Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2019, 2:55 PM
vocoder vocoder is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question Company weapon policy question

I started a new job recently. The employee handbook says:

“The following are prohibited:
Possessing any weapon while on company premises, (including parking structures and parking lots associated with company premises), to the extent not prohibited by law.”

I’ve never heard it put that way before. How is this interpreted? I see two ways:
1) A CCW holder is not prohibited from possessing a weapon here by law, so good to go!
2) Any weapon, even if not prohibited by law, will be a problem.

Thoughts?
__________________

Lawfully carrying in 36 states
Clamper:64 & 1069 | Ham:Extra | Dirtbike:Fast
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2019, 3:00 PM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is online now
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: KAPV-L35 SoCal
Posts: 2,597
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vocoder View Post
1) A CCW holder is not prohibited from possessing a weapon here by law, so good to go!
Neither is a non-CCW person transporting a weapon in a legal fashion, like in a locked container or... So I don't think that logic would fly.
__________________


Buy made in USA whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2019, 4:54 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,072
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vocoder View Post
I started a new job recently. The employee handbook says:

“The following are prohibited:
Possessing any weapon while on company premises, (including parking structures and parking lots associated with company premises), to the extent not prohibited by law.”

I’ve never heard it put that way before. How is this interpreted? I see two ways:
1) A CCW holder is not prohibited from possessing a weapon here by law, so good to go!
2) Any weapon, even if not prohibited by law, will be a problem.

Thoughts?
I think that reads 'Our rule is no weapons, unless our rule is prohibited by law.' In some states, IIRC, the parking lot part is prohibited by law.

ETA
Let me expand on that a little, in the light of some discussion below. I agree that the actual language of the company rule is not a model of clarity. But as already noted, CA employment law would allow them to take any application of their rule that they found convenient, and that very likely would be detrimental to the OP's continuing employment.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 08-27-2019 at 1:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2019, 4:56 PM
Featureless's Avatar
Featureless Featureless is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: SLO County
Posts: 694
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Don't ask us. Ask HR.
__________________
California Native
Lifelong Gun Owner
NRA Member
CRPA Member

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed"
~ Barry Goldwater 1964
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2019, 5:13 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Their place, their rules which may include the parking lot as stated above. And yes, ask HR.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2019, 5:21 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,072
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featureless View Post
Don't ask us. Ask HR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vino68 View Post
Their place, their rules which may include the parking lot as stated above. And yes, ask HR.
I believe asking HR will expose the employee to extra, unwanted scrutiny.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2019, 5:29 PM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Democratic People’s Republic of Gavin
Posts: 2,831
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It means “no dice.” If your company allowed ccw carriers, they’d give that as an exclusion to their “no-weapons” policy.

Besides, in Cali, we are an “at-will” state. In other words, an employer may fire you for nearly any reason at all, including no reason, “at-will.”
__________________



“Pay attention. I’m educating you and I’m using small words.” -Mark Levin

-Life member, NRA
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2019, 5:30 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,246
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vocoder View Post
I started a new job recently. The employee handbook says:

“The following are prohibited:
Possessing any weapon while on company premises, (including parking structures and parking lots associated with company premises), to the extent not prohibited by law.”

I’ve never heard it put that way before. How is this interpreted? I see two ways:
1) A CCW holder is not prohibited from possessing a weapon here by law, so good to go!
2) Any weapon, even if not prohibited by law, will be a problem.

Thoughts?
There's some really bad use of the English language in the above. While I think that Librarian accurately captured the likely intent of the author(s), that's not what the sentence structure provides for.

The sum of the written words prohibits possession of weapons that are "not prohibited by law." Legal types often like to use the "double negative" where the thing they're trying to describe is not well defined, but the opposite is. We have a pretty good source of law defining what weapons are illegal, but no law defining what weapons are legal. The idea is that if something is not illegal, then it is legal.

But the author of the policy don't seem to get that. According to your policy, possession of a legal mini-canister of pepper spray is a violation of the policy, but possession of a fully automatic machine gun, or a nuclear bomb would not be a violation.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 08-26-2019 at 8:06 PM.. Reason: See where I got fanged in Post #13
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2019, 5:48 PM
SDCarpenter's Avatar
SDCarpenter SDCarpenter is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Carlsbad
Posts: 346
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

If it's concealed they shouldn't know about it?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-26-2019, 5:51 PM
Featureless's Avatar
Featureless Featureless is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: SLO County
Posts: 694
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCarpenter View Post
If it's concealed they shouldn't know about it?
Bada bing bada boom. And if you want to subject yourself to that stress every day for XX hours, have at it.
__________________
California Native
Lifelong Gun Owner
NRA Member
CRPA Member

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed"
~ Barry Goldwater 1964
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-26-2019, 5:51 PM
Jeepergeo's Avatar
Jeepergeo Jeepergeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,978
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Delete.
__________________
Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, California Rifle and Pistol Association
Member, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Last edited by Jeepergeo; 09-24-2019 at 7:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-26-2019, 6:47 PM
Skip_Dog's Avatar
Skip_Dog Skip_Dog is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 1,582
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Do they have a sign that states they can inspect bags/cars without your consent?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-26-2019, 7:16 PM
rudigan's Avatar
rudigan rudigan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fresno County
Posts: 1,661
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
There's some rally bad use of the English language in the above. While I think that Librarian accurately captured the likely intent of the author(s), that's not what the sentence structure provides for.

The sum of the written words prohibits possession of weapons that are "not prohibited by law." Legal types often like to use the "double negative" where the thing they're trying to describe is not well defined, but the opposite is. We have a pretty good source of law defining what weapons are illegal, but no law defining what weapons are legal. The idea is that if something is not illegal, then it is legal.

But the author of the policy don't seem to get that. According to your policy, possession of a legal mini-canister of pepper spray is a violation of the policy, but possession of a fully automatic machine gun, or a nuclear bomb would not be a violation.
Oh the irony here
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-26-2019, 7:17 PM
rudigan's Avatar
rudigan rudigan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fresno County
Posts: 1,661
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

fyi, my job does not allow it, and my IA says if I carry at work, they need a letter from my employer stating its OK.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-26-2019, 7:37 PM
vinny_land's Avatar
vinny_land vinny_land is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Nomad - Bakersfield & Palm Desert
Posts: 2,931
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

OP...I'm guessing professional desk jockey?

I've have similar rules and regs at my job. Basic answer: not within facilities including parking lots
__________________
"1911 mag, twinkie, twinkie, cupcake, primary weapon mag"


shuttlecock
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-26-2019, 8:07 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,246
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudigan View Post
Oh the irony here
Touche.......

I fixed the posting.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-26-2019, 8:34 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,869
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Remove the stuff in parenthesis.

“The following are prohibited:
Possessing any weapon while on company premises, (including parking structures and parking lots associated with company premises), to the extent not prohibited by law.”

To me that says possessing a weapon while on company premises is against the rules except when not prohibited by law. The parking stuff is an afterthought about it being part of company property.

IOW, if the law allows the carry of the weapon (permit/constitutional carry), then they won’t/can’t stop you from carrying it.

But, this is JMHO and IANAL, the company can say or do basically what ever they want. Employment in kommiefornia is generally “at will”. So if they found out they could just can you and leave it at that. If they presssed it and got the law involved you would probably prevail in the end (provided you didn’t do anything illegal). But getting to that end might be quite costly take years and include at least some time in the slammer (waiting for bail at least). All the while you’re unable to have guns.



Good luck.
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-26-2019, 8:42 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 709
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofWWIIDI View Post
To me that says possessing a weapon while on company premises is against the rules except when not prohibited by law.
That doesn't make any sense. That's equivalent to not writing the sentence at all. I think Librarian has it correct. You see similar statements at the bottom of lots of forms. "Follow these rules, unless your state law conflicts with part of the rule, then we both have to follow the law". I seem to recall that on insurance forms, where states have vastly different laws for what a company has to do for arbitration and stuff like that.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-26-2019, 8:44 PM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,422
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Keep in mind that in 95% of cases an employer can terminate a California employee based on arbitrary and capricious or even factually bizarre reasons. No matter what the actual policy language says (in most cases) they could fire you if they found out you had a gun on company property, or even mistakenly believed you had brought a gun onto company property. Some states like Kentucky have laws against terminations for having a gun locked in the employee’s car, and some unique employment situations are different.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-26-2019, 9:59 PM
Win231 Win231 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,040
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I believe asking HR will expose the employee to extra, unwanted scrutiny.
^^^^ Nice to hear something intelligent.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-27-2019, 3:17 AM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,869
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbo80 View Post
That doesn't make any sense. That's equivalent to not writing the sentence at all. I think Librarian has it correct. You see similar statements at the bottom of lots of forms. "Follow these rules, unless your state law conflicts with part of the rule, then we both have to follow the law". I seem to recall that on insurance forms, where states have vastly different laws for what a company has to do for arbitration and stuff like that.
I’m just attempting to use the most broad meaning I could think of. Of course I couldn't think of an instance where any of the rules/laws the antis come up with make sense.

And yes, librarian is usually right.
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-27-2019, 5:50 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 24,416
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I think that reads 'Our rule is no weapons, unless our rule is prohibited by law.' In some states, IIRC, the parking lot part is prohibited by law.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-27-2019, 12:33 PM
CWL's Avatar
CWL CWL is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 364
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Librarian nailed it.

Look at the spirit of this employee rule. Do they want employees to bring firearms on-site? No, they don't and no amount of second guessing or trying to parse the wording changes that.
__________________
Vae Victis
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.