Employers and handguns in parking lot

[tehlump]

This site has been a wonderful resource for the new CHL holder, I just wanted to thank everyone for the wealth of information available here.

Here's my question:

Oklahoma just passed a law denying employers the right to prevent employees from leaving their CCW in their vehicles.

On the surface, I think that it's a great idea, however my wife and I talked about it and she brought up the private property rights of the business.

Is the new OK law a violation of the business' property rights?

I approach the question from this angle; If a person has a CHL and is lawfully carrying a weapon, I fee there is no reason a business should or would want to deny the ability of the employee to leave the weapon locked in his/her vehicle. I'm reminded of the Taco Bell case...would my employer be responsible for my safety to and from work if I needed a CCW, but didn't have it because of their company policy?

Are the private property rights of the business trumped because the parking lot is essentially a public place? Would this apply if the company parking lot were enclosed by a fence with limited access?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is a copy of my post on this issue, back when HB896 was being discussed and debated. I hope it helps. Also, there is a competiting private property issue; i.e. the employee's car. I believe this issue will be a major argument, when this bill is introduced in the 2007 Texas Legislative Session.

Chas.

That was a big part of the discussion within the TSRA Legislative Committee and with others. Most pro-gun people also have great respect for private property rights and rightfully so.

However, there has long been a precedent for greater regulation of commercial property. For example, commercial property is subject to fire codes, mandatory access for the handicapped, exit doors must be unlocked during business hours, stairs must have handrails, occupancy limits exist for many commercial locations, etc. Further, employers are subject to state and federal laws regarding the provision of a safe work place for employees, such as mandatory design criteria for vertical ladders at plants, emergency showers, and lighting requirements. Many cities prohibit smoking in commercial buildings, such as office buildings and restaurants. So owners of commercial property, including employers, do not enjoy the degree of unfettered use of their private property as do non-commercial owners such as homeowners.

There is ample legal precedent for this relatively minor additional restriction on the private property rights of employers in this commercial setting. But I fully agree, there will be a fight over this issue and TSRA understands this is an important issue for many CHL holders.

The bill also provides immunity to employers, so they will not be forced to shoulder any potential liability for the acts of a CHL employee.

Regards,
Chas.

[Greybeard]

Yep, sorry this one did not make it in Tejas this year. Maybe in 2007 ...

[GlockenHammer]

I'm reminded of the Taco Bell case...would my employer be responsible for my safety to and from work if I needed a CCW, but didn't have it because of their company policy?

I am interested in your Taco Bell case and any others like it where somebody got in trouble for disarming an employee or other CHL-er that was later in need of said sidearm. Links and other pointers to detailed information is greatly appreciated.

[Kyle Brown]

Here is a copy of my post on this issue, back when HB896 was being discussed and debated. I hope it helps. Also, there is a competiting private property issue; i.e. the employee's car. I believe this issue will be a major argument, when this bill is introduced in the 2007 Texas Legislative Session.

Chas.

That was a big part of the discussion within the TSRA Legislative Committee and with others. Most pro-gun people also have great respect for private property rights and rightfully so.

However, there has long been a precedent for greater regulation of commercial property. For example, commercial property is subject to fire codes, mandatory access for the handicapped, exit doors must be unlocked during business hours, stairs must have handrails, occupancy limits exist for many commercial locations, etc. Further, employers are subject to state and federal laws regarding the provision of a safe work place for employees, such as mandatory design criteria for vertical ladders at plants, emergency showers, and lighting requirements. Many cities prohibit smoking in commercial buildings, such as office buildings and restaurants. So owners of commercial property, including employers, do not enjoy the degree of unfettered use of their private property as do non-commercial owners such as homeowners.

There is ample legal precedent for this relatively minor additional restriction on the private property rights of employers in this commercial setting. But I fully agree, there will be a fight over this issue and TSRA understands this is an important issue for many CHL holders.

The bill also provides immunity to employers, so they will not be forced to shoulder any potential liability for the acts of a CHL employee.

Regards,
Chas.

Just an addition to the discussion re commercial property / private property debate. Some time ago, I spoke with a local attorney here in Abilene in regard to the 30.06 signs posted at Hendrick Medical Center. He stated that the hopsital receives a large part of its funding from what he called "public gifting." That is, gift dollars are/were provided to this "private hospital" with the expectation that the hospital will provide medical care at no cost or at a reduced cost to those in need in the area. In short, he does not believe that the hospital can post a 30.06 sign for the same reasons that those signs cannot be placed on other public buildings.

Hendricks also does not allow their employees to leave concealed handguns in their vehicles on hospital parking lots. However, Hendricks does not prohibit private citizens from leaving handguns in their vehicles on the very same parking lots. It seem to me that the employees are not "on the clock" when they arrive at the hospital for work and are not "on the clock" when they drive away after work.

Finally, last March, a local Pizza Hut employee shot two children who were attempting to rob him at gun point. Actually, the kids sawed off BB guns and spray painted them to resemble shotguns. The boys ordered pizza delivered to a vacant house as a part of the plot to rob the deliver man. When confronted with the "shotguns" at night, the delivery man told the boys that the money was on the front seat of his car. They allowed him to return to the car for the money. The delivery man took his 38 from concealment on the front seat and shot two of the three boys. The delivery man did not have a concealed handgun license. The DA did not refer the case to a grand jury. Pizza Hut terminated the delivery man for violation of company policy which prohibits employees from accessing / carrying firearms while "on the clock."

[dolanp]

As long as you are carrying legally they shouldn't have any more right to tell you not to have a gun in your car (your property) than they should to tell you not to have any other item. As long as it stays on your property I don't think they have an overriding property rights interest.