Workplace Protection HB364 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Workplace Protection HB364


mossy500camo
02-08-2010, 11:40
Workplace Protection and No-Net-Loss Legislation Introduced in Alabama!

Friday, February 05, 2010

Two pro-gun bills are currently awaiting committee action and could reach
the House floor as early as next week.

House Bill 330, Alabama's No-Net-Loss legislation, is currently on its
third reading in the House Agriculture and Forestry Committee. Sponsored
by State Representative Craig Ford (D-28), HB 330 would require that the
state maintains at least the level of available public hunting land that
currently exists. It requires that additional lands be opened to hunting
if land that is currently open to hunting is closed. The end result is to
assure hunters that the opportunities they now have will not diminish.


House Bill 364, also introduced by Representative Ford, would permit a
law-abiding individual to store their firearms in their locked motor
vehicle while parked on a publicly accessible parking lot controlled by
their employer or a business they frequent. This bill will protect your
right to keep a firearm in your car if you choose to hunt or target shoot
before or after work. HB 364 would also allow an individual to keep a
firearm in their vehicle for self-defense during their commute to and from
work. HB 364 is still pending committee action but could be heard as
early as next week.

Kingfisher
02-16-2010, 21:41
Workplace Protection and No-Net-Loss Legislation Introduced in Alabama!

Friday, February 05, 2010

Two pro-gun bills are currently awaiting committee action and could reach
the House floor as early as next week.

House Bill 330, Alabama's No-Net-Loss legislation, is currently on its
third reading in the House Agriculture and Forestry Committee. Sponsored
by State Representative Craig Ford (D-28), HB 330 would require that the
state maintains at least the level of available public hunting land that
currently exists. It requires that additional lands be opened to hunting
if land that is currently open to hunting is closed. The end result is to
assure hunters that the opportunities they now have will not diminish.


House Bill 364, also introduced by Representative Ford, would permit a
law-abiding individual to store their firearms in their locked motor
vehicle while parked on a publicly accessible parking lot controlled by
their employer or a business they frequent. This bill will protect your
right to keep a firearm in your car if you choose to hunt or target shoot
before or after work. HB 364 would also allow an individual to keep a
firearm in their vehicle for self-defense during their commute to and from
work. HB 364 is still pending committee action but could be heard as
early as next week.

Dosen't your CC permit cover most if not all of Bill 364? :supergrin:

Rohniss
02-18-2010, 18:27
Dosen't your CC permit cover most if not all of Bill 364? :supergrin:

From MY understanding it does,

However, As it stands now a property owner can prohibit firearms on their private property, as well as employee buildings. Now, that said I don't believe its a VSFA (Violation of State Firearms Act), and if you were charged with anything it would be trespassing. Basically its really a non issue.

If they prohibit guns now, and they discover that you have one, they can ask you to leave or straight up call the cops. If I come out there, what I'm gonna say is: Let me see your ID and permit, call it in, if your legit, I'm gonna tell you to leave, if you don't your gonna be arrested for trespassing.

Thats pretty much it.

Brad_G
02-19-2010, 15:10
I LOVE the idea of HB330. There are a lot of shooters that do not hunt, but those of us that do, know there are times that public land is already overcrowded.

I think HB 364 was developed more for those people that C&C'd while at work, then their companies told them they couldn't do that any more. So, they just put them in their cars. Then, the companies told them they couldn't do that either.

The CCW SHOULD cover you on that, but are you really going to get in a pissing contest with your employer??? If the law passes, there no argument.

devildoggunner
02-21-2010, 21:49
In reference to House Bill 364, I must disagree with the mass assumption and say that a simple CCW does not cover it for now. My wife works for State Farm here in B'ham. From the day you get hired one of the regulations you are informed of is that firearms are prohibited on their property. If you don't want to abide by their regs and are caught with a firearm you can and probably will be fired. I don't care what anybody says, I'm not taking that chance. I just make sure my wife doesn't get caught:whistling:. They can't go into one of my vehicles without a warrant so it's all good. I would probably fight it out later in civil court. I for one hope like hell this passes. If I read correctly this has already passed in my home state of LA and places like State Farm had no choice but to change their policy. Just my .02.

Kingfisher
02-23-2010, 07:40
In reference to House Bill 364, I must disagree with the mass assumption and say that a simple CCW does not cover it for now. My wife works for State Farm here in B'ham. From the day you get hired one of the regulations you are informed of is that firearms are prohibited on their property. If you don't want to abide by their regs and are caught with a firearm you can and probably will be fired. I don't care what anybody says, I'm not taking that chance. I just make sure my wife doesn't get caught:whistling:. They can't go into one of my vehicles without a warrant so it's all good. I would probably fight it out later in civil court. I for one hope like hell this passes. If I read correctly this has already passed in my home state of LA and places like State Farm had no choice but to change their policy. Just my .02.

