I need a gun lawyer

[finity]

I have a question not exactly like the OP asked.
What if a corporation said "No ford trucks on company property"
Or "No Cubs baseball hats in cars on company property"
Would there be any backlash? Would there be a winnable lawsuit there?
Guns are legal to own and keep in your cars just like the cubs hats.

There would be cause for a lawsuit IF the Cubs hat or Ford truck had a specific exception in law to grant an employee the Right to keep one in his car.

At this time there is no law of that nature so no lawsuits. However there IS a law that grants the employee the right to keep a gun on company property under specific circumstances. If the company REALLY doesn't want firearms on their property they could just tell EVERYBODY to not park on their property. Problem solved.

Also, 88GT, remember we aren't talking about a private individual telling someone "no guns". We are talking about a employer or business that has to follow specific laws on their conduct relating to employment. Private individuals who aren't subject to labor laws are completely free to ban anything they want on their property as can the owner of a business on his own personal property not related to the operation of the business.

If you want to tell blacks, mormons, naked dudes making political statements or people with guns to stay off your personal property, have at it.

 

[GeneralCarver]

State Law supersedes company policy. If you work there, you can lock a gun in your car. Period. If they fire you, you could challenge that action.

 

[snowman46919]

State Law supersedes company policy. If you work there, you can lock a gun in your car. Period. If they fire you, you could challenge that action.

This the state statute states that your company can not impede your right to protect yourself so at the very least you can lock it in your trunk or glovebox without any harm to you from your company that you cant quite literally sue their pants off for.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

State Law supersedes company policy. If you work there, you can lock a gun in your car. Period. If they fire you, you could challenge that action.

This the state statute states that your company can not impede your right to protect yourself so at the very least you can lock it in your trunk or glovebox without any harm to you from your company that you cant quite literally sue their pants off for.

Both of you please read up-thread. It does not give the rock solid protections that you are proclaiming.

It does (notwithstanding a few exemptions) provide you from getting fired for the firearm. It does not protect you if your company "finds" another reason to fire you if they find out you have a firearm in your vehicle.

Yep, I figure the next statement would be, "Well, they can sue." And yep, I agree. They can sue. My opinion is that the person suing would not be successful because they weren't fired for the firearm. They were fired for X, Y, or Z reason.

IMO, this legislation was a positive step, but, again, IMO, it is not the rock-solid protection that some think it is.

Welcome to INGO, guys.

 

[dross]

Having been on the terminating end of several at will firings, the phrase is, "We've decided to terminate our employment relationship with you."

If we had legal cause to fire someone, we would use that cause, since then the company's unemployment insurance wouldn't take a hit. Usually at will firings occur because you're dealing with someone you need to let go because of performance reasons, but you want to avoid potential legal discriminatory issues if you give reasons. Giving reasons invites lawyers to check all your documents with a fine toothed comb and find out if you're applying your policies fairly, which surprise, plaintiffs attorneys never seem to conclude.

You have no real world protection from being fired, nor should you, unless your employer is a complete idiot.

If you work for me and I want to fire you, you're fired and it will stick, and you won't find a lawyer that will take your case on contingency. I've done this for too long.

Why in the world shouldn't an employer have the right to terminate his association with you whenever he chooses? After all, you have the right to quit for any reason, even if your employer desperately needs your skills.

 

[snowman46919]

Having been on the terminating end of several at will firings, the phrase is, "We've decided to terminate our employment relationship with you."

If we had legal cause to fire someone, we would use that cause, since then the company's unemployment insurance wouldn't take a hit. Usually at will firings occur because you're dealing with someone you need to let go because of performance reasons, but you want to avoid potential legal discriminatory issues if you give reasons. Giving reasons invites lawyers to check all your documents with a fine toothed comb and find out if you're applying your policies fairly, which surprise, plaintiffs attorneys never seem to conclude.

You have no real world protection from being fired, nor should you, unless your employer is a complete idiot.

If you work for me and I want to fire you, you're fired and it will stick, and you won't find a lawyer that will take your case on contingency. I've done this for too long.

Why in the world shouldn't an employer have the right to terminate his association with you whenever he chooses? After all, you have the right to quit for any reason, even if your employer desperately needs your skills.

nice to get an opinion from the other side of the fence and it does seem to boil down to Indiana is at will. However the cases I was referring to is where an employer has fired someone for having a firearm. Yes there are people that thick out there but usually they are not owner operators just pissed off ex jock on a managerial ego trip.

 

[Fargo]

If you work for me and I want to fire you, you're fired and it will stick, and you won't find a lawyer that will take your case on contingency. I've done this for too long.

If I were you, I'd be a little bit more careful about posting on the internet your willingness and ability to break the law. Y'know, if you ever were to be involved in an employment suit, the plaintiff producing the above just might speak to a jury...

I'm curious, just how many of your terminations have you had go to court and "stick"? Or are you maybe speculating just a little bit? I have colleagues who make a very tidy living out of the hide of employers who think just exactly like you do.

Joe

 

[dross]

If I were you, I'd be a little bit more careful about posting on the internet your willingness and ability to break the law. Y'know, if you ever were to be involved in an employment suit, the plaintiff producing the above just might speak to a jury...

I'm curious, just how many of your terminations have you had go to court and "stick"? Or are you maybe speculating just a little bit? I have colleagues who make a very tidy living out of the hide of employers who think just exactly like you do.

Joe

Who said anything about breaking the law? Nope, I follow employment law to the letter. That's not a tongue in cheek statement, either.

I also believe that an employer has a moral obligation to only fire people for a good reason.

 

[snowman46919]

If I were you, I'd be a little bit more careful about posting on the internet your willingness and ability to break the law. Y'know, if you ever were to be involved in an employment suit, the plaintiff producing the above just might speak to a jury...

I'm curious, just how many of your terminations have you had go to court and "stick"? Or are you maybe speculating just a little bit? I have colleagues who make a very tidy living out of the hide of employers who think just exactly like you do.

Joe

It simply doesn't matter this is an at will state meaning i can hire you or fire you for whatever reason I want to as long as it isn't discrimination.

 

[nate1865]

I'm not an attorney, but I am an employer in Indiana that has had to fire people over the years.

Yes, Indiana is "at-will", but that doesn't mean you're going to get fired because you wore yellow and the boss hates yellow.

If an employer fires you for something stupid they are going to get sued. Employers don't want to get sued, so before they fire someone they make sure they have their ducks in a row backing up that decision.

I've seen people do things that are obviously terminable infractions and then turn around and sue anyways, dragging everybody involved onto the stand to tell the story.

There's too much money in it for attorneys out to make a buck, and nothing to lose for a fired ex-employee that just soiled their reputation in the marketplace and cannot get rehired.

So, while I agree we are an "at-will" state and you CAN be fired for "anything" - you won't be unless you have a very stupid employer or you did something to get fired.

 

[snowman46919]

It doesn't really matter because the whole situation is fubar'ed I know some people that get fired for gross negligence that could result in injury to consumer of goods and still get unemployment when they are fired.

 

[D-Ric902]

Wow, I don't start a thread very often.
But when I do, Its a doosy

I'm wondering if the sign saying vehicles are subject to search doesnt mean you will be fired for a gun but trying to establish that it is a private parking lot (which would exclude it from the bill)
But it never has been before and has a city street running up to the property line. No gates or guards. Why not just a no trespassing sign?
I guess I just don't trust the RR (don't get me started on that)

 

[snowman46919]

As long as you don't sign your rights away in an employment agreement then I do not see how they can legally supersede state law.

 

[Eddie]

Wow, I don't start a thread very often.
But when I do, Its a doosy

I'm wondering if the sign saying vehicles are subject to search doesnt mean you will be fired for a gun but trying to establish that it is a private parking lot (which would exclude it from the bill)
But it never has been before and has a city street running up to the property line. No gates or guards. Why not just a no trespassing sign?
I guess I just don't trust the RR (don't get me started on that)

A lot of businesses have a "subject to search" rule as a loss prevention measure. For example some places don't allow employees to bring backpacks into work and make it a fireable offense because they have suffered too much loss in the past. Same thing with the subject to search rules. They ask to search your car because loss prevention says you stole something. Its OK to refuse the search, but they might fire you.

