Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Jun 05, 2024 1:25 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Been trying pocket carry,my thoughts 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:15 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:37 am
Posts: 606
joelr wrote:
e5usmc wrote:
So can a permit holder be terminated for securing his firearm in his vehicle while parked in the company parking lot or not?
No. Not lawfully.


Based on state law? What about the Weyerhaeuser employees who were terminated for guns locked in cars in company parking lots?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:46 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
squib_joe wrote:
joelr wrote:
e5usmc wrote:
So can a permit holder be terminated for securing his firearm in his vehicle while parked in the company parking lot or not?
No. Not lawfully.


Based on state law? What about the Weyerhaeuser employees who were terminated for guns locked in cars in company parking lots?
I'm not familiar with the case -- was it in Minnesota and after the MCPPA passed? It's the MCPPA that protects us here; some other states -- Florida, for example -- don't have that protection.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:51 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:31 pm
Posts: 243
Location: Eden Prairie
I just remember being told by an HR person (granted, not an attorney) that someone can be let go for something like their hair being too long, or their clothing choices, neither being an illegal activity.

As was pointed out earlier though, a crafty employer will not give a reason, even if they secretly have one.

_________________
"A free people ought to be armed" - George Washington


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:13 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
squib_joe wrote:
What about the Weyerhaeuser employees who were terminated for guns locked in cars in company parking lots?


That was in Oklahoma, according to Wikipedia.

Quote:
On October 1, 2002, the company sent gun and drug sniffing dogs into the parking lot of their Valliant, Oklahoma plant looking for drugs in cars in response to an employee drug overdose. They found no drugs, but the dogs alerted on 12 cars with guns in them. The company then ordered the employees to open their cars for a hand search and rifles, shotguns, and handguns were found. The 12 employees were immediately suspended.

Two days later, the company fired all twelve employees, including a shift supervisor of 23 years with an exemplary record. Jimmy 'Red' Wyatt and all the others said that they were never told of the policy change, extending the company gun ban to the parking lot, which had occurred in 2002.

The plant manager, Mr. Nebel said that firing the men was difficult but he felt safer with all the guns out of the parking lot. Mr. Nebel stated that all the employees had been warned of the policy change.

Several of the fired men have filed a civil suit against Weyerhaeuser for wrongful termination, with Tulsa attorney Larry Johnson representing them. Mr.Johnson, a longtime Second Amendment lawyer said that this was an injustice that must be addressed.


In 2003, a new Oklahoma law was passed protecting employees with guns in their cars.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0812/p01s02-ussc.html
Christian Science Monitor wrote:
The state legislature, in overwhelming support of the workers, banned companies from restricting workers' ability to carry legal firearms in their vehicles.


<strike>ConocoPhillips, however, filed suit in federal court to block the implementation of that law. As far as I can tell, that case hasn't been resolved yet.</strike>

[Update]

No, wait, apparently a new law was passed.
http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/OKStatutes/C ... s/os21.rtf

Quote:
§21-1289.7a. Transporting or storing firearms in locked motor vehicle on private premises – Prohibition proscribed – Liability enforcement.
A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.
...
C. An individual may bring a civil action to enforce this section. If a plaintiff prevails in a civil action related to the personnel manual against a person, property owner, tenant, employer or business for a violation of this section, the court shall award actual damages, enjoin further violations of this section, and award court costs and attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group