My wife is a magistrate and court clerk for our city and is not allowed to carry a gun by city request. Now she deals with the scum of the earth everyday and every other weekend, and is often alone outside with no protection at times to let people bond out of jail.

She carries and has a permit for our county and state, I doubt the city would fire her if she was caught carrying, but I too would like to see this bill pass if it makes it through unchanged and unchallenged by some insurance company liberal. State Farm and ALFA are both very influential in Alabama politics.

Good to see some of our lawmakers passing bills that actually mean something and accomplish things for their constituents. Good discussion.

devildoggunner
02-26-2010, 01:29
Senate Passes Employee Gun Bill

By WNCF Staff


Story Created: Feb 26, 2010
Story Updated: Feb 26, 2010

MONTGOMERY (WNCF) – The Alabama Senate has passed legislation that would allow employees to store guns in their cars on company property.

The Senate voted 26-2 Thursday for the new policy that allows workers to keep guns locked away in their personal cars and band businesses from prohibiting it.

The NRA supports the bill, while the Business Council of Alabama opposes it.
The legislation comes just two weeks after the fatal shootings at UAH.

zukyota
02-27-2010, 21:33
Senate Passes Employee Gun Bill

By WNCF Staff


Story Created: Feb 26, 2010
Story Updated: Feb 26, 2010

MONTGOMERY (WNCF) – The Alabama Senate has passed legislation that would allow employees to store guns in their cars on company property.

The Senate voted 26-2 Thursday for the new policy that allows workers to keep guns locked away in their personal cars and band businesses from prohibiting it.

The NRA supports the bill, while the Business Council of Alabama opposes it.
The legislation comes just two weeks after the fatal shootings at UAH.
So does this mean i can have a firearm in my car at work, even if the parking lot i park in is considered private property owned by the company i work for ?

glockkramer
02-28-2010, 20:51
I disagree with this on so many levels, I can't even put it into words. Why can't they just report the facts and leave opinions to the readers?

Our View: Why run the risk on guns?

Gadsden Times Editorial
Published: Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 6:01 am

The Alabama Senate on Thursday, by a lopsided 26-2 vote, passed a bill by Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, that would prohibit employers from instituting rules against employees having legally owned firearms locked in their cars in company parking lots.



A similar bill, by Democratic Rep. Craig Ford of Gadsden, is awaiting action by a House committee.

Both bills exclude employees of electricity producing companies, such as Alabama Power Co.

The House passed similar legislation unanimously in 2009, but it failed in the Senate. If it passes both houses this year, it still would need Gov. Bob Riley’s signature to become law. Another massive House vote, on the heels of the Senate action, would pretty much ensure that if Riley chooses to veto the bill, he’ll be overridden.

The odds are high that this will become law in Alabama and it will be obeyed by employers. It likely will be a popular measure with Alabamians.

We still think it’s a bad idea.

Bedford, in Thursday’s debate, painted it strictly as a constitutional issue.

“This vote is about one thing only: Do you support Second Amendment rights?,” he said.

We actually do support a Second Amendment right for individuals to keep and carry arms, but that isn’t relevant here. The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is intended to keep government — specifically federal, but by extension in modern application, state and local — from infringing on individual rights and freedoms. It says nothing about employers. There are scenarios every day in the U.S. where individuals surrender constitutional rights as a condition of employment. For example, most media organizations, including this one, prohibit their employees from actively participating in political campaigns to the point of banning donations to candidates, campaign yard signs or bumper stickers on cars. That’s an infringement on free speech, but it’s not government doing the infringing.

Supporters of this legislation have painted it in terms of protecting an employee’s right to be safe traveling to and from work. We don’t take that concern lightly, although it’s melodramatic to insinuate that even in these times a resident of Alabama generally has to be armed just to go back and forth to a job. If an employee has specific and legitimate concerns, they can be addressed individually with an employer.

However, for government to mandate that employers do this is an infringement on employers’ property rights, an infringement on their ability to run their businesses as they see fit and an impediment to one of their most important roles, providing a safe work environment.

There have been too many cases of disgruntled employees shooting up workplaces. Some will say a restriction on guns in employees’ cars wouldn’t have stopped those incidents, that someone intent on committing murder will find the way and means to do it regardless.

That’s likely true, but if there’s a chance removing the restrictions would contribute microscopically to such an incident happening, why run the risk?

zukyota
02-28-2010, 21:57
I disagree with this on so many levels, I can't even put it into words. Why can't they just report the facts and leave opinions to the readers?

Our View: Why run the risk on guns?

Gadsden Times Editorial
Published: Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 6:01 am

The Alabama Senate on Thursday, by a lopsided 26-2 vote, passed a bill by Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, that would prohibit employers from instituting rules against employees having legally owned firearms locked in their cars in company parking lots.



A similar bill, by Democratic Rep. Craig Ford of Gadsden, is awaiting action by a House committee.

