Carrying in a MD workplace??

TexDefender said:

Why all the Hostility? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

Click to expand...

This isn't the rice cooker thread, false or misleading information could potentially get someone jacked up.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Here's an article I recently wrote:

Recent shootings have ignited an interest in allowing firearms in the workplace. Employers worry about safety and potential liability, and many employees who may lawfully carry a firearm believe that they would be safer if they could carry. The issue raises several concerns – both legal and non-legal - that employers must understand and consider before making a decision.

Consulting with your liability insurance carrier is the first step, because the carrier might feel that guns at work will increase liability risk and, in response, offer you a choice between a significant premium increase or a canceled policy. Workers' compensation coverage is another issue - if you allow guns at work, then you might have to provide benefits to an employee who is injured in a gun-related incident.

Assuming you’ve made it this far, you'll then need to decide whether allowing guns at work is likely to provide a safer environment or a more dangerous environment, and that decision will no doubt depend on your business environment and employees. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and its state counterparts impose a general duty on employers to provide a safe working environment. Some employers have wondered if they have a duty under these laws – as a means of making the workplace as safe as possible - to allow employees who can legally carry a firearm to do so. Others worry that allowing firearms at work will make the environment less safe. Obviously, the background and training of the employees who might carry firearms will greatly impact this decision. In addition to liability imposed by statute under the right circumstances, an employer who allows firearms at work could be liable for injuries caused in gun-related incidents under theories of negligence and vicarious liability.

There are other considerations too, like whether allowing employees to carry firearms will actually create a duty to protect employees – have you essentially created security guards? It should be noted that although most states expressly allow private businesses to prohibit firearms in the workplace, several states have adopted gun-friendly workplace laws that deal with things like protecting an employee’s right to store a firearm in his or her private vehicle, limiting an employer’s ability to search an employee’s private vehicle for guns, prohibiting discrimination based on gun ownership, requiring employers who prohibit guns at work to post notices to that effect, and limiting the liability of an employer that allows guns at work.

Whether or not an employer decides to allow firearms in the workplace, a robust firearms policy is a must. That policy should address, among many other things, whether firearms are allowed at all, who can and cannot carry a firearm and what training and/or background is required of those who do, where and how firearms can and cannot be kept, compliance with applicable laws (by both the employees and the employer), reporting violations of law and policy, and, in most cases, making it clear that carrying a firearm is not a job requirement and that an employee who chooses to carry has no duty to act if presented with a workplace threat.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not, and should not be construed as, legal advice. Informational Internet articles are never a substitute for seeking individualized advice with respect to your specific legal needs and the applicable state(s). You should always consult an attorney with respect to your particular situation.

mxrider said:

I don't know about all of you, but 1 post from a member that joined right when all of the 2013 legislation was happening.......

Now with that being said, and I am not a lawyer and would advise consulting one prior to making any decision, the written statue does allow a supervisory employee to be able to carry at work with authorization from the owner. Where the problem comes in is that there is nothing allowing transportation of the firearm to the workplace. The only legal scenario that I can come up with in my imagination is the owner of the business would need to transport a handgun to his place of business and authorize his supervisory employee to carry it. This does not include outside the walls of the business (parking lot) as there is case law where a security guard was convicted of not having a permit for carrying in a parking lot with the owners authorization.

Best scenario would be to get a letter from the owner requesting the employee to be armed and have that employee get a carry permit.

Click to expand...

This is also clear in the statute. An employee may transport to the place of business. Section 7


https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/4-203.html

mxrider said:

I don't know about all of you, but 1 post from a member that joined right when all of the 2013 legislation was happening.......

Now with that being said, and I am not a lawyer and would advise consulting one prior to making any decision, the written statue does allow a supervisory employee to be able to carry at work with authorization from the owner. Where the problem comes in is that there is nothing allowing transportation of the firearm to the workplace. The only legal scenario that I can come up with in my imagination is the owner of the business would need to transport a handgun to his place of business and authorize his supervisory employee to carry it. This does not include outside the walls of the business (parking lot) as there is case law where a security guard was convicted of not having a permit for carrying in a parking lot with the owners authorization.

Best scenario would be to get a letter from the owner requesting the employee to be armed and have that employee get a carry permit.

Click to expand...

All very salient points. Having the owner transport the firearm to the workplace seems prudent along with written designation of the employee being in a supervisory position

The CCW would be even better if it can be issued

swinokur said:

All very salient points. Having the owner transport the firearm to the workplace seems prudent along with written designation of the employee being in a supervisory position

The CCW would be even better if it can be issued

Click to expand...

