House Bill 2243 - Employers can't block workders from keeping guns in their cars

[KLiQ]

http://lancasteronline.com/news/loca...7a43b2370.html

Posted: Monday, August 4, 2014 4:09 pm | Updated: 9:12 am, Tue Aug 5, 2014.

By P.J. REILLY | Staff Writer

State Rep. Bryan Cutler remembers the special plans he had to make to go hunting after work when he was an x-ray technician in Lancaster.

He either left his vehicle at a friend's house, parked off the hospital campus he was working at that day or allowed time to drive back home in southern Lancaster County before heading north to his camp in the mountains.

What wasn't an option was leaving his guns locked in his vehicle at work, because the three hospitals he worked at two decades ago — Lancaster General, Community and St. Joseph's — all had policies against employees keeping guns in their cars on hospital property.

"It seemed pretty ridiculous, quite frankly, Cutler said.

Now Cutler is cosponsor of a bill — House Bill 2243 — which would make it illegal for most employers to adopt policies forbidding workers from keeping guns locked in their vehicles in company garages or parking lots.

The exceptions would be at places like schools and postal complexes, where federal law outlaws guns.

"I don't think it's fair to ask individuals to check their Constitutional rights at the door," Cutler said.

But that's exactly what many companies in Lancaster County and across Pennsylvania do, he said.

Since 2000, Lancaster General Health has had a policy in place that prohibits explosives, ammunitions, fireworks, and weapons — including legally-possessed handguns and rifles — on any of its properties, according to company spokesperson Frieda Schmidt.

"The policy is in place because LG Health is committed to providing a safe and secure environment for our patients, visitors and staff," Schmidt said.

"If HB 2243 is passed, LG Health would revisit the policy."

Introduced in May by state Rep. Jeffrey Pyle of Armstrong County, HB 2243 would prohibit employers from keeping employees from storing guns in their vehicles at work, and would give those employees or their relatives the right to sue if they're injured because they couldn't defend themselves due to a company ban on guns.

They also would be given the right to sue if they were fired for violating a company ban.

"I'm a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights," said state Rep. Keith Greiner of Leola, who also co-sponsored HB 2243.

"I'm fearful when we start restricting our use of firearms, it's going to be the bad guys who will have them."

State Reps. David Hickernell of Elizabethtown and Ryan Aument of Landisville also co-sponsored the bill.

Federal law allows for the transportation of firearms inside personal vehicles anywhere in the U.S.

According to the National Rifle Association's website, federal law states, "Notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk.

"In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm shall be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."

HB 2243 states the purpose of the proposed law is "to reinforce and protect the right of each citizen to lawfully transport and store firearms within his private motor vehicle for lawful purposes in any place where the vehicle is otherwise permitted to be."

And that's the point, Cutler said.

"The federal law allows us to do this," he said. "An employer shouldn't be able to take that right away."

Lancaster County doesn't ban its employees from keeping guns in their vehicles, according to Commissioner Scott Martin.

In fact, the county makes available storage lockers for employees who don't want to leave their guns in their vehicles.

"They can come in, put their guns in the lockers at the beginning of the day, and then take them out at the end when they go home," Martin said.

Fulton Financial Corp. has a company-wide ban on employees bringing guns onto its properties in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland, according to Laura Wakeley, vice president for corporate communications.

She said the intent "is to keep weapons out of the workplace. We do not want employees to have weapons on our property."

Like Fulton Financial and Lancaster General, Lancaster Newspapers also bans its employees from having guns anywhere on its properties during work hours.

Lancaster Newspapers "may subject an employee to discipline up to and including dismissal" for "possessing firearms, explosives or dangerous weapons on newspaper time or property," the company's rules of conduct state.

Cutler said he has received complaints from at least a dozen county residents about local employers with similar bans. He declined to identify those companies.

"Unfortunately, I think this exists all over," he said.

Hickernell said several residents of his district have encouraged his support of the proposal.

"A number of my constituents have contacted me expressing support for this legislation, citing personal protection as well as hunting-related activities either prior to or after working hours," he said.

HB 2243 is currently sitting before the House Transportation Committee awaiting consideration.

"I think this is is a good starting point to have this discussion," Cutler said.

[Solaran_X]

And like most bills we'd like to see signed, it'll probably die a quiet death in the judiciary committee.

[Bang]

We have all come to accept convoluted reasoning and bad law. If a gun is safe when locked in a car in a legally non-prohibited area, what makes it unsafe in a prohibited area? Law declares one type of venue must allow, law declares another type of venue must prohibit...based upon what credible logic? And I thought there was law against a law affecting a venue not covered by the law affecting the venue?

[Yellowfin]

And like most bills we'd like to see signed, it'll probably die a quiet death in the judiciary committee.

Whose arms do we need to twist that's been responsible for stalling all our bills?

[WhiteFeather]

And like most bills we'd like to see signed, it'll probably die a quiet death in the judiciary committee.

Actually HB 2243 is a title 75 bill which is transportation committee, by passing the normal judiciary committee roadblock

Rep Pyle other firearm parking lot bill (title 18) is HB 448 that has been languishing in the judiciary committee since Jan 30, 2013 despite having 60 sponsors.


HB 448 Preservation & Protection RTKBA in motor vehicle - Rep Pyle 2013-2014 effort
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...14-effort.html

hence the reason for a different bill route in another committee and attempts by the amendment process to change the law.

