Company policy question

[Windchaser]

I work for a medium sized company in a fairly typical professional office environment. The company policy is that employees cannot have firearms at work. This is in the employee handbook. The company has not posted which would mean that any visitors to the facility would be able to carry concealed provide they were a CCL holder. Should I say anything to our HR department? You do need a badge to enter and an employee must escort visitors but we certainly don't have metal detectors or pay downs.

 

Thoughts?

[KingWalleye]

Don't stir it up.

[GT1]

Only say something if you want them to post the signs.

[fn1046]

If your company doesn't post a sign, then non-employees should be able to carry. How would they ever know they are not allowed? I wouldn't say anything to HR. Unless you want a sign up on Monday. My office is the only GFZ I've been to yet.

[BShawn]

Only say something if you want them to post the signs.

 

^ this ^

[BIGDEESUL]

Why would you say anything to hr? Do you want to take away fccl holding customer's rights, or try to get them to reverse their no firearms policy for employees?

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

 

 

[echo314]

Saying something will only cause problems.

[Pete S]

Without saying anything, the OP is prohibited from carrying every day. I think he's trying to change the policy, no?

If that's the case, how is your relationship with whoever wrote the manual? Would they be open to revising the policy now that Illinois now allows FCCL holders to carry legally? You, know, with all the associated training and background checks, et all. Since the manual was written when no employees could carry legally, maybe they would be open to change.

[BIGDEESUL]

It's common practice for companies to maintain a weapons free workplace. I'd doubt any of them want the liability of their employees carrying or having firearms at work. Now we all know better, but hr have to invent a reason for themselves to have a job, so I'd doubt they'll come around and be sensible.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

[wven33]

I wouldn't say anything. BTW local Oak Lawn 7-11 and a sign for ccl classes! Looks like thats where I will be getting my coffee

[Windchaser]

I would pefer they drop the policy and allow CC. It just seems odd that in the name of security they will disarm employees but allow non-employees to carry. I would like them to see how they are in fact making it less safe. However as everyone mentioned if I were to say anything it would most likely result in them posting.

[SleepingBirdDog]

It's common practice for companies to maintain a weapons free workplace. I'd doubt any of them want the liability of their employees carrying or having firearms at work. Now we all know better, but hr have to invent a reason for themselves to have a job, so I'd doubt they'll come around and be sensible.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

 

I've been carrying all week at work. The boss has no idea.

 

Small outfit, no policy manual.

[matkinson]

Some places I've worked, I would have felt comfortable going to the owners and having a conversation with them about changing the policy. Others, not so much. It's a judgement call.

[Rockdiver]

HR where I work fought INSANELY to maintain the policy that employees and "patrons" would be summarily dismissed or heavily disciplined for legally carrying into a parking area inside a vehicle in compliance with the law. They actually tried to implement policy as such without approval, citing a NO WEAPONS policy. HR and guns are bad juju my friends. The employee ( r esident expert)called in to add perspective thought his a** was fired at least twice duding that meeting. HR lost the policy battle for vehicles, but you can bet your eyes the signs were up on EVERY DOOR to EVERY building the following monday. ( Which was logistically impressive.)

 

Careful how you proceed.

 

 

Rocco

[largefarva]

HR where I work fought INSANELY to maintain the policy that employees and "patrons" would be summarily dismissed or heavily disciplined for legally carrying into a parking area inside a vehicle in compliance with the law. They actually tried to implement policy as such without approval, citing a NO WEAPONS policy. HR and guns are bad juju my friends. The employee ( r esident expert)called in to add perspective thought his a** was fired at least twice duding that meeting. HR lost the policy battle for vehicles, but you can bet your eyes the signs were up on EVERY DOOR to EVERY building the following monday. ( Which was logistically impressive.)

 

Careful how you proceed.

 

 

Rocco

 

Wow...talk about a bunch of nut-jobs that are in your HR department. The HR director where I work is very 2A friendly as is the owner. They have no problem with me storing my gun in my vehicle while at work, and there's even a possibility that they will allow me to bring it in the building as long as I have secure storage for it. (Wouldn't be a good idea for me to carry it on me during the day since I work with voltages up to 34kV) My HR director is likely going to be carrying while at work once she gets her license. I just don't understand how people think they're being safer by disarming all the good guys....smh.

[RoadyRunner]

We have HR just like Roccos - they seem to think they can prohibit even possession of a holster at a 'company event' - even if held on someone else's premises - and on your own time. Just because it's a 'company event'.

 

We *really* need someone with deep pockets to challenge the conflict of 'company policy' (an employers rights to set policy) - vs 430 ILCS 65/13.1( b ) (Added to FOID at the same time the FCCA was enacted):

 

"The regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of handguns and ammunition for a handgun, and the transportation of any firearm and ammunition by a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police under this Act are exclusive powers and functions of this State."

 

​Which takes precedence, legally speaking?

 

The State of Illinois says, in the FOID Act at 430 ILCS 65/13.1( b ) - that for persons issued a FOID card - NODOBY ELSE other than the State itself can regulate possession of a handgun and ammunition - even (it seems) employers. The State has many restrictions in statutes that are binding on employers (non-discrimination, for instance - even beyond 'protected classes'). Why is or isn't this section binding on employers? Is it just a lack of precedent (since it's new)? If so - who want's to go first?

[RoadyRunner]

I want to take this a little further...

 

 

(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)

Sec. 13.1. Preemption.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in the Firearm Concealed

Carry Act and subsections ( B ) and ( C ) of this Section, the

provisions of any ordinance enacted by any municipality which

requires registration or imposes greater restrictions or

limitations on the acquisition, possession and transfer of

firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not invalidated or

affected by this Act.

 

(b ) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the

regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of

handguns and ammunition for a handgun, and the transportation

of any firearm and ammunition by a holder of a valid Firearm

Owner's Identification Card issued by the Department of State

Police under this Act are exclusive powers and functions of

this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that

ordinance or regulation, enacted on or before the effective

date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly that

purports to impose regulations or restrictions on a holder of a

valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card issued by the

Department of State Police under this Act in a manner that is

inconsistent with this Act, on the effective date of this

amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, shall be invalid

in its application to a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's

Identification Card issued by the Department of State Police

under this Act.

 

Boiling this down in simpler language...

 

 

a) No previous ordinance is invalidated, unless the FCCA does it or unless the section b ) or c) of this section does the invalidation.

 

b ) In spite of a), State invalidates all previous regulation on the possession of handguns, and ammunition for handguns and makes such future regulation 'exclusive powers and functions of

this State' (the law does it the other way around - but same effect)

 

c) is not quoted above - not relevant to this discussion. It's the assault weapon preemption with special terms

 

Am I missing something?

 

Edit: Darn smilies...

[tkroenlein]

In your synopsis, you have omitted the transportation of any firearm language.

 

It may be also noteworthy that the state only preempts regulation of FOID holders. A municipality would then be free to regulate non FOID holders as they see fit (equal protection much?).