If the gun (or the birth control pills) are locked out of sight, no one is going to know anyway. So what is the purpose of this legislation?
To protect someone from having to make the decision between possibly losing their source of income and being defenseless. Were talking about "law abiding citizens" who follow rules, not the people who are the criminals and do as they please in any situation. Shouldn't the people who do things right be afforded the same opportunities as those who do as they please? Its this little "detail" that makes this whole debate so silly. The bad guys don't abide by the rules, therefore the only peiple affected and punished by these laws and rules are the good people who follow them.
Now, how about that last question I asked? It this REALLY a case of "libertarian view property ownership" or is there an underlying anti-gun faction trying to torpedo this?
The mere fact that such employer rules prevent me from self protection from my home and return is a violation of my rights, I believe. It expands the gun free zone from just the employers parking lot to a much larger area. The very fact that all CCW permit holders have gone through such thorough background checks certainly ought to be proof enough to the employer that this employee was trustworthy and able to safely have a gun locked in his MV. It is obvious to me that when seconds count the police are always minutes away and in J. McKane's opinion that is good enough I guess. If he can guarantee I will never be accosted between work and home and will pay for my families care in the event I am hurt or killed in that travel I will not think him wrong. However my strong guess is he would have great problems with that liability.
As for finding another job, times are tough at the moment and the employer is in the driver's seat when it comes to setting the terms of employment. So what will happen when the economy turns around and supporter(s) of CCW decide its time for a new place to work? Will the employer have to eat his words come time to hire enough people to keep his livelihood up and running? I for one will exercise my freedom of speech to make it known that particular business is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.
So what is the harm in letting the bill pass? None, it only boils down to a power and control issue over employees.
The most important thing to do now is get this information far and wide as the potential is good they will be voted on this week. Feel free to send all your active, interested "grass roots" people a link to this thread and ask them to spread the word like wildfire. NRA is in favor of this as well as SAM. We need to make calls and send emails to our legislators and the Republican leadership. They are hearing from those organized against it and NEED to make sure our voice is heard as well. All the contact information for every legislator can be found on the 1st page of this thread. Please don't assume that since we have Republicans in power it is "in the bag" even though they should be an easy pair to pass given the support they have.
It is obvious to me that when seconds count the police are always minutes away and in J. McKane's opinion that is good enough I guess.
Not good enough at all, as I have said before. Please read what I have written.
Again, no one has answered the bumper sticker question.
No one also answered all my questions about other legal items locked inside the private vehicle and out of sight, just like the firearm or where the line at the parking lot owners dictatorship over the private vehicle ends? What type of restriction is enough? I think this is a "gun issue" and not a property issue at all. I believe that "other forces" want it to NOT be a gun issue but the silence is deafening on the other items I asked about. No matter what, the issue of it being a firearm, not a sticker or birth control pill or magazine IS the important part because of the effect it has on the owner the rest of the day they are not in the dictators parking lot.
On your bumper sticker question, I have no idea nor do I care about these trivial items. I care about the ability to defend yourself and that trumps all this silly banter muddying the conversation anyway. I think Dan Billings answered you on the last page btw.
It it walks like a duck and looks like a duck.... Well, you know the rest.
The way I understand Dan's answer, the private property/business owner has the final say.
But if it is locked in the trunk or glove compartment, who is going to know anyway?
"who is going to know anyway?"
Who? How about the honest, law-abiding citizen who goes through the effort to jump through the hoops to get a concealed firearms permit? For some of us, breaking the law is wrong and we don't like to do it, even when the law is wrong. I'm certain you feel the same way, or you wouldn't be the person I think you are...
Criminals aren't going to follow this or any other gun control law by definition. Asking the law abiding to become criminals by definition in order to protect themselves and satisfy the ego of an employer on a power trip is just plain wrong, no matter what kind of argument you cloak it in to disguise it from what it truly is - gun control. There is no way this is about anything other than gun control, and I truly can't understand how one can argue that your property rights trump my property rights. The government can't tell me I'm not allowed to have a legal item in my vehicle, so why should you be able to?