 

[Fargo]

It simply doesn't matter this is an at will state meaning i can hire you or fire you for whatever reason I want to as long as it isn't discrimination.

Well, golly! It looks like I wasted all that time at law school and getting admitted to the bar. It lucky I can come here to be set straight on what "at-will" employment means.

Believe it or not, there are limitations to the ability to fire at-will employees that go beyond discrimination. One was codified last year into statute and deals with guns in your cars...


Joe

 

[snowman46919]

Well, golly! It looks like I wasted all that time at law school and getting admitted to the bar. It lucky I can come here to be set straight on what "at-will" employment means.

Believe it or not, there are limitations to the ability to fire at-will employees that go beyond discrimination. One was codified last year into statute and deals with guns in your cars...


Joe

Well than your better than the last lawyer I spoke to, and the law as it reads in black in white which we simply know is not how it is applied states that they can not bar you from having your gun in your car as long as it doesn't violate the no gun zone IE teacher's, government employees, that type of thing. I just read it as I was trying to find out if I could apply online for my lifetime which my county is still backward and I can't

 

[finity]

It simply doesn't matter this is an at will state meaning i can hire you or fire you for whatever reason I want to as long as it isn't discrimination.

So...

Can you fire me for not having sex with you?

Can you fire me for not doing some criminal act you tried to make me do?

Can you fire me for following all OSHA safety rules that you don't agree with or refuse to follow yourself?

Can you fire me for bringing a gun to work as long as it's properly stored in my vehicle?

See there are at least several things you CAN'T fire me for that aren't based on discrimination. Those are just the ones I came up with quickly off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more a good lawyer can find.

Now, can you LIE about the reason you're firing me so that it doesn't fall into one of those "protected" areas? Sure you can but then you'd be acting outside the law. I think there's a name for people who act that way, though...

 

[finity]

I'm wondering if the sign saying vehicles are subject to search doesnt mean you will be fired for a gun but trying to establish that it is a private parking lot (which would exclude it from the bill)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a private parking lot is exempt from the law. The law doesn't say anything about a private parking lot being exempt. It just says an employer can't prohibit you from keeping a gun secured in your vehicle. Period. It doesn't matter where it's parked (except for very specific exceptions).

 

[snowman46919]

So...

Can you fire me for not having sex with you?

Can you fire me for not doing some criminal act you tried to make me do?

Can you fire me for following all OSHA safety rules that you don't agree with or refuse to follow yourself?

Can you fire me for bringing a gun to work as long as it's properly stored in my vehicle?

See there are at least several things you CAN'T fire me for that aren't based on discrimination. Those are just the ones I came up with quickly off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more a good lawyer can find.

Now, can you LIE about the reason you're firing me so that it doesn't fall into one of those "protected" areas? Sure you can but then you'd be acting outside the law. I think there's a name for people who act that way, though...

Actually my brother was fired because he refused to do something against OSHA regulations and was denied unemployment for it as well. But long story short yes you can be fired for all of those reasons or no reason at all. If I understand it correctly the person who is fired has to prove there was discrimination or some other defining cause that was illegal that got you fired.

 

[finity]

Actually my brother was fired because he refused to do something against OSHA regulations and was denied unemployment for it as well. But long story short yes you can be fired for all of those reasons or no reason at all. If I understand it correctly the person who is fired has to prove there was discrimination or some other defining cause that was illegal that got you fired.

You missed my point. Read the last paragraph.

Not all employers are upstanding citizens who won't break the law & fire someone for illegal reasons then lie about it. Just because they CAN & sometimes they get away with it doesn't make it legal or even OK.

You can steal a car, too, if you're not caught AND the state has the burden of proof that you actually stole it but that doesn't make it legal.