leaving someplace, even locked up, other than my home. The locker in my truck is for at work where it is clearly visible to me. Most work lockers are the last place I would want to leave my firearm and the locks are easy to bypass

[GrumpyBear]

Quote from OP "My question is in regard to "or fixed place of business".
Is your place of full time employment considered your or fixed place of business or is that designation relegated to a business owner?
Is an employee allowed to be armed at work if it's not his own business but he has the blessing from above?
In other words, can he legally keep a gun handy while he works before his LTCF is approved? (Keeping in mind that he is not a prohibited person, it will be locked and secured while he's not there, and it's OK with upper management)."

Sorry to be so long winded but so often I see simple questions get complicated responses and invariably will include a response saying 'Need more info'.
__________________
I would PM GunLawyer for an answer to this. IMO.

[gnbrotz]

http://2ampd.net/Articles/Bolding/Re...20Part%20I.htm

“Fixed place of business” is a bit more narrow. For one thing, a fixed place of business means one that is stationary, and the person carrying a gun must be the owner or have a proprietary interest in said business. Your place of employment is not necessarily considered to be your place of business. For instance, a dishwasher was found to be in violation when he brought a gun to work with him, People v. Free, 445 N.E.2d 529 (4th Dist.1983). The dishwasher had no proprietary interest in the restaurant. Or if he did, I don’t think I’d want to eat there.

[tl_3237]

One must have a proprietary interest in the business; not just employed there. This was discussed before and here is my earlier post with two out-of-state on-point cases (not from Pa but I'd bet that Pa would rule the same way).

Here's one from NJ and another from CT indicating the necessity of having a possessory or proprietary interest to qualify for the 'business' exception - it would exclude employees:

Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
David VALENTINE, Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted June 4, 1973.
Decided June 26, 1973.

Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, of possession of a revolver, and he appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Mintz, J.A.D., held that statutory exception permitting one to keep or carry about a firearm at his place of business or dwelling house would not be extended to include manager of bar owned by another, and that 60-day custodial sentence was not excessive.

Affirmed.

West Headnotes

[1] Weapons 406 203(2)

406 Weapons
406IV Offenses
406IV(C) Possession, Use, Carrying, or Personal Transport
406k198 Defenses in General; Justification or Excuse
406k203 Persons or Places Exempted
406k203(2) k. Private property. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 406k11(.5), 406k11)
Exception, to statute proscribing carrying a weapon on one's person or in one's possession in a public place without first having obtained a permit to carry the same, permitting keeping or carrying about firearms at one's place of business or dwelling house would not be extended to include manager of bar owned by another. N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41, 42, subd. a.

[2] Weapons 406 342

406 Weapons
406V Prosecution
406V(H) Sentence and Punishment
406k342 k. Possession, use, carrying, or transportation. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 406k17(8))
Where defendant lied to police when they arrived at bar and inquired of him whether there was a gun on the premises, where loaded revolver which the officers removed from defendant's pocket and which was subject of defendant's conviction for possession of a revolver had been stolen, and where defendant gave his probation officer statement to effect that the weapon fell to floor from pocket of a patron whom defendant asked to leave because of his profanity, 60-day custodial sentence was not excessive. N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41.
*426 **618 Van Riper, Belmont & Villanueva, Newark, attorneys (Alfred C. De Cotiis, Newark, of counsel and on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney (Ralph J. Jabbour, Asst. Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief), for plaintiff-respondent.

Before Judges CARTON, MINTZ and SEIDMAN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by
MINTZ, J.A.D.

Defendant was tried to a jury and convicted of possession of a revolver, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41 (carrying a weapon on his person or in his possession in a public place without first having obtained a permit to carry the same). He was sentenced to 60 days in the Essex County Correctional Center.

On the evening of April 10, 1971 two police officers of the City of Orange were on routine radio patrol duty when they received a radio message. As a consequence of that message they proceeded to Dave's Glass Bar and spoke with defendant, the manager of the bar. One of the officers asked defendant if he had a gun, to which defendant responded negatively. The officer then inquired of defendant whether there was a gun on the premises. Defendant again replied negatively and invited the police to come behind the bar and check. One of the officers then searched defendant and removed a loaded revolver from his pocket.

*427 A barmaid in the tavern, David Kozlow the owner, as well as defendant testified concerning defendant's employment status and the nature of his duties. Their testimony was to the effect that defendant was in complete charge of the business from 6 P.M. to 2 A.M. when the owner was not present.

[1] At the close of the evidence defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that he came within the exception prescribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:151-42(a), which provides that:

Nothing contained in section 2A:151-41 shall be construed:

a. to prevent a person from keeping or carrying about his place of business, dwelling house, premises, or on land possessed by him, any firearm or from carrying the same from any place of purchase to his dwelling house or place **619 of business, or from his dwelling house or place of business to or from any place where repairing is done, to have the same repaired * * *.

