ccw@ work?

[nlcrsn]

I've read that Pa has a law protecting an employees' right to keep their firearm in their vehicle while @ work.
1. Is this true?
2. Does any1 know if this would apply to a company vehicle?
3. Any 1 know statutes ?

Thanks in advance

[gnbrotz]

Last I knew, HB1185 was still in committee. It provides protections for State employees only, not the general public (see attached .pdf).

FWIW, I support private property owners' rights too, so I wouldn't personally support legislation to suppress their rights in order to broaden my own right to carry.

[schmol]

I really couldn't tell if thats true, but with my company it's not. If I get caught with my firearm in my company vehicle, it's instant termination.

Yes, I know it sucks, because I truly believe if the government trusts me with a concealed weapon, it should over rule the employers rules.

I still do when I go out at night though...sshhh!!

[Sebastian]

I've read that Pa has a law protecting an employees' right to keep their firearm in their vehicle while @ work.

1. Is this true?

No

2. Does any1 know if this would apply to a company vehicle?

There's no law that says you can't carry in a company vehicle if you have an LTC, but they can fire you for it.

3. Any 1 know statutes ?

There aren't any, but you can carry by law at work with an LTC, you can just be fired for it by company policy.

[Pa. Patriot]

Yep, it's simple. Your "work" is just like any other private property.

[TRB]

I really couldn't tell if thats true, but with my company it's not. If I get caught with my firearm in my company vehicle, it's instant termination.

Yes, I know it sucks, because I truly believe if the government trusts me with a concealed weapon, it should over rule the employers rules.

I still do when I go out at night though...sshhh!!

With all due respect, by extension of your reasoning the government is more important than the individual. In other words the government is sovereign and everyone, person or corporation, is subject to their whims.

One of the hallmarks of a free society is that the individual is more important than the government. That means that your employers rules are more important. As are yours. Do you really want it the other way?

[markheck1]

With all due respect, by extension of your reasoning the government is more important than the individual. In other words the government is sovereign and everyone, person or corporation, is subject to their whims.

One of the hallmarks of a free society is that the individual is more important than the government. That means that your employers rules are more important. As are yours. Do you really want it the other way?

+1 to that.....One Word...NOPE

[Jelanen]

What I would like to see in this general sphere of private property rights vs rtba is an acknowledgment of some responsibility of the property owner for the safety of the people stripped of their rtba. Its just doesn't seem fair to me that I (for example) would have to disarm myself while I'm doing my business on said private property while someone else could just walk up and start blazing away. I think (sorta) that the property owner should have some liability for their disarming policies in this case. I'm a huge supporter of private property owners (being one myself), but I think the responsibilities have swung in weird ways. Like I'm responsible if someone gets injured on my property even though they weren't supposed to be there, were trespassing, and so on, but there doesn't seem to be any responsibility on the part of a property owner towards the people he just disarmed who then get injured/killed by some freak incident they could have prevented if they were armed...

Sorry if that sounds really stilted and unintelligible, but its not really a fully formed thought yet...just something thats been bouncing around in my head for a few months and this is the first time I've tossed it out there...and I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know a lawyer, or played a lawyer on stage or screen so the above really prolly has no legal standings or anything like that. Its just a thought, treat it as such. Oh, and when you come to my house and on my property...I prefer you were carrying

[DaveM55]

OSHA will fight this type of legislation every time. I think it defeated one in Colorado or someplace out west recently.

[PA_SIGpacker]

I think (sorta) that the property owner should have some liability for their disarming policies in this case. I'm a huge supporter of private property owners (being one myself), but I think the responsibilities have swung in weird ways. Like I'm responsible if someone gets injured on my property even though they weren't supposed to be there, were trespassing, and so on, but there doesn't seem to be any responsibility on the part of a property owner towards the people he just disarmed who then get injured/killed by some freak incident they could have prevented if they were armed...

This is very intelligible and actually seems to make a lot of sense. If you are forced to disarm upon entering a property and there is a subsequent shooting spree and you are injured, I would thnk it could be argued that the property owner was negligent for not providing adequate safety. Probably not grossly negligent, but somewhat.

On the other hand, it could be argued that you voluntarily chose to enter the property and disarm at your own discretion. Nobody forced you to work/enter there.

This could be an interesting debate.