Can an employer not allow a firearm in a vehicle?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,908
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    An employer can regulate your behavior at work and while representing the company to the public. They can't regulate your behavior on your time. According to your reasoning they cold fire you because they didn't like the carpet you selected in your living room.

    Yeah, you are wrong there too. How did that woman that flipped Trump the bird while out cycling on "her own time" get fired? Granted, it was Virginia, but it is the same concept.

    How is it that NFL players get fired over their conduct on "their own time"?

    Go ahead and disparage your company on "your own time" and find out what happens if the company finds out.

    How can companies fire people for posting stuff on Facebook on "their own time"?

    Unless you have an employment agreement that specifically lays out the only things that you can be fired for, which usually has a conduct clause in it anyway, then you can be fired for any reason whatsoever, except one of the protected reasons (e.g., race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age).
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,908
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    This is more to do with unemployment insurance premiums that companies pay. Most companies now "lay off" people if they find a "problem" employee.

    Yeah, the amount of terrible legal advice in this thread is incredible. If a company is worried about its unemployment contribution rate going up, then it will fire a worker, not lay them off. The rate does not go up if an employee is fired for cause. The rate does go up if an employee is laid off. Laying off an employee is usually better from a lawsuit standpoint, especially if the employee falls in a protected class. Want to get rid of some older employees, do a RIF and include them with some younger employees to make it look like it was random. Less chance of being sued for age discrimination, but your unemployment contribution rate will go up because of the layoff.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    This is more to do with unemployment insurance premiums that companies pay. Most companies now "lay off" people if they find a "problem" employee.

    not this.

    Yeah, the amount of terrible legal advice in this thread is incredible. If a company is worried about its unemployment contribution rate going up, then it will fire a worker, not lay them off. The rate does not go up if an employee is fired for cause. The rate does go up if an employee is laid off. Laying off an employee is usually better from a lawsuit standpoint, especially if the employee falls in a protected class. Want to get rid of some older employees, do a RIF and include them with some younger employees to make it look like it was random. Less chance of being sued for age discrimination, but your unemployment contribution rate will go up because of the layoff.

    ^^This. Layoffs many times come with severance, other items, and an agreement not to sue. At most companies, HR has a stack of lawsuits on their desks. Many are frivolous. I have seen a female employee sue a female manager for discrimination. :rolleyes: But companies settle to avoid legal fees (plus no one wants dirty laundry aired at a public hearing), and many attorneys know this and eke out a decent living. A lot of layoffs are like throwing chum in the water for these attorneys.
     

    lemmdus

    Active Member
    Feb 24, 2015
    380
    Their lot, their rules. I once worked at a location where the security guard contracted by the company could not and did not carry firearms. Yet if you went to the company's other location they were armed. This is because the building landlord/owner (foreigner) did not want firearms on the property and it was actually in the lease. So, our guards did not have firearms...only batons and mace. Since this was in a right to carry state, when my co workers would carry and had their guns in the car they parked in the (quite full lot) across the street.

    Its up to the property owner. On my property its Constitutional carry on my current employer's property, only the guards.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,533
    Messages
    7,285,309
    Members
    33,473
    Latest member
    Sarca

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom