NFOA on KFAB

[AAllen]

Thought I would thow out to anyone interested:  I am going to be on KFAB with Crash Davis about 5:00 today discussing ProtectVictimsNow.org and the need for Nebraska to modernize it's self defense laws.

I case anyone is interested.

[FarmerRick]

Good job Andy!  Thanks go out to Crash too.

 

[Dan W]

Segment 1
http://www.kfab.com/player/index.html?mid=21709955&station=KFAB-AM&program_id=CrashDavis.xml&program_name=podcast

Segment 2
http://www.kfab.com/player/index.html?mid=21709957&station=KFAB-AM&program_id=CrashDavis.xml&program_name=podcast
 

[armed and humorous]

Good job.  One point I think people should keep in mind, though, regarding the efforts to prevent employers from firing employees who bring firearms onto company property in their vehicles, is that an employer (in Nebraska) can fire you for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory based on federally protected groups (minorities, gender, handicapped, etc.), or in this case (if the law were to be passed), prohibited by law.  It would be your burden of proof to show that bringing a gun onto the property was the reason you were fired, just the same as it is if you were fired for belonging to one of the protected groups.  This can be difficult for the latter, and it might be nearly impossible in the case of bringing a gun onto the employers' property.  Unless, they expressly state that they fired you for that reason (pretty stupid on their part, but it has happened in similar cases), you would have to show proof that that was the reason.  The employer could come up with any number of reasons why they fired you as long as none of those reasons were prohibited by law.  They could say you were ugly (ugly is not a protected group).  They could say they simply didn't need you anymore.  Or, they don't need to give any reason at all.  You have to prove they fired you for bringing a gun onto the property.  This might be possible if they suddenly fired a bunch of peoplek, all of whom brought guns onto the property, in which case, a reasonable person would conclude that was the reason for them being fired.  Good luck with that one.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to pass this; however, a determined employer who does not want to recognize your right to carry, is still likely going to fire you if it's that important to them.

[Dan W]

If the state were to make it illegal to fire someone for possession of a firearm in a locked car in the parking lot, how would an employer justify the search necessary to know the gun was brought onto their property?

It would no longer be legal to put the ban into the employment contract (if there is one), and if it is removed then there will be no justification to ask about or search for a legally possessed item in an employee's vehicle.

I see your point though about being fired for any reason. But notice this bill applies to anyone who can legally possess a firearm, so effectively the entire work force may be in possession of firearms in their vehicles.

That could make it difficult to fabricate a reason for firing an employee because of a perceived violation of an unspoken, unwritten rule

[OnTheFly]

If the state were to make it illegal to fire someone for possession of a firearm in a locked car in the parking lot, how would an employer justify the search necessary to know the gun was brought onto their property?

It would no longer be legal to put the ban into the employment contract (if there is one), and if it is removed then there will be no justification to ask about or search for a legally possessed item in an employee's vehicle.

I see your point though about being fired for any reason. But notice this bill applies to anyone who can legally possess a firearm, so effectively the entire work force may be in possession of firearms in their vehicles.

That could make it difficult to fabricate a reason for firing an employee because of a perceived violation of an unspoken, unwritten rule

Assuming the law passes, the only way I could see someone being fired (for possession of a firearm but under the guise of some other reason) is if the employee makes it known to others.  Personally, if I have ANYTHING of value in my car, including a gun, no one will know about it unless they are in the inner most trusted circle.  An that circle would be VERY small.  So small in fact, that it would possibly just include myself.

Fly

[armed and humorous]

Dan and Fly:

Yes, and no.  One way in which an employer could discover firearms in vehicles is what actually happened at my former employer.  The emloyer got information that some people were dealing/taking drugs on the property.  They either hired a private company, or brought in law enforcement (honestly, I'm not sure which) with sniffer dogs.  I believe that is their right (to search their own property).  The dogs were capable of finding drugs and/or firearms (explosives), and they hit on a number of vehicles.  The owners of the vehicle were brought out to open up their vehicles, and some (at least one) had firearms inside.  That employee(s) was fired.  I believe the search would still be warranted, even under this proposed bill, and therefore, an employer might still find out about a firearm in a vehicle and procede to fire the employee without actually saying it was because of the firearm.

Yes, if there were a large number of employees carrying in their vehicles, the company would be hard pressed to fire them all for two reasons:  first, they'd lose a lot of their work force which they would need to replace; and second, it would be fairly obvious to a reasonable person (legal criteria) that they were fired for carrying.  When you look at the figures, though, it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of any particular work force would be carrying, and therefore it would be a relatively simple thing for an employer to fire the one or two employees who did carry for "other reasons".

To some extent, this would be just a "feel good" measure without the teeth to truly prevent someone from being fired for carrying on their employer's property.  On the other hand, I believe there are many employers who only create the "no-guns" policy to placate their anti-gun employees, insurance companies, or their perceived public image (not to mention the law, as in school property).  If they were "relieved" of this ability to dictate a no-gun policy, many of them may actually be happy about it.

