Carrying at work question

[BlueSheepDog]

The company I work for has a no weapons policy for employees working in the store. It's written in the employee handbook which I signed. Now on the building there are no posted signs at all, none in the employer back office, etc.. Just in the handbook. That being said I'm not worried about getting fired from this job if they ever found it to be on me, or If I had to use it. What I am worried about is if they would be able to pursue legal action against me such as charging me with criminal trespass.

[JustaShooter]

I may be wrong (I often am, just ask my wife and kids) but I think you are under notice just as if the building was posted. A non-employee would not be, but you are.

[qmti]

Each year at Sears I had to sign a NO WEAPONS document stating I could not have a weapon on any company property (building, parking lot, etc.) or be terminated. So I had to live with it since I had been with the company over 38 years. (Too much financially at stake for me not to adhere to policy).

[Brian D.]

My understanding is the same, JustaShooter. So a what-if comes to mind (please understand I hope this doesn't happen) :

An employee gets fired for violating this policy. No attempt is made to prosecute the person, nor are they forbidden from coming into the store after that, as a customer. So, does he/she now have the right, as a licensee, to carry there? Sure seems like something is just a little askew there.

[JustaShooter]

Interesting scenario, Brian. Since the prohibition was a condition of employment, I'm going to say that it only applies to current employees and that former employees, even those fired for violating that prohibition, would not be bound by it.

[djthomas]

I may be wrong (I often am, just ask my wife and kids) but I think you are under notice just as if the building was posted. A non-employee would not be, but you are.

It depends on what you mean by being under notice. From a lose your job perspective? Absolutely on notice. From a prosecute for criminal trespass perspective? Eh, maybe. Every work policy I've seen that prohibits guns uses the standard "up to and including termination of employment" verbiage. To me, they've limited how far they can go. Could a prosecutor say I don't care about the up to and including language, it's just the prohibition that matters? Sure, but given that we're talking about an M4 here that's a lot of work unless the defendant's conduct was so egregious that they're hanging paper anywhere they can.

I have seen policies that theft or the possession of illegal substances/objects may be referred to the authorities in addition to termination of employment, but they've never called out the unique case of licensed concealed carry (i.e. it's not a weapons offense).

Also - I tell folks to never be cavalier about not needing a particular job, particularly when it's with a smaller employer. It's not the job, it's the record you leave. Having to mark that you left your last job because you were fired is a red flag. Being fired for things like dishonesty, carrying weapons at work, using drugs and the like is a raise the Jolly Roger flag. A smaller employer is likely to give a detailed reference to any future employers who call. Yeah sure you can be dishonest and either leave off your last employer (tough when you've worked there for years) or fudge the reason for leaving but those things always have a way of coming back. We have a policy that says if it's found you lied on your job application you will be terminated no matter how long it's been. Just last week someone with 5 years of service was walked out of my office for this very thing.

[JU-87]

The company I work for has a no weapons policy for employees working in the store. It's written in the employee handbook which I signed. Now on the building there are no posted signs at all, none in the employer back office, etc.. Just in the handbook. That being said I'm not worried about getting fired from this job if they ever found it to be on me, or If I had to use it. What I am worried about is if they would be able to pursue legal action against me such as charging me with criminal trespass.

I do not think they would waste there time, or want the negative publicity. In either senario, there are bigger issues.

[SeanC]

I may be wrong (I often am, just ask my wife and kids) but I think you are under notice just as if the building was posted. A non-employee would not be, but you are.

I think most of the people on this forum would agree with you, but I respectfully do not. R.C. 2923.126 says that a property owner may "post a sign in a conspicuous location" to prohibit weapons from the premises. An employee handbook is obviously not a sign, and so it cannot effectively prohibit you from bringing weapons onto the premises under penalty of criminal trespass. Others will argue that you can commit a criminal trespass simply by violating a known restriction of the property owner, but I also respectfully disagree with them. Where the General Assembly says "this is how you must notify the public about this particular restriction on the use of your property," and does not say "and other methods of notification still work," the expression of the one is to the exclusion of all others.

I wouldn't sweat it, but it's also free for me to defend myself if I run into someone who disagrees with my interpretation. It wouldn't be free for you, so you need to include that variable in your calculus.

[JustaShooter]

I may be wrong (I often am, just ask my wife and kids) but I think you are under notice just as if the building was posted. A non-employee would not be, but you are.

