Carrying in a MD workplace??

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!

    • Register Log in
    B

    Bulldog317

    Member
    Jun 13, 2013
    3
    Hazard County
    Hello All,
    Quick question, and I thought this would be a good place to ask.
    My boss / owner who does not have a firearm and is really not a gun guy, but is growing concerned with workplace violence and shootings and such was asking this question. Since he is the business owner and has a long term lease for the the building we work in, can he give permission for a employee to keep a firearm and or carry a firearm concealed while at work while only on the premises. The firearm would stay in a safe and would not be transported back and forth each day. The employee does not have a MD permit.

    Thanks
     
    TexDefender

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    See below. Additionally, I would suggest that a lawyer be contacted to go over the details and provide a more professional advise.
     
    Last edited:
    TexDefender

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    So he has to a supervisory employee. That means in my mind the individual has to designated as such.
     
    welder516

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,460
    Underground Bunker
    A lease is the same as turning over ownership (temporary or custody) , while the property is leased . That is how it was explained to me . This applies to the person that is leasing the property not others an employer can then make rules to their employees and that is where it gets complicated .
     
    swinokur

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,485
    Westminster USA
    If the info is wrong, it's best to correct it after getting the correct info.

    That helps everyone. I get corrected all the time.

    It's not a huge deal. Don't get your panties in a wad.
     
    TexDefender

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    swinokur said:
    If the info is wrong, it's best to correct it after getting the correct info.

    That helps everyone. I get corrected all the time.

    It's not a huge deal. Don't get your panties in a wad.
    Click to expand...

    I'm not mad, I'm not the one badgering. I'm not mad at you either. The info was not entirely wrong. I'm not a lawyer and really a lawyer should be the one providing the be advice. Shouldn't the lease be checked to ensure there is no special clauses? The question regarding who owns the firearm is pretty important. I would think, it could be a big part in determining liability. The expansion of duties was important too, as the individual according to the link to the law, states the individual has to be supervisor. And wasn't just recently the was a individual that almost went to trial, because they was a question if the bail bonds men was duty or not? I don't mind being corrected, but one doesn't have to jerk in doing it. I thought we are all on the same team.
     
    swinokur

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,485
    Westminster USA
    The problem is an uninformed person cannot discern what portion is wrong. Why not correct it based on the correct info that was given?

    And if you are not a lawyer, posing all those what if's doesn't clarify the issue. The statute is pretty clear. If a person has questions, let them seek an attorney.

    I'd go with that.

    Or not.
     
    TexDefender

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    swinokur said:
    The problem is an uninformed person cannot discern what portion is wrong. Why not correct it based on the correct info that was given?

    And if you are not a lawyer, posing all those what if's doesn't clarify the issue. The statute is pretty clear. If a person has questions, let them seek an attorney.

    I'd go with that.

    Or not.
    Click to expand...

    Point taken, I'm all for correcting it.
     
    M

    mxrider

    Former MSI Treasurer
    Aug 20, 2012
    3,045
    Edgewater, MD
    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.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    S and S Guns SOMD ad

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,549
    Messages
    7,286,063
    Members
    33,476
    Latest member
    Spb5205

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom