Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

[Cowboy]

Compeletely agree. Your car and what's in it, is your personal property and in effect, an extension of your home. It's why the police have to request permission or obtain a search warrant to search your car- you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No company should be allowed to fire you for lawfully carrying a gun.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Now all an employer needs is the manpower to police these laws. I gather most will never ever conduct searches unless you give them reason to.

 

[camocowboy777]

That's ridiculous. Sometimes I think we should have to elect our judges too. No one knows about judges, and they can cause so much harm to our country. Like they guy said, they don't have to worry about what the public has to say.

We do elect judges........just not the Federal ones. And it seems like those are the ones who have the most severe cases of Cranial Rectosis

These judges are completely without accountability, they know that they are not voted in and cannot be voted out. They are only beholding to the powers that put them on the bench.

 

[DBW]

Compeletely agree. Your car and what's in it, is your personal property and in effect, an extension of your home. It's why the police have to request permission or obtain a search warrant to search your car- you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No company should be allowed to fire you for lawfully carrying a gun.

Yet I'm ridiculed by members of this forum for suggesting that a student on an Oklahoma campus of higher education place a firearm within their backback when going to class as a means of self preservation in accord with the 2A.

Having a gun in your car parked on the private property of your employer is much more important than having a gun stashed in your backpack of an institution that is a potential killing zone which accepts tax money from the state. Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[J.P.]

Yet I'm ridiculed by members of this forum for suggesting that a student on an Oklahoma campus of higher education place a firearm within their backback when going to class as a means of self preservation in accord with the 2A.

Having a gun in your car parked on the private property of your employer is much more important than having a gun stashed in your backpack of an institution that is a potential killing zone which accepts tax money from the state. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Please don't suggest illegal activity, the owner of this site wants it that way...

 

[J.P.]

Yet I'm ridiculed by members of this forum for suggesting that a student on an Oklahoma campus of higher education place a firearm within their backback when going to class as a means of self preservation in accord with the 2A.

Having a gun in your car parked on the private property of your employer is much more important than having a gun stashed in your backpack of an institution that is a potential killing zone which accepts tax money from the state. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Please don't suggest illegal activity, the owner of this site wants it that way...

 

[Michael Brown]

Compeletely agree. Your car and what's in it, is your personal property and in effect, an extension of your home. It's why the police have to request permission or obtain a search warrant to search your car- you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No company should be allowed to fire you for lawfully carrying a gun.

This is incorrect.

The Supreme Court recognizes that a car is mobile and thus an exigent circumstance in and of itself. It is known as the Carroll Doctrine.

Police need exigency or a search warrant to search your home.

Police only require probable cause to search a vehicle.

Michael Brown

 

[Pepper46]

Michael,
You are correct as far as you went.

Police need probable cause, but the Supreme Court, has ruled that probable cause needs to be supported by fact, not mere suspicion.

That does not allow them to come onto the companies propery and do carte blanch searches at the companies request.

If the item is not in plain sight, from the outside of the veh, no search is valid without a warrant, which must be supported by affidavit of the requesting party citing cause and pleading for the warrant to be issued.

In a nut shell, they can't have an arbitrary witch hunt.

 

[Michael Brown]

Michael,
You are correct as far as you went.

Police need probable cause, but the Supreme Court, has ruled that probable cause needs to be supported by fact, not mere suspicion.

That does not allow them to come onto the companies propery and do carte blanch searches at the companies request.

If the item is not in plain sight, from the outside of the veh, no search is valid without a warrant, which must be supported by affidavit of the requesting party citing cause and pleading for the warrant to be issued.

In a nut shell, they can't have an arbitrary witch hunt.

This is partially correct.

Obviously an arbitrary witch hunt is not supported by caselaw nor are searches by mere suspicion by police.

However the portion about plain view is not correct.

The Supreme Court has ruled other behaviors and observations, not necessarily of illegal activity, can justify a search based on probable cause i.e. smell of burnt marijuana, an empty bottle that appeared to have contained an alcoholic beverage, a bullet in plain view and no other notification from the driver regarding the presence of a firearm.

None of these are necessarily illegal but I have personally used each of those examples to justify a search that led to the discovery of contraband and was upheld in court.

As far as carte blanche searches at the company's request, the company does not own the vehicle. Thus they have no authority to grant consent regardless of where the vehicle is parked.

If the company provided evidence or information of illegal (not a company policy violation) activity occuring on company property, that could be considered as possible circumstances that might later justify a search but is not sufficient in and of itself to justify a search.

Michael Brown

 

[NikatKimber]

So if you have done nothing illegal, but have a handgun concealed in the vehicle but no other signs of a gun in there how could an employer find out about the gun?