(7) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a supervisory employee:

(i) in the course of employment;

(ii) within the confines of the business establishment in which the supervisory employee is employed; and

(iii) when so authorized by the owner or manager of the business establishment; or

I stand corrected Doc

Lol

I'm sure TexDefender is a nice guy trying to be helpful, but post #2 was incorrect in every detail .

The additional issues raised in post #15 might influence the Employer in whether or not they choose to authorize Supervisory Employees to be Armed , but does not affect the Statutory parameters .

swinokur said:

I stand corrected Doc

Lol

Click to expand...

Don't make me angry,.....

teratos said:

You can carry at work without a permit if you have permission from the owner. Section 7:

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/4-203.html .

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info and link!
Much Appreciated.

Stoveman said:

This isn't the rice cooker thread, false or misleading information could potentially get someone jacked up.

Click to expand...

I find nothing in the statute about rice cookers being prohibited. They may be carried concealed or openly.

Bulldog317 said:

Thanks for the info and link!
Much Appreciated.

Click to expand...

mxrider said:

I don't know about all of you, but 1 post from a member that joined right when all of the 2013 legislation was happening.......

Now with that being said, and I am not a lawyer and would advise consulting one prior to making any decision, the written statue does allow a supervisory employee to be able to carry at work with authorization from the owner. Where the problem comes in is that there is nothing allowing transportation of the firearm to the workplace. The only legal scenario that I can come up with in my imagination is the owner of the business would need to transport a handgun to his place of business and authorize his supervisory employee to carry it. This does not include outside the walls of the business (parking lot) as there is case law where a security guard was convicted of not having a permit for carrying in a parking lot with the owners authorization.

Best scenario would be to get a letter from the owner requesting the employee to be armed and have that employee get a carry permit.

Click to expand...

Gotcha...
I have been a long time lurker and yes this was my first post. I am a proud U.S. Army Vet (13B) 2A supporter, Hunter, and Competitive Shooter. I work for a small company that has around 150 employees, most of which are contactors from Baltimore City. We hire and fire people everyday. We get our share of threats. The owner knows me as the "Gun Guy" and asked the question if I could / would I consider having a firearm in the office and I thought that was a good question... Having a Utah Permit I know the huge responsibility of having firearm and God forbid the consequences of using it...just thought it was an interesting question. Thanks for the input!!

teratos said:

This is also clear in the statute. An employee may transport to the place of business. Section 7


https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/4-203.html

Click to expand...

ahhh, not so clear here.

(7) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a supervisory employee:

(i) in the course of employment;

(ii) within the confines of the business establishment in which the supervisory employee is employed; and

(iii) when so authorized by the owner or manager of the business establishment; or

Click to expand...

The above is not allowing the transportation from home to work, only while at work. There is nothing allowing the transportation of the firearm other than the owner of the business.

mxrider said:

ahhh, not so clear here.



The above is not allowing the transportation from home to work, only while at work. There is nothing allowing the transportation of the firearm other than the owner of the business.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. That's how Jack McCauley reads it to. We had a discussion on this very point. How do security guards get their personal weapon home when they get off work?

teratos said:

I would disagree. That's how Jack McCauley reads it to. We had a discussion on this very point.

Click to expand...

Just playing devil's advocate on this one. Can a supervisory employee transport the firearm concealed on their person from home to work without a permit?

Section 7 requires all 3 subsections to exempt them from the carry laws:

1. In the course of employment
2. Within the confines of the business
3. With authorization

The way i understood it you could carry a firearm in a car to an event , protection of yourself at work is an event . But i am not the 2A expert or carry expert .

teratos said:

How do security guards get their personal weapon home when they get off work?

Click to expand...

Because they have a carry permit that allows them to transfer to and from work with their firearm.

mxrider said:

Just playing devil's advocate on this one. Can a supervisory employee transport the firearm concealed on their person from home to work without a permit?

Section 7 requires all 3 subsections to exempt them from the carry laws:

1. In the course of employment
2. Within the confines of the business
3. With authorization

Click to expand...

To meet these 3 criteria transport is not a factor. You have to be inside the confines of the business, so transport is a moot point. Hell, if you read the statute you can carry an unloaded and holstered handgun to an informal target shoot! Transport to your place of business is and must be a part of the statute.

mxrider said:

Because they have a carry permit that allows them to transfer to and from work with their firearm.

Click to expand...

The restrictions I have seen say "while working as a security guard". They are then off....

There is a difference between carry and transport

Transport does not require a permit.

Carry does.

teratos said:

The restrictions I have seen say "while working as a security guard". They are then off....

Click to expand...

My argument there would be that they were working as a security guard while driving to and from work, just not on the clock.