[JTH]

To some extent, this would be just a "feel good" measure without the teeth to truly prevent someone from being fired for carrying on their employer's property.  On the other hand, I believe there are many employers who only create the "no-guns" policy to placate their anti-gun employees, insurance companies, or their perceived public image (not to mention the law, as in school property).  If they were "relieved" of this ability to dictate a no-gun policy, many of them may actually be happy about it.

I disagree.  While Nebraska is a state in which people can be fired easily, it is still true that many employers have specific policies that require significant documented factors to exist before someone can be fired.  As such, in cases such as the above, it will not be particularly easy for an employee to be fired merely due to having a firearm in a parking lot.

In a similar fashion, most employers aren't ever going to call the police and have sniffer dogs check cars in the parking lot.

As such, while there are indeed some cases of this, for the most part, it won't happen that way. 

Speaking as one of those people who can't have a gun while at work, and ALSO (due to employment policy) can't have a firearm even in my car while at work, I really don't like the fact that carry is difficult for me if I happen to go anywhere but home after work.  This will fix that. 

I'm not actually happy about the idea that the government will tell private business owners that they don't have control over what people bring onto their property.  However, I _do_ like the concept that government entities would not be able to tell people that they can't store their legal firearms in their cars while in government parking lots.

[armed and humorous]

jthhapkido:

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.  I don't deny that many companies have policies for disciplinary action, and those policies "might" make it more difficult for them to fire you for having a gun and try to justify it for some other reason.  At, the same time, most of the companies post these "policies" in an employee handbook (or somesuch document), and most of the time, there is a statement in there saying that the policies are not to be considered a contract or binding in any way, and that management has the right to change them at their discretion.  In other words, if they really are intent on firing someone for carrying, they could probably still do it because they aren't bound by their disciplinary policy.  It would take a law suit by the fired employee to challenge it in a court of law, and the court would have to decide whether or not the company policy was indeed a binding agreement between employer and employee.  These things have gone to court before, and it all depends on the wording of the policy and the history of the company in following the policy and many other factors.

My point is, we couldn't reliably count on this law to protect us in the face of a determined employer.  Larger companies would probably lean toward following their own guidelines and go along with the law (as mine did once CHP was passed), but smaller companies (owner/operator type places) might consider their owner/property rights more important than your rights and choose to find away around the law to fire you.  I'm just saying, this law would be no guarantee in my opinion, but it is a step in the right direction and perhaps could be modified to give it more "teeth".

I agree with you too, about private property versus public property.  I think we should absolutely allow government employees or visitors to public property to carry in their vehicles (I know some places have federal rules that this bill would not override).  Private property on the other hand (a private employer), is not so cut and dried.

[AAllen]

Just a quick note before saying this discussion has gotten off track.  Legally property rights are almost the top of the heap, the only other rights considered more important when balancing the interests of concerned parties with rights conflicts are rights that are considered to be "Natural Rights."  Those are only limited when the practicer would be devaluing or keeping the property owner from enjoying his use of his property.  If an employer provides a place to park my car, which is my property, while I am at work my storage of a firearm inside of it does not devalue nor influence his use of his property.  So my right to keep and bare arms should over rule his property rights.

[armed and humorous]

AAllen:

Good points, and information I hadn't heard previously (assuming you're right).  I have to say though that there probably aren't too many property owners that would care whether you have bare arms or not (as opposed to bearing arms).    Maybe some restaurants with signs, "No shirt, no shoes, no service!" 

[JTH]

jthhapkido:

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.  I don't deny that many companies have policies for disciplinary action, and those policies "might" make it more difficult for them to fire you for having a gun and try to justify it for some other reason.

Point being, they have to follow their own internal rules.  As such, if they don't, you have a much easier time showing in court that they violated the law.

You said this law didn't have teeth, and people could be fired easily.  My point is that in most cases, people _can't_ be fired easily, as it normally requires a paper trail and a succession of issues.  If someone is fired without that, it makes it easier for the employee to bring them to court for this issue. 

Yes, there are of course companies/employers who will feel strongly enough about this to do it anyway. However, that will be in the minority, in my opinion, based on what I said above. 

Similar to the number of places where calling in police dogs is a normal thing.  Small chances.

Useful thing about this law---it would not take a civil lawsuit by the fired employee to have this law applied.  Matter of fact, I believe that is part of the point of this law---it is not a civil case situation anymore.

[armed and humorous]

As AAllen said, this discussion has gotten off the original track, so I'll just add one final comment.  All I'm trying to say about this law is that a person shouldn't put absolute faith in it as far as being fired from their job.  Regardless of what you think about employers, unless you have a contract, they can fire you for whatever reason they want, and not have to justify it unless you file some kind of action against them (whether you try to get criminal charges filed or go through a civil court, and I'm not really sure what the procedure would be in this case).  It's not like a speeding ticket where the cops are going to be watching for a violation.  Personally, I think it would be hard to prove an illegal firing under this bill, unless the employer was stupid enough to admit the real reason, or too stupid to come up with a legal reason.

I'm not sure what bill you read, but as I read the bill, it would require a civil suit by a fired employee in order to recover their job and/or any damages resulting from a violation of the law in this case.