Conceal Carry at Work?

[deen_ad]

Can you cite a statute? Is this WA state?

It's not a law in WA. All they can do, if you're found to be carrying, is ask you to leave. Only if you refuse can they have you cited for trespassing.

 

[deen_ad]

And since company policy has rule of law when a company posts an anti firearm policy.

Actually it's NOT a "rule of law", it's simply their policy. Just like any other policy, they can fire you for not following it. They can have a rule "no spitting on the floor", they can fire you for violating it, but it's not a "law".

 

[STUBSZERO]

I live in Oregon. I'm sure they have different laws in WA.

 

[deen_ad]

I live in Oregon. I'm sure they have different laws in WA.

I was answering a post by ZigZagZeke.

 

[deen_ad]

I live in Oregon. I'm sure they have different laws in WA.

I was answering a post by ZigZagZeke.

I won't hold it against you for living in OR though.

 

[STUBSZERO]

I was answering a post by ZigZagZeke.

I won't hold it against you for living in OR though.

Haha! I thought someone asked earlier if this was in Oregon. I was just answering a little late, can see how it might just look like a random statement. sorry about that.

 

[sadiesassy]

Go read oregon revised statuets
If a private business post No weapons - You are not allowed to take them in side the business. They can have you removed for tresspassing. USe to be you had to cite the ordinabce - that is no longer required.

So rather than screw up for other people - just tak esome time and read the revised statuets that you were suppose to read.

 

[lamrith]

Go read oregon revised statuets
If a private business post No weapons - You are not allowed to take them in side the business. They can have you removed for tresspassing. USe to be you had to cite the ordinabce - that is no longer required.

So rather than screw up for other people - just tak esome time and read the revised statuets that you were suppose to read.

But can they instantly hit you for tresspassing without any warning? You can be arrested for tresspassing in WA as well.

In WA the signs are not law, BUT if you are found to be carrying and asked to leave you must leave. If you do NOT leave at that point they can have you arrested for trespassing. But not just for being there at all.. I thougth OR was similar?

Employment is a different isue, if you know there is no carry and you are caught they can terminate your employment on the spot, not sure if they can cite you for tresspassing though, unless you refuse to leave the premesis when asked to..

 

[Jerry]

deen_ad:

Actually, it is the law in Washington State that an employer can prohibit the carrying/possession of firearms on comany property and/or while in the employ of said company.

I would refer you to Cherry vs Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, aka: Cherry vs King County Metro. The Washington Supreme Court heard this case in 1991. I have included several excerpts below.


" We interpret RCW 9.41.290, consistent with legislative history and the general purpose of the Uniform Firearms Act, as not being preemptive of the authority of a municipal employer to regulate or prohibit a municipal employee's possession of firearms while on the job or in the workplace. We reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the municipality of Metropolitan Seattle."


Now I do note that it says municipal employee as that was the employee/employer relationship in this case.

The court further stated "Nothing in RCW 9.41.290 would operate to prevent private employers from having internal workplace policies prohibiting the possession of any type weapon, including firearms, by employees on the job."

So while the law does not directly prohibit workplace carry/possession, the court found that the law does not prohibit an employer from prohibbiting the possession/carry of firearms while in the employ of the company. The court referenced case law and statute that allows an employer to do so.

I don't like it, but there it is. Each person can decide what they will do.

 

[Hook686]

Bottom line I think is a person can rationalize any thing they choose to. It comes down to what are you really willing to accept responsibility for ? If you signed up for a class, would you be under the 'Student' status when on campus when not actually teaching ?

 

[STUBSZERO]

I think I would be an employee first and a student second. Perhaps only while I was attending class would I be considered a student. So that would be maybe two hours out of my work day. I know I have a choice, I was just wondering if anyone else had a similar job that might be able to inform me a little more on the subject. I'm willing to take responsibility for my life, that's for sure.

 

[CharonPDX]

Go read oregon revised statuets
If a private business post No weapons - You are not allowed to take them in side the business. They can have you removed for tresspassing. USe to be you had to cite the ordinabce - that is no longer required.

So rather than screw up for other people - just tak esome time and read the revised statuets that you were suppose to read.

Please provide a reference for this. I have never been able to find this law. If they catch you and ask you to leave, and you don't, then you are committing trespassing and they can call the police to arrest you. But they do have to verbally tell you to leave and give you the opportunity first. I have never seen any ORS that gives a sign force of law.

ORS 164.265 says it is "criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm" to "enter or remain unlawfully".

ORS 164.205 (which defines terms in 164.265,) defines: "Enter or remain unlawfully" as:

(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;
(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;
(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or
(d) To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.

A store *IS* open to the public, as defined later:

"Open to the public" means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.

And finally, one must be "lawfully directed" to leave by a "person in charge", which is also defined:

"Person in charge" means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. "Person in charge" includes, but is not limited to the person, or holder of a position, designated as the person or position-holder in charge by the Governor, board, commission or governing body of any political subdivision of this state.

Note that this is a person in charge, not a sign.

The only caveat is that "Enter or remain unlawfully" part (c) doesn't say "person in charge" like part (b) does, only "lawfully directed". And "lawfully directed" is not defined anywhere that I can find. There is no statute that defines a sign as a having force of law (re: trespassing) OTHER than the main trespassing statute, which defines specific guidelines for a no trespassing sign. The fact that the no trespassing sign is specifically defined implies that only signs meeting the specific requirements carry legal significance in regards to trespassing.

I could not find any court cases that dealt directly with wether or not another sign carries force as a "lawful direction". Oregon is a "if it's not banned then it's legal" state, so to me, the only way to find out for certain would be to test the law.


But... They'd have to know you were carrying for it to matter.

As for the original poster - yes, courts have decided that employment contracts may bar carry, even to those licensed to carry concealed, in locations that are otherwise open to the public to carry. The only cases I know of for certain only cover employment contracts, and the OUS (Oregon University System)'s recent decision to make all contracts (student, 'event ticket', etc,) include the "no firearms" clause has not yet been tested in court.

So, OP... If you feel like being the test case, go right ahead. If you DON'T feel like being the test case, then you need to decide if carrying is more important than working/going to school there. Because if you're not willing to be the test case, you should not carry.

I'm all for protest-through-being-arrested-and-deciding-the-law-in-court, but if you're not willing to be the one who is arrested and goes through court to decide it, it is stupidity to violate the policy.

 

[sadiesassy]

They can ask you to leave in Oregon- I believe. Then if you do not - you can have them arrested.

Right each state is different in terms of revised statues. These are the statues that law enforcement in the state enforce. Some are difficult to interpret true meaning - ie: how a judge would react. That is why it is important to undertand the revised statues and what your local LEO enforce to. There use to be a small Oregon Gun Laws - the non LEO version..

We took a 4 hour course on revised staues and "What the Sheriff thinks it means and how/ wher you will get in trouble". Very good course. He explained how they enforce the laws and gray area issue

I would suspect Oregon to be less gun friendly than Arizona.

Some states interpret - like a no trespassing sign - it is posted - you can be charged

Employment - I would clarify your statement - All employees need to understand their policy and procedures - it is the employee's responsibility. Based on that they can terminate you.
But you cannot use the contrary to that "If you know there is no carry" - implies you might not know.

Right - owners of private property / businesses can decide their own rules as long as they meet legal requirements

 

[Misterbill]

Concealed means concealed.

If it ever HAS to come out, your smallest worry will be the consequences which follow. I would pay no attention whatever to a company weapons ban unless it was accompanied by a metal detector and body search. Being fired beats the Hell out of being dead.