Whose arms do we need to twist that's been responsible for stalling all our bills?

Republicans hold control of all three branches in PA government right now. At least to the Nov 4, 2014 election & end of the 2013-2014 session

Republican (so called) leadership in the house & Republican leadership senate are the one that control what bills advance and which one don’t.


Senate leadership
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...e/officers.cfm


House leadership
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...e/officers.cfm




Does anyone need a detailed list of who to contact?

Everyone should start by CALLING Rep Sam Smith and Rep Mike Turzai office about moving HB 2243



For the record we had more pro-gun legislation passed into law when the democrats last held the controlling majority in the house.
.
.

We are also about of time in the 2013-2014 session and anything not passed into law dies at end of session and has to be reintroduced in the 2015-2016 session.

[Yellowfin]

Kind of odd that they're supposed to be our friends but stall all our bills. What the heck is the problem? Is the Fuddism really still that bad?

[cdi]

There are many great things in Pa. but there is a dark side here too.
It's a special kind of Fudd/tard mentality that permeates elected bodies and government entities. There's Fudd; and then there's Pennsylvania Fudd.

[PennStateCarry]

Policies like this didn't stop Dr. Silverman and look at all the potential lives he saved. Too bad private sector policy makers won't look at objective realities and leave their emotional, typically liberal baggage at the door. I am torn about the government forcing a private institution to do something though. Even something like allowing law-abiding citizens to store their firearms in a locked vehicle on their work's premise. It still bothers me. By what right, or how far and to what extent, should our government FORCE us to do things we don't want to do? Making new laws typically only restrict our liberties further. Maybe the Republicans have this one right. Keep the government out of this issue and they will have a leg to stand on when they say they want to keep it out of other issues as well (not that they have been good at doing this either...)

[alpacaheat]

Finally, a true common sense gun law.

[Yellowfin]

Policies like this didn't stop Dr. Silverman and look at all the potential lives he saved. Too bad private sector policy makers won't look at objective realities and leave their emotional, typically liberal baggage at the door. I am torn about the government forcing a private institution to do something though. Even something like allowing law-abiding citizens to store their firearms in a locked vehicle on their work's premise. It still bothers me. By what right, or how far and to what extent, should our government FORCE us to do things we don't want to do? Making new laws typically only restrict our liberties further. Maybe the Republicans have this one right. Keep the government out of this issue and they will have a leg to stand on when they say they want to keep it out of other issues as well (not that they have been good at doing this either...)

It's a rather tough paradox but it's not all that complicated on this specific instance. The idea that somehow government should keep out of business issues and not force things is trying to unring a bell--sure I agree with the theory, but that just isn't happening anytime soon AND if there are things to not have government tell businesses to do, there's WAY WAY WAY larger things to start with. There's way too many thick layers of crap to clean off before you even get it clean enough to talk usefully about degrees of clean.

Protecting civil rights against abuse, on the other hand, IS what legitimate government is about. Among every right we talk about protecting, the right to be armed is the most perishable. Like breathing, you don't get any benefit from being able to protect yourself even the slightest amount less often than you need to--if you can't, it's like you never did, so all benefit in other places and times gets reduced to zero. You CAN pray at home or at a friend's house or anywhere else versus work and not lose the benefit thereof. You CAN write a letter to a Congressman or speak about something in any number of places just as easily one versus another and not lose the effectiveness. You CAN vote at 6pm and it's the same as if it were at 8 or 10am, or even vote absentee. You CAN choose another location to work or live, though perhaps you might not prefer to, it's not life and death.

You CANNOT effectively protect yourself from an attacker attacking you on Tuesday at 5:15pm at a gas station across from work on the following Saturday or later at 6:45pm on the same Tuesday when you're back at home, now can you? So then what real meaningful 2A right do you have when it can't be used when you need it? Does it matter who is depriving you of it when the effect is the same? Does it matter that you could protect yourself on the Sunday before or the next Friday night? Of course not. Almost no other restriction of any other right bears that kind of absolute and dire consequence to the duration and meaning thereof. No amount of me not reading the Bible at lunch in a company lunchroom has the effect of me never reading it again anywhere else. Therefore is the cost, if there is any at all, to anyone at any time at any location of any meaningful purpose ANYWHERE NEAR the lost benefit of a right that deserves absolutely not one iota less of protection that religion, speech, etc. that which in effect protects life itself? Of course not.

Further, is there ANY meaningful benefit at all to any employer being able to fire or punish an employee from having a daily carry gun locked in a car, given license to bear it before and after work and no further cause for adverse action? Absolutely not. Zero. Now, combine that with, for instance, failing a drug test or being hostile, discourteous, etc. to others in the workplace then THAT may be legitimate, but absent such reasonable cause for concern, adverse treatment of someone just because they're a gun owner is nothing other than the same prejudice applied against ethnicity or religion just to a different group. Other forms of bigotry and discrimination are not tolerated by law, so why allow that one? Most especially, the right to not be discriminated against in the workplace is acknowledged because work is essential to survival--to be economically excluded either in making a paycheck or spending it (e.g. restaurant segregation) is basically to cut people out of living. So how can it be tolerable to exclude the means of protecting one's life and well being from the very means to make said life and well being? That's like having to choose between having an engine on a helicopter OR the rotors.