As Bigshooter said, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then...
I truly can't understand how one can argue that your property rights trump my property rights.
Think about it. But as BS said, we'll just agree to disagree.
I'm not ready to agree to disagree yet, Jon. I've seen no instance where an employer had a right to threaten an employee with termination if he didn't want to commit a dangerous act. The only thing that makes this different is the unsafe act [commuting through dangerous neighborhoods while unarmed] involves a gun or more properly, a lack of one. This is a gun rights issue, not a private property issue. Again, could an employer keep me from driving a car onto his parking lot if it had airbags?
"Employment at will" means an employer can fire you for any reason, or no reason, so long as its not an illegal reason.
"My ulcers are acting up and I'm cranky enough to fire the first person I see when I get through the door." Regardless of color, national origin or disability (unless some subterfuge is afoot), first sighted is done. He gets unemployment, though, if he's got enough time worked.
More than familiar with employment at will, TheJohn. Key here is the "illegal reason".
Thats the key here TJC, we are talking about wrongful termination. You can't fire someone because he is a person of color or Catholic. You can't fire someone who is gay or uses birth control. You cerainly should not be able to fire someone because they have accepted what many have shirked, the right and RESPONSIBLITY to defend their life and that of their family. Yup, I get the landowner thing. Yup, I get the "boss ca do whatever he wants" thing, but I can not accept the "if you want to work for me you must take the basic element you believe in the most and check it at your door" thing. Is it legal today? I don't know. Wrong, but maybe legal under today's laws. Will it be illegl 90 days after the legislature adjurns? Not if wesend a LOUD and CLEAR message to the Republicans we sent to office in droves last November.
Just for the record, a friend of mine owns a business whre ALL of his employees carry, all the time. It doesn't matter if they are sales people, office management or machine operators, they ALL have a firearm on their person. This place has never had a negative incident. My friend is Mike Dillon and his business is Dillon Precision in Scottsdale, AZ.
Also, EVERYONE who works for me is required to have a CWP and carry a firearm, and none of them would have it any other way. (Actually they all carry anyway because they are responsible people who actually value their life and liberty and don't bury their head inthe sand thinking THEY will never have anything bad happen to them, or task that responsibility to the police who openly admit that they do not have the ability to protect and defend individuals, but it ounds cooler if I can play the same "Dictator Business Owner" others have spoken of in this thread with a twist. :-) LOL.
I know some are trying to make this anything but a gun control issue but it can't be anything else. No matter what color paper it is wrapped in, it prevents you from having a firearm from the time you leave home until you get back home, and THAT can ONLY be a gun control issue. Very soon we will see who our friends are and who they are not, and I hope you believe me when I say people all across the nation are paying close attention to this bill in particlar. Some of them claim to be friends of the law abiding gun owner while finding excuses not to support and in some cases actually oppose this bill. They can tell themself whatever they need to, to fall asleep at night but after this vote the lines will be very clearly drawn. I hope we have gotten the word out on these bills so everyone understands the real issues over the hype. To make sure they do, Please call your Senator, call your Representative and Call the leadership and ask them to protect you from being disarmed by a silly company policy.
Both bills were finally released out of committee as amended "Ought to Pass" and will be debated and voted on asap.
The bill on the workplace parking has a new provision giving immunity to the employers so if that was REALLY their concern, it should be gone now. Now we will find out who was simply concerned with liability, and who just continues to oppose for "other reasons." :-)
Please turn up the heat to make sure these are passed in the House and Senate. The time to call, write and email (and make sure everyone you know does the same) is right now.
I understand employers being able to control what you keep in a company car, but what about a personal car that you are paid mileage on? Would they be able to dictate your ability to carry a gun in your car then? That is provided the employee has a CWP.
Don't put ideas into their heads. It is still your car and they only pay you milage for miles traveled. If you have an accident it is still your insurance that covers it not theirs.
The bill on the workplace parking has a new provision giving immunity to the employers
So what does it do? I thought that was the purpose of the bill.
I suppose all those school teachers and public school employees will still be deprived of their right to carry even if this passes?
. . . and postal employees . . .
. . . and state house employees . . .
Sorry if I wrote that wrong J. McKane, it should have read immunity to liability for firearms in vehicles owned and stored in vehicles by their employees. I am on a borrowed mobile device so I can't check it. Not sure what Virgil is talking about either.
I am trying to think of places that employees cannot keep firearms in their vehicles right now. School parking lots, post office parking lots and state capitol parking lots come to mind.
Will this bill change that?
My own quick perusal of the texts of the bills looks like LD35 (regarding employees) won't change anything in the instances I cited above. But LD 1347 (regarding concealed carry at state facilities might actually make a difference for people (in general, not just employees) at the state house, not just in keeping a gun in the car, but actually carrying on your person on the premises. LD 1347 doesn't present the same private property rights issues as LD 35, so I fully support it, but, frankly, I am surprised by an "ought to pass" coming out of committee on this one.
"Thats the key here TJC, we are talking about wrongful termination."
The concept is not really applicable to Maine. It is in some other states, particularly California. If the bill on "parking lot" possession passes, termination for that reason will be an "illegal reason", and not until.
If there is "good news", it is that injuries on premises will usually be covered by the worker's compensation act, in cases of assault by a third party, where the assault involves a risk peculiar to the workplace. Some interesting (to lawyers, judges and safety directors) spinoffs result from both current law, and the proposed law.
Virgil: Also, all state parks from May to Sept., and some year 'round. Also, anyplace slot machines are present -- query as to "Hollywood slots" parking lot. Also some DHS licensed facilities. Also any fed. parking garage. I may have missed a few. It is easy when, by regulation, agencies can bury "no guns" provisions within 27 pages of seemingly unrelated rules.
PS to all: BY STATUTE, hoteliers, innkeepers and campground owners can refuse occupancy to (on scene) possessors of firearms.
I am curious about something, can an employer search your car without your approval if parked on their property? TJC or others care to chime in on this?
And J McKane, the bit about "find another place to work" is a cop-out and you keep repeating it.
Here are some other beauties:
"Well, you wouldn't have to worry about gas prices if you just didn't work."
"The unplowed roads are fine if you snowshoe everywhere."
"The smog is only an issue if you go outside."
"Food prices are high only if you buy it."
If your only rationale is to find another place to work, then I have to wonder how much you really care about Mainers. What about all the other items BS mentioned? Where do they come into play? Does the employer have the right to not allow birth control in someone's car if they are against it? What about a Qu'ran or Bible? Do I need to remove my Bible from my car now? I feel spiritually unprotected without it. Conversely, does an employer have the right to demand I hang a pink upside-down cross on my mirror while in their parking lot, if they so choose?
Probably, they can't enter your car without permission (with some way-out exceptions a la Title 17A section 105). They probably can require permission as a condition of employment.
Thanks TJC. Could they change the rules of employment after you are hired, like at any time? Just as an example, if you have been working at a place for years, could they come out with a new policy or directive and require you to follow it?
I'm thinking they can, based on the number of places that are now non-smoking, but I am unsure where it's your private vehicle. Can they require a search of your person before you start work?
I am thinking of an incident where an employee was suspected of drinking on the job. The employer was advised by legal counsel they could not sample what was in the employee's coffee cup without their permission, which they knew wouldn't be forthcoming. They had to wait until the employee disposed of the cup, whereby they retrieved it, ran the sample, and determined they were drinking and were summarily dismissed.
If the person in question did not give permission they could not be proven to be violating company policy, and thus could not be dismissed. Wouldn't the same apply to having a firearm locked in your car and out of sight?
To help clear up any confusion:
LD35 - ‘Sec. 1. 26 MRSA §600 is enacted to read:
§ 600. Concealed firearms in vehicles
1. Firearms in vehicles. An employer or an agent of an employer may not prohibit an
employee who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm under Title 25, chapter 252 from keeping
a firearm in the employee's vehicle as long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible. This
subsection does not authorize an employee to carry a firearm in a place where carrying a firearm is
prohibited by law.