Both bills exclude employees of electricity producing companies, such as Alabama Power Co.

The House passed similar legislation unanimously in 2009, but it failed in the Senate. If it passes both houses this year, it still would need Gov. Bob Riley’s signature to become law. Another massive House vote, on the heels of the Senate action, would pretty much ensure that if Riley chooses to veto the bill, he’ll be overridden.

The odds are high that this will become law in Alabama and it will be obeyed by employers. It likely will be a popular measure with Alabamians.

We still think it’s a bad idea.

Bedford, in Thursday’s debate, painted it strictly as a constitutional issue.

“This vote is about one thing only: Do you support Second Amendment rights?,” he said.

We actually do support a Second Amendment right for individuals to keep and carry arms, but that isn’t relevant here. The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is intended to keep government — specifically federal, but by extension in modern application, state and local — from infringing on individual rights and freedoms. It says nothing about employers. There are scenarios every day in the U.S. where individuals surrender constitutional rights as a condition of employment. For example, most media organizations, including this one, prohibit their employees from actively participating in political campaigns to the point of banning donations to candidates, campaign yard signs or bumper stickers on cars. That’s an infringement on free speech, but it’s not government doing the infringing.

Supporters of this legislation have painted it in terms of protecting an employee’s right to be safe traveling to and from work. We don’t take that concern lightly, although it’s melodramatic to insinuate that even in these times a resident of Alabama generally has to be armed just to go back and forth to a job. If an employee has specific and legitimate concerns, they can be addressed individually with an employer.

However, for government to mandate that employers do this is an infringement on employers’ property rights, an infringement on their ability to run their businesses as they see fit and an impediment to one of their most important roles, providing a safe work environment.

There have been too many cases of disgruntled employees shooting up workplaces. Some will say a restriction on guns in employees’ cars wouldn’t have stopped those incidents, that someone intent on committing murder will find the way and means to do it regardless.

That’s likely true, but if there’s a chance removing the restrictions would contribute microscopically to such an incident happening, why run the risk?
If i were going to shoot up the workplace i wouldnt worry about rules such as "you cant keep guns in your car at work". I, like many people, travel long distances to work & work a rotating shift. This puts me on the road late at night. If i were to break down i;d like to have some kind of protection not just from people but from animals if i had to walk after a breakdown. I'm all for this bill. I legally own firearms & should be able to carry them in my car if i choose.

PigButtons
03-02-2010, 09:17
Did it give the authors name for that editorial in the Gadsden Times? It sounds like another pin-head that doesn't realize that murder is already a crime and if the perp is willing to murder, said murderer isn't concerned about getting fired if there is a gun in their car. Some peoples reasoning ability is so dwarfed as to be astonishing.

I just went online and sent a letter to the editor. I doubt that the opposing view is something that will get published. Freedom of the Press to slant the news any way they want you know.

glockkramer
03-02-2010, 21:16
Did it give the authors name for that editorial in the Gadsden Times? It sounds like another pin-head that doesn't realize that murder is already a crime and if the perp is willing to murder, said murderer isn't concerned about getting fired if there is a gun in their car. Some peoples reasoning ability is so dwarfed as to be astonishing.

I just went online and sent a letter to the editor. I doubt that the opposing view is something that will get published. Freedom of the Press to slant the news any way they want you know.

I looked for the author and couldn't find out who wrote it. I'm sure the big chief had it written for him. They are a subsidiary of the New York Times, so I shouldn't have been surprised by the article.

alba666
03-02-2010, 21:43
So does this mean i can have a firearm in my car at work, even if the parking lot i park in is considered private property owned by the company i work for ?

Yes, once signed into law, you follow the restrictions in the law, and it becomes effective as stated in the bill (1st day of month 90 days after becoming law if I recall correctly).

zukyota
03-03-2010, 17:13
Yes, once signed into law, you follow the restrictions in the law, and it becomes effective as stated in the bill (1st day of month 90 days after becoming law if I recall correctly).
I work for a foreign auto company, not gonna mention the name, but i was told that the place i work at was a foreign trade market and this law couldnt be inforced there. what do you think ?

alba666
03-03-2010, 18:43
I work for a foreign auto company, not gonna mention the name, but i was told that the place i work at was a foreign trade market and this law couldnt be inforced there. what do you think ?

In my opinion (as another employee of a foreign auto company that shall remain nameless), if you are referring to a Foreign Trade Zone, it depends on where the border of the zone is located relative to employee parking. It will be obvious where this is as it has to be "controlled" (i.e. fenced, positive auditable access control, posted, and subject to inspection on departure) so as to prevent materials in the zone from leaving into US commerce illegally. If where you park is in the FTZ, this argument may be valid. Areas outside the FTZ fence are just "normal" property of the employer.

Disclosure: I am not a lawyer or a Customs broker so YMMV.
Just my $0.02