Jump to content


Photo

Employer doesn't allow conceal carry


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#31 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,716 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 10 December 2020 - 07:33 AM

Looking back through the posts I notice that OP says the office space is rented.

 

 

I made note of that.

 

As far as creating a special class, not really. The class of people who choose to exersize their 2A rights in a limited way under the FCCA is a group anyone can join unless prohibited in some way.

 

 

Oh, but one has been created per concealed carry.  Off duty LEO's now can concealed carry while hunting deer and turkey.  Something a private property owner, who doesn't require a CCL while on their own property,  cannot do on their own land when the criminal code allows them to do anyway they choose in any other situation except while training hunting dogs, which is a different issue.

 

So you're telling me it's not a strategy to extend this to CCL holders?  Will the private property owner be ignored once again or be required to obtain a CCL which they are exempt from while on their own property or property they control per the criminal code?

 

And no, it is not free rein to ignore company policy, but employeers are subject to laws in making their policies just as the rest of are.

 

 

Laws are overturned all the time.  Just because a legislature passes a law doesn't make it legal or valid.  As an example, Abate got more than one bill passed to protect special funds from being swept.  It was not held up.

 

One works at will for an employer.  Caterpillar got a higher court in Indiana to agree in the 2016 case over ridding the state's 2011 parking lot law.

 

Obviously I believe in private property rights.  One can't tell me what they're going to do while on my land.  One is either a guest or a trespasser.  You will do as you are told or leave.

 

The Constitution contains private property rights too.  The right to control your land and exclude anyone are among them.



#32 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,716 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 10 December 2020 - 07:47 AM

the FCCA is a group anyone can join unless prohibited in some way.

 

 

I agree 100% while one is in public.



#33 joedav1228

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 20

Posted 10 December 2020 - 08:51 AM

You can do whatever you want if you're willing to accept the risk of losing your job, it all comes down to what you want more.



#34 RandyP

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,530 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 10 December 2020 - 09:38 AM

since the OP has been absent in this thread since last Friday I suggest we close the thread?


"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln


#35 joedav1228

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 20

Posted 10 December 2020 - 04:12 PM

since the OP has been absent in this thread since last Friday I suggest we close the thread?

 

Maybe Friday he was in work, carrying and surfing this forum on his company computer and they found out he was carrying hahahah



#36 Giant Teddybear

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 74 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 17

Posted 30 December 2020 - 11:53 PM

They rent the property in a bigger building. The building doesnt restrict conceal carry, it has tenants and renters. There are surely firearms on the property. This is just an office inside the building with the conceal carry signs posted. If those signs didnt have the force of law, I wouldn't be asking the question.

 

 

Only the building owners can prohibit CCW. Renters have no authority. If they terminate you for carrying concealed sue the company and building owner. If they have you arrested sue the city, the company, and the building owner for false for false arrest.

 

 I've already had this happen a year ago. The renters of a building said no firearms were allowed and threatened arrest if their policy was violated.

 

 I never got the opportunity to sue. Once the renter found out the law they dropped their no firearms allowed policy once they found out that the building owner threatened the renter with eviction

 

 Ask a Second Amendment attorney.



#37 EdDinIL

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 14

Posted 31 December 2020 - 09:57 AM


Only the building owners can prohibit CCW. Renters have no authority. If they terminate you for carrying concealed sue the company and building owner. If they have you arrested sue the city, the company, and the building owner for false for false arrest.

Interesting, did not know that only the owner could do that.  I wonder if that was an oversight, not that I'm complaining.  Has anyone been successfully sued over that?  Would this also mean that a store in a strip mall can't prohibit CCL, presuming that the store owners lease the property?

 

 

430 ILCS 66/65 (a-10)

The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence.


Life Member: NRA, ISRA, SAF

 


#38 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,003 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 31 December 2020 - 11:14 AM

Regardless of building ownership, you can be fired for violation of company policy, or just on a whim. 

 

Can an employer terminate me without advance notice or without giving a reason or an unfair reason for the termination?

Yes. Illinois is an "employment at-will" state, meaning that an employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time, without any reason or cause. The employer, however, cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, military service or unfavorable military discharge. If you wish to locate additional information, visit the Illinois Department of Human Rights

Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs (illinois.gov)

 

 

This is a guess on my part. Although the cited law does not mention renters, I think that common practice allows renters to control entry to the premises. 

It may even be part of rental agreements. I suppose that if you wanted to enter a posted rented store in a mall, you could ask who the building owner is and contact them. 

Maybe they would have the sign removed, maybe not.


Edited by Quiet Observer, 31 December 2020 - 11:25 AM.


#39 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 31 December 2020 - 04:37 PM

I believe the intent of the above-quoted law is that tenants are powerless to allow firearms if their landlords prohibit them (unless it's a residence).

I see nothing that prohibits a tenant from prohibiting firearms if their landlords allow them. I agree that prohibitions on prohibitions would most likely be specified by the lease, if at all.

Employers can set nearly any employment conditions they want, anyway, subject to employment law.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#40 Giant Teddybear

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 74 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 17

Posted 01 January 2021 - 12:35 AM

I believe the intent of the above-quoted law is that tenants are powerless to allow firearms if their landlords prohibit them (unless it's a residence).

I see nothing that prohibits a tenant from prohibiting firearms if their landlords allow them. I agree that prohibitions on prohibitions would most likely be specified by the lease, if at all.

Employers can set nearly any employment conditions they want, anyway, subject to employment law.

 

Maybe you need some glasses.



#41 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 01 January 2021 - 01:10 AM

I believe the intent of the above-quoted law is that tenants are powerless to allow firearms if their landlords prohibit them (unless it's a residence).

I see nothing that prohibits a tenant from prohibiting firearms if their landlords allow them. I agree that prohibitions on prohibitions would most likely be specified by the lease, if at all.

Employers can set nearly any employment conditions they want, anyway, subject to employment law.

 
Maybe you need some glasses.


Feel free to point to the words that say a landlord can mandate that a tenant cannot prohibit firearms or that ONLY a landlord can prohibit firearms. I see no words about tenants at all.

Edited by Euler, 01 January 2021 - 01:18 AM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#42 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 22,672 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 January 2021 - 07:29 AM

Feel free to point to the words that say a landlord can mandate that a tenant cannot prohibit firearms or that ONLY a landlord can prohibit firearms. I see no words about tenants at all.


The question is whether their posting a property they don't own would have any force of law under the FCCA.  The Act only authorizes the owner to post a property as an exemption to a broader requirement to allow carry. 

 

This is consistent with a concern at the time about property rights, ie the rights of property owners.  There was no concern publicly expressed about tenant's rights.



#43 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,003 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 01 January 2021 - 10:28 AM

The OP was about employer/employee relations. The FCCA has no bearing. 

Posting or ownership of the property have no effect on employment.



#44 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 01 January 2021 - 06:08 PM

...  There was no concern publicly expressed about tenant's rights.


Not in the OP, but there was one rather strongly implied in the post to which I replied.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#45 Lord_Balkan

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 20

Posted 13 January 2021 - 10:10 AM

Thanks for all the replies. I did not mean to go MIA. The whole owners thing seems like a legal grey area thats not worth risking employment over.



#46 cybermgk

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,676 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 13 January 2021 - 01:40 PM

Thanks for all the replies. I did not mean to go MIA. The whole owners thing seems like a legal grey area thats not worth risking employment over.

THat's the crux of it.  The employer can make it a facet of employment.  But, it does appear their posted signs do not hold the force of law (i.e. arrest) behind them.  Now, is it actually a stated employment policy?  Or did the space rented come with the signs?


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#47 Lord_Balkan

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 20

Posted 13 January 2021 - 02:08 PM

 

Thanks for all the replies. I did not mean to go MIA. The whole owners thing seems like a legal grey area thats not worth risking employment over.

THat's the crux of it.  The employer can make it a facet of employment.  But, it does appear their posted signs do not hold the force of law (i.e. arrest) behind them.  Now, is it actually a stated employment policy?  Or did the space rented come with the signs?

 

Sounds like they put up the signs back when CC was allowed, and I'm not sure if they got the owner's permission for it. I wouldn't be surprised if they got permission, or if they didn't, that they easily could.

 

There is no written policy, its just that the signs are up there.



#48 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 4,128 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 13 January 2021 - 08:54 PM

I would be willing to bet a court would extend "owner" to include parties in lawful possession, i.e., renters and lessees.  A mini-mall shop is an example.  The mall owner does not prohibit, but the store owner/lessee posts his front entrance.  I'm willing to bet LEO would enforce, and a prosecutor would charge.  In Crook county, I think my first sentence would ultimately follow.


Edited by 2A4Cook, 13 January 2021 - 08:54 PM.


#49 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 22,672 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 13 January 2021 - 09:13 PM

Section 65 draws pretty clear distinctions between locations "under the control of", in the case of various government entities which are automatically prohibited, versus an ownership interest in the case of private buildings such as businesses which may be posted if the owner chooses.  



#50 tiberius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 13

Posted Yesterday, 01:50 PM

Some store owners prohibit employees from carrying on the premises, but allow customers to carry. I have a PT job at a regional retail chain......the company handbook prohibits employees from carrying on duty. But the store sells ammo (but not firearms) and does not post. So when not on the clock, I can go in and carry as a customer, but if I report for work I have to leave my carry piece in the car.

`

  Weird, but it is what it is.



#51 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 14,531 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted Yesterday, 02:03 PM

Some store owners prohibit employees from carrying on the premises, but allow customers to carry. I have a PT job at a regional retail chain......the company handbook prohibits employees from carrying on duty. But the store sells ammo (but not firearms) and does not post. So when not on the clock, I can go in and carry as a customer, but if I report for work I have to leave my carry piece in the car.

`

  Weird, but it is what it is.

The Jewel stores in the Chicago area allow carry for customers but not employees or vendors.  
Maybe they don’t want to lose customers.  ??


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#52 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted Yesterday, 02:09 PM

The Jewel stores in the Chicago area allow carry for customers but not employees or vendors.  
Maybe they don’t want to lose customers.  ??


More likely they don't want to cover workman's comp premiums for gunshots on the job.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users