2. Immunity from liability. An employer or an agent of an employer may not be held
liable in any civil action for damages, injury or death resulting from or arising out of another person's
actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this section, including, but
not limited to, the theft of a firearm from an employee's vehicle, unless the employer or an agent of the
employer intentionally solicited or procured the other person's injurious actions. Nothing in this section
affects provisions in the Maine Workers' Compensation Act of 1992.’
It is quite long so here is the summary:
This bill eliminates the prohibition on certain persons possessing firearms in certain locations,
including state parks and historic sites, premises licensed for the consumption of alcohol, state property
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Safety and the Legislative Council and locations of
labor disputes. Specifically, notwithstanding any statutory provisions or rules prohibiting the possession
of a firearm, the bill permits the following persons to possess firearms:
1. A person to whom a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued under the Maine
Revised Statutes, Title 25, chapter 252. The person must have in that person's possession the valid permit;
2. A person to whom a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued by another state if
a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued from that state has been granted reciprocity under Title 25,
chapter 252. The person must have in that person's possession the valid permit;
3. An authorized federal, state or local law enforcement officer in the performance of the officer's
4. A qualified law enforcement officer pursuant to 18 United States Code, Section 926B. The law
enforcement officer must have in the law enforcement officer's possession photographic identification
issued by the law enforcement agency by which the person is employed as a law enforcement officer;
5. A qualified retired law enforcement officer pursuant to 18 United States Code, Section 926C. The
retired law enforcement officer must have in the retired law enforcement officer's possession:
A. Photographic identification issued by the law enforcement agency from which the person retired
from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the person has, not less recently than one
year before the date the person is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by
the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active
law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
B. Photographic identification issued by the law enforcement agency from which the person retired
from service as a law enforcement officer and a certification issued by the state in which the person
resides that indicates that the person has, not less recently than one year before the date the personHP0988, LD 1347, item 1, 125th Maine State Legislature
An Act Relating to Locations where Concealed Weapons May Be Carried
HP0988, LR 98, item 1,First Regular Session - 125th Maine Legislature, page 9
is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by that state to meet the standards
established by that state for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry
a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm;
6. A private investigator licensed under Title 32, chapter 89 who is actually performing as a private
7. A security guard to the extent that federal laws or rules required the security guard to be armed
with a dangerous weapon at a labor dispute site or a security guard who is employed by an employer
involved in a labor dispute, strike or lockout at the location where applications for employment with the
employer will be accepted, interviews of those applicants conducted or medical examinations of those
This bill does not eliminate or amend provisions governing the possession of firearms in or on school
property or courthouses.
These bills are going to be voted on, on Tuesday. Please turn up the heat so our Senators and Reps know we value our freedom ad ability to defend ourself no matter where we work.
Also, I understand several Maine business are targeting our Reps and Senators pressuring them to vot AGAINST these bills. That's right, Maine businesses that don't seem to care about the safety of their employees. I will do my best to verify these businesses ASAP to see who are trying to force us to decide between employment and our most basic responsibility of self preservation. If these businesses check out, I have heard from a group that will plaster their names far and wide so we can make educated decisions where to spend our money. I just found out about this and asked them to hold off until it is verified even though they seem certain. If this is the case, I know that my money, and that of the VAST MAJORITY of Mainers who live here year round and hunt will be going to companies that have not taken such a bold stance against our liberty.
I would think in a State with far more guns than people, the Number 1 gun ownership state per capita in the nation, companies would want to encourage our business, not slap us in he face hoping we won't find out who has been pushing for non passage. We will also know how much stroke these corporations hold over OUR elected officials to persuade them to vote against the most basic liberty we have.
THIS, ladies and gentlemen is about to get VERY interesting.........
Please call your Senators and Reps tomorrow and ask that they look out for YOUR freedoms, not that of lrge corporations who want a dictatorship over your personal safety........
Do you have a list of those companies?