open carry almost gone bad in lincoln

[D.A.D.]

After reading this string, I thought I would make a short, less-than-all-encompassing comment.  I have both open and conceal carried without benefit of a CHP when I felt it was necessary thus reaping the benefits and hazards of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1202(1)(b).  At this time I hold the opinion that I am (as others might be) wrestling with two issues rather than one.

I have ramped up my progress on obtaining a CHP, but have hit a wall due to a policy of my employer stating that employees cannot have firearms in their vehicles on company property.  If I do not have a CHP, I only violate company policy by choosing to possess a firearm in my vehicle for protection while travelling to and from work.  It is a risk and it has its consequences.  If I obey the policy, my guns are largely relegated to be well-preserved treasures for my kids and grandkids to sell or keep and enjoy my investments.  Not all bad, but I bought the things to use not to just store.

If I get a CHP, I not only violate company policy, but I can earn myself a Misdemeanor charge and revocation of my CHP which would further justify the belief of some that gun owners/carriers are shady people.  Darned if I do and darned if I don't.

The fears of hardline concealed carry folks are justified in many instances because they don't want people to know they are armed, and they have permission to do so.  It is not a direct constitutional right, they have only received permission from the State to do so under a separate set of laws.  It is a permission that can be revoked as easily as it has been granted, and if it is revoked then they are "only" left with the rights recognized under the Constitution.  Which brings us back full circle to the subject of standing up for our rights.

In the fears of the hardline concealed carry camp lies the smell of what Thomas Paine addressed in his pamphlet "Common Sense" in which he successfully argued against the fears of those who sought compromise and conciliation with the British while they enjoyed some liberties that were practiced substantially in secret.  After all, they didn't want to lose those secret liberties and make the King angry, and declaring full independence sounded too messy and dangerous.

But on the other hand, I don't have the energy to refight the Revolutionary War every day which makes me a lazy sort of patriot.  Nothing to be proud of, I would fight if I had to, but some days I just want to go to work, go home, eat supper, and give God thanks for the blessings afforded me by His grace and those who laid down their lives so I would have the opportunity to do just that.

I am angling toward getting involved with more public education and awareness of the right to keep and bear arms whether open or concealed.  I think that is the real issue.  We need to lose the adjectives "open" and "concealed".  But the population is and has been poorly informed of the 2nd Amendment rights, and, for whatever reason, that is a very unfortunate state of affairs.  For now, most of my "educational" efforts have centered around my immediate circle of family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.  My initial interest in hunting and firearms has had a positive educational impact on three children (one is a Marine), one wife (that should be enough for anybody), and is progressively being passed on to several grandchildren.  I have encouraged many to take up hunting and shooting sports, and have done more than my share to support the firearms and ammunition manufacturing industries.

It helps me at this time to keep the two issues separate and in perspective.  Of top priority is the protection of the life and well-being of me and my own.  When I can, I will do what I can to help educate and promote liberty in any way I can.  As I gain knowledge (now that is power!), I will willingly share it with anyone who will listen.  But I have learned that it isn't appropriate to try to bring an instantaneous, mature understanding into the mind of a fearful, anti-gun citizen in a public setting anymore than you than it is to teach the details of human sexuality to a pre-schooler.  But you can create the opportunity for them to witness the birth of kittens or puppies which sets their minds in motion.

I have eaten several cattle in my lifetime, but never all in one setting.  Slow and steady wins the race.  But you do have to get into the race to compete and win.

P.S. - As for the well-qualified gentlemen in the video, I found it interesting that they chose a hidey-hole near a man-made lagoon for their back drop.  Smell the fear?

[AAllen]

D.A.D good comment, I especailly liked the end.  Slow and steady is needed not only in dealing with the anti gun or just not informed but also with legislation.

If I get a CHP, I not only violate company policy, but I can earn myself a Misdemeanor charge and revocation of my CHP which would further justify the belief of some that gun owners/carriers are shady people.  Darned if I do and darned if I don't.

I'm trying to understand how having a gun in your vehicle would be a misdemeanor, I understand the violation of company policy which could carry punishment including being fired, but there policy does not make having the firearm in your vehicle (secured) a violation of the law.  In fact there are protections in the law for those with CCW to keep their firearm in their vehicle (which unfortunately does not apply to employment policies).

The good news is that it sounds like it will be a priority for the NRA, and the NFOA will be involved as well as some others that we are working with, to give parking lot protections in the next legislative session.

[D.A.D.]

I'm trying to understand how having a gun in your vehicle would be a misdemeanor, I understand the violation of company policy which could carry punishment including being fired, but there policy does not make having the firearm in your vehicle (secured) a violation of the law.  In fact there are protections in the law for those with CCW to keep their firearm in their vehicle (which unfortunately does not apply to employment policies).