Arguably, since a small business man can defend his premises by armed force, the owner should be permitted to delegate this power to the one he leaves in charge of the premises. Cf. dictum in State v. Bloom, 11 N.J.Misc. 522, 524, 167 A. 221 (Sup.Ct.1933).

However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible. The bar was not defendant's business. He held no proprietary interest therein. By extending the statutory exception to include a manager, the door is opened to a multiplicity of situations where the term manager might be invoked to sanction possession of a weapon otherwise proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41. Moreover, there was not a scintilla of evidence produced that the revolver was acquired by Kozlow and in the possession of defendant in connection with the operation of the business. The motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied.

[2] Defendant further urges that the 60-day custodial sentence was excessive in view of the novelty of the issue presented, defendant's minimal prior record consisting of a municipal*428 court conviction for trespassing for which he received a suspended sentence, and his family situation. However, as the sentencing judge stated, defendant lied to the police when they arrived at the bar. Additionally, we note from the presentence report that the weapon was stolen from Verona. Furthermore, defendant gave his probation officer a statement to the effect that the weapon in question fell to the floor from the pocket of a patron who defendant asked to leave the premises because of his profanity. He picked up the gun and put it in his pocket. In view of the totality of the circumstances we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.

Affirmed.

N.J.Super.A.D. 1973.
State v. Valentine 124 N.J. Super 425, 307 A.2d 617 (A.D. 1973)

(bolded section emphasis added)

I'm unaware of a Pa case but there is precedent from Conneticut's Supreme Court on an analogous case. Vickers, an employee welder, was found in possession of a handgun while at work and arrested for violation of Conn statute §29-35. He entered the 'employee/place of business' defense at trial and through the appellate courts - losing at all level up to the state Supreme Court.


Connecticut's version of Pa's 6106 and NJ's 2C:39-5/6 reads similarly:

[all emphasis mine]

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CHRISTOPHER M.
VICKERS
(SC 16376)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js.
Argued December 7, 2001—officially released May 21, 2002

NORCOTT, J. At issue in this appeal is the meaning
of the phrase ‘‘place of business’’ as that term is used in
General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 29-35 (a),1 and whether
the statute provided the defendant with adequate notice
that his conduct was prohibited.

The defendant, Christopher M. Vickers, was arrested
for carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of
§ 29-35. He moved to dismiss the information for insufficiency
of cause, claiming that the statute’s use of the
phrase ‘‘place of business’’ includes one’s place of
employment and, therefore, his conduct was not a violation
of the statute. After the trial court, Dyer, J., denied
his motion to dismiss the information against him, the
defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, conditioned
upon his ability to appeal the denial of his motion
to dismiss, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a2 and
Practice Book § 61-6.3 The trial court subsequently rendered
judgment, sentencing him to one year incarceration,
suspended after six months, with a one year term
of probation.

The defendant appealed from the judgment to the
Appellate Court and this court transferred the appeal
to itself pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1 and General
Statutes § 51-199 (c). The sole issue before us on appeal
is whether the trial court improperly denied the defendant’s
motion to dismiss based upon its reading of the
‘‘place of business’’ permit exception of § 29-35 (a) to
mean only premises that contain a business in which
the defendant has a proprietary or possessory interest,
not a location at which the defendant is merely an
employee. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

… <snip>

The defendant correctly cites Black’s Law Dictionary’s
definition of ‘‘place of business’’ as ‘‘[t]he location
at which one carries on his business or employment.
. . .’’ (Emphasis added.) Black’s Law Dictionary (6th
Ed. 1990). The defendant argues that this is reflective
of the common usage of the phrase. Our analysis does
not end there, however. We consider the syntax of the
sentence containing the phrase in order to construe
its intended meaning in this particular context. The
structure of the sentence in § 29-35 (a) indicates that
the phrase ‘‘place of business’’ is to be read in conjunction
with the preceding phrase: ‘‘his dwelling house or
. . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) The use of the possessive
‘‘his’’ informs the reader that both ‘‘dwelling house’’ and
‘‘place of business’’ are possessory or proprietary in
nature and that the two are parallel in terms of ‘‘his’’
relationship to each. One’s dwelling house is one’s own
place of abode; similarly, one’s place of business is the
place in which one conducts one’s own business. One
does not have a possessory or proprietary interest in
one’s place of employment; rather, one has such an
interest in one’s place of business. Thus, individuals in
the places in which they have a possessory or proprietary
interest, such as one’s own home or the premises
in which the business one owns or controls is located,
are exempt from the general law requiring one to have
a permit for a handgun.


http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/260cr65.pdf

Previously discussed in:
http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/107912-keeping-gun-office-nj.html