Thanks for the comments, Andy.  It would become a legal issue because the company would do like they just did last week and contacted the police regarding an employee who had a long gun locked in his car, but fully in view.  Another employee reported it to management and they called LPD.  The company I work for has so far made a strong stand against firearms on company property.  They are ignorant in some specifics of the law (and I am content to let them remain that way so it doesn't make it worse), but if I had a CHP and another employee noticed me locking it up in my glovebox in my locked vehicle and it was reported to LPD, then I would be in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(2) if the parking lot was posted and employees notified.

Check with Chris Z. about an email I sent to him today on this matter.  Have him forward you the attachment, too.

Doug

[Dan W]

If I get a CHP, I not only violate company policy, but I can earn myself a Misdemeanor charge and revocation of my CHP which would further justify the belief of some that gun owners/carriers are shady people.  Darned if I do and darned if I don't.

D.A.D.   While I find that educating the public is an admirable trait, it is imperative that you not give out the false impression that keeping a firearm in your vehicle on work property is a crime, because it is not, regardless of your employers policies.

I also take exception to your use of the word "hardline" when describing CHP devotees that do actually know the laws

[D.A.D.]

Dan, please see my freshly posted response to Andy.  Would I not be violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(2)?

By "hardline" I mean those who will accept no other means of carrying other than concealed carry.  This seems to demonstrate a refusal to accept any circumstance under which open carry may have an advantage.

Respectfully,
Doug

[Dan W]

69-2441 Section 3  exempts  public parking areas...

(3) A permitholder carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle or on his or her person while riding in or on a vehicle into or onto any parking area, which is open to the public, used by any location listed in subdivision (1)(a) of this section, does not violate this section if, prior to exiting the vehicle, the handgun is locked inside the glove box, trunk, or other compartment of the vehicle, a storage box securely attached to the vehicle, or, if the vehicle is a motorcycle, a hardened compartment securely attached to the motorcycle. This subsection does not apply to any parking area used by such location when the carrying of a concealed handgun into or onto such parking area is prohibited by federal law.

Emphasis mine...the only thing I can see that could void the exemption is if your employer has a fenced lot with no public access (a secured private company  parking lot) or is federal property

[lneuke]

Carrying concealed is different from storing a firearm in your vehicle on company property if I remember correctly.  You would be under the protection of law for having a gun stored in your glovebox while at work, as it is not concealed on your person. 

Is someone really going to call the cops on you after noticing you locking your glovebox?  There are a million different reasons you could give for that, and the police would have no right to search your vehicle unless you gave them permission to do so. 


edit: Dan W beat me to it, exceptions would be a "secured" or federal facility

[D.A.D.]

Dan, thank you for your response.  I was referring to article (2) not article (3).  If the lot is posted or the employer has directly contacted you to remove your firearm from the premises (and I assume not return it again) then the word "unless" renders the firearm owner in violation of article (1)(a) if I am reading the law correctly.

Please help me to understand if I am reading this wrong.

Thank you.
Doug

[Dan W]

Public Parking areas attached to premises listed in 1(a) are exempted in section 3... as long as you secure the firearm as required your employer has no legal power to prevent or block CCW in the parking lot. That power is removed in section 3 when the required storage rules are met.

That said, they could still enforce the company policy, but the law has not been violated

[D.A.D.]

Is someone really going to call the cops on you after noticing you locking your glovebox?  There are a million different reasons you could give for that, and the police would have no right to search your vehicle unless you gave them permission to do so. 

Ineuke,
Thank you also for your input.  Yes, this is exactly what the employer is saying and recently did.  The recent event involved a long gun and therefore does not fall under the CHP Act.  That being said, it is still the expressed policy that the employer will follow this course regardless of what type of firearm is involved.  But more importantly, I would know that I am intentionally violating a company policy that would in turn place me in violation of Article (1)(a) and subject me to possible misdemeanor charges and loss of my CHP.

There is no other available parking or I could park there.  I am bound by ethics to obey both my employers policy and the State law.  If I must choose the lesser of two evils (that of disobeying company policy or placing myself or other occupants of my vehicle at risk of loss of life or harm while travelling between work and home, or places in between), then it is best to do so without the added harm of a Misdemeanor charge and the legal consequences that would come with having a CHP.

Please let me know if I am reading this law incorrectly.  It would be of great relief to find that I am doing so.

Doug

[D.A.D.]

An added clarification is that the employer will contact LPD in every incident which brings the violation of Article (1)(a) to bear because they have forbidden employees to possess firearms in personal vehicles on the company parking lot.

[Dan W]

You should also consider that a change in the law this year removes the threat of losing your permit for a first offense charge of violating a valid "no concealed carry" sign

[Dan W]

An added clarification is that the employer will contact LPD in every incident which brings the violation of Article (1)(a) to bear because they have forbidden employees to possess firearms in personal vehicles on the company parking lot.

Section 3 says they do not have that power

[Dan W]

maybe you need to hire an attorney

[D.A.D.]

Dan,
Hiring an attorney is exactly what my CCW training class manual suggests for everyone before they begin carrying a weapon.  It is all about the law.  Everyone should be aware of this.  As simple as it should be, there is nothing simple about it.

Any lawyer members well versed in this matter out there want a little business?

[Dan W]

Ask yourself this...

If DanW were to park in your company parking lot, waltz into the office and announce "I have a legally concealed handgun secured in my vehicle" What do you envision will happen?

Apparently you are under the impression that I will be arrested and convicted.

[D.A.D.]

If DanW were to park in your company parking lot, waltz into the office and announce "I have a legally concealed handgun secured in my vehicle" What do you envision will happen?

Apparently you are under the impression that I will be arrested and convicted.

Personally, Dan, I would welcome you to the facility and give you a tour!

If you came in as a non-employee, there is a chance that you would be politely asked to conduct your business and asked not to bring a firearm with you in your vehicle if you were to ever return. 

However, given the nature of our facility/business and a heightened sense of awareness when it comes to such a statement, it is most likely that an employee would feel obligated to report what they have been trained to identify as an intimidation by your presence and statement, notify their supervisor who would in turn notify those in charge of the facility.  At that time, LPD would be called and you would be escorted outside by an officer accompanied by the highest level manager available in the facility department.  The officer would have already been informed that firearms are not allowed on the premises so he would instruct you of this fact and ask that you leave the property immediately and return without a firearm in your vehicle if you have business to conduct there.

I doubt that you would be charged or arrested on a first incident, but you would be assured that charges (of some sort) would be filed against you should you return without complying with the policy which you would then have knowledge of.  Again, this would seem to put you in violation of 69-2441(2) because you have been "directly" "requested" to remove your firearm from the premises.  Conviction on the charges would be up to the judge or jury.

I can all but guarantee you that the second scenario is the most accurate.  If you were an employee, you would probably be terminated under the authority of the policy if you neglected to respond affirmatively to the first warning.

Want to work where I work?

[D.A.D.]

Dan, after giving it some thought, you would be treated just as if you were to walk in openly carrying because my employer recognizes no difference between firearms on your person or in your vehicle.  If it is on the premises, it is contrary to policy.  Period.  And 69-2441(2) gives them that right as I understand it.

Honestly, I am not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful in any way.  I am just pointing out that there seems to be authority in the law given to property owners to make the decision as to the presence of firearms on the property they control.  I wish it weren't true and would be thrilled to learn that they cannot exercise that power over me, but as I read the law it just ain't so.

[AAllen]

D.A.D this is where the law gets complicated, and it is confusing.  But in the case Dan described, his Concealed weapon being stored in his vehicle properly, there is no violation of the law.  Now the announcement of such yes that there could be some other discussion about.  But the law actually gives a person with a CCW to store a firearm in their vehicle in a publically accessable parking lot, even if the owner of said lot does not allow Concealed Carry, specifically so people have the ability to store their firearms before going in to do business there.  That means there could be no charges for this, as long as the parking lot is open to the public.

This would not protect your employment though, as your employer they can take action up to and including termination.  But there would not be any charges available if the lot is open to the public.  There will be another bill next year dealing with the employer / employee issue.

[D.A.D.]

Andy, I appreciate your comments and you putting up with my line of discussion, but I hope it proves to be instructive to others. 

Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(2) - What if you are carrying concealed and you start to pull into a parking lot only to find that the conspicuous signage recommended by the State Patrol is posted at the entrance to the parking lot?  Would that not signify that that entrance to the premises was the line beyond which a person with a concealed carry permit would not be allowed to bring a firearm?  If it was a gated property and the sign was posted on the gate, does not that indicate the point at which firearms are not allowed?

Article (3) seems very clear regarding the parking lot attached to the premises listed in Article 1(a), but Article (2) seems to allow the entity in control of the property to determine whether the sign is on a door or parking lot entrance since the word "premise" can extend to the property line.

If my employer puts "the sign" at the driveway entrance for the purpose of making that the line that should not be crossed with a handgun, and I have a CHP and am noticed putting a handgun in my glovebox by another employee and it is reported to management, my employer will (as they did a week ago in the instance I have discussed) both call me on the rug and notify LPD.  I will obviously have violated company policy, but also Article (2) because I have brought a handgun into a prohibited area.  This will expose me to being charged with a misdemeanor and potentially losing my CHP as a penalty for doing so.

I have visited a State correctional facility and their signage makes it very clear that it is illegal to possess a firearm, ammunition and everything but the kitchen sink in your vehicle in the parking lot.

So, for me, it is my employer's policy that prohibits me from carrying a weapon in my vehicle to and from work (and places in between) and deprives me of the right to protect myself, family, or other occupants with a firearm while enroute.  That is an issue that has to be dealt with apart from the CHP regulations as they now stand.  If I choose to not comply with company policy so that I may have protection in my vehicle while travelling to and from work (40 mile round trip each day), I don't want to also increase my exposure to legal problems because I have a CHP.  That should give you an idea of what my practice to date has been and why I am hesitant to obtain a CHP.

Well, I am starting to feel like a house guest that has stayed too long.  I intend to pursue getting an answer to the physical location of the line a property controller can set, so I welcome any additional postings.

Thank you all again.
D.A.D.