I think most of the people on this forum would agree with you, but I respectfully do not. R.C. 2923.126 says that a property owner may "post a sign in a conspicuous location" to prohibit weapons from the premises. An employee handbook is obviously not a sign, and so it cannot effectively prohibit you from bringing weapons onto the premises under penalty of criminal trespass. Others will argue that you can commit a criminal trespass simply by violating a known restriction of the property owner, but I also respectfully disagree with them. Where the General Assembly says "this is how you must notify the public about this particular restriction on the use of your property," and does not say "and other methods of notification still work," the expression of the one is to the exclusion of all others.

I wouldn't sweat it, but it's also free for me to defend myself if I run into someone who disagrees with my interpretation. It wouldn't be free for you, so you need to include that variable in your calculus.

So would that same interpretation prevent someone I saw carrying a firearm in my business (whether openly or poorly concealed) from being guilty of criminal trespass who refused to leave if I were to tell them "I don't allow guns in my store, you must leave"? I would have thought that 2911.21 (A) (4) would cover that.

[SeanC]

I may be wrong (I often am, just ask my wife and kids) but I think you are under notice just as if the building was posted. A non-employee would not be, but you are.

I think most of the people on this forum would agree with you, but I respectfully do not. R.C. 2923.126 says that a property owner may "post a sign in a conspicuous location" to prohibit weapons from the premises. An employee handbook is obviously not a sign, and so it cannot effectively prohibit you from bringing weapons onto the premises under penalty of criminal trespass. Others will argue that you can commit a criminal trespass simply by violating a known restriction of the property owner, but I also respectfully disagree with them. Where the General Assembly says "this is how you must notify the public about this particular restriction on the use of your property," and does not say "and other methods of notification still work," the expression of the one is to the exclusion of all others.

I wouldn't sweat it, but it's also free for me to defend myself if I run into someone who disagrees with my interpretation. It wouldn't be free for you, so you need to include that variable in your calculus.

So would that same interpretation prevent someone I saw carrying a firearm in my business (whether openly or poorly concealed) from being guilty of criminal trespass who refused to leave if I were to tell them "I don't allow guns in my store, you must leave"? I would have thought that 2911.21 (A) (4) would cover that.

In that case, your statement of purpose is irrelevant. The operative fact is your instruction that they leave, which is effective regardless of the reason you are making it. That's my take, anyway.

EDIT to add a hypothetical. If you came up to someone and said "I don't allow firearms in my business," but omitted the direction to leave, and the person decided to stay, would a prosecution for CCW be in order? I don't think so.

[JustaShooter]

JustaShooter wrote: "I may be wrong (I often am, just ask my wife and kids) but I think you are under notice just as if the building was posted. A non-employee would not be, but you are."

I think most of the people on this forum would agree with you, but I respectfully do not. R.C. 2923.126 says that a property owner may "post a sign in a conspicuous location" to prohibit weapons from the premises. An employee handbook is obviously not a sign, and so it cannot effectively prohibit you from bringing weapons onto the premises under penalty of criminal trespass. Others will argue that you can commit a criminal trespass simply by violating a known restriction of the property owner, but I also respectfully disagree with them. Where the General Assembly says "this is how you must notify the public about this particular restriction on the use of your property," and does not say "and other methods of notification still work," the expression of the one is to the exclusion of all others.

I wouldn't sweat it, but it's also free for me to defend myself if I run into someone who disagrees with my interpretation. It wouldn't be free for you, so you need to include that variable in your calculus.

So would that same interpretation prevent someone I saw carrying a firearm in my business (whether openly or poorly concealed) from being guilty of criminal trespass who refused to leave if I were to tell them "I don't allow guns in my store, you must leave"? I would have thought that 2911.21 (A) (4) would cover that.

In that case, your statement of purpose is irrelevant. The operative fact is your instruction that they leave, which is effective regardless of the reason you are making it. That's my take, anyway.

Ah, I see the distinction, thanks, that makes sense. The employee handbook just prohibits firearms, but in my scenario I direct them to leave.

EDIT to add a hypothetical. If you came up to someone and said "I don't allow firearms in my business," but omitted the direction to leave, and the person decided to stay, would a prosecution for CCW be in order? I don't think so.

Well, after what you just clarified for me, I'd have to say no (although I think you meant to type CT as in Criminal Trespass rather than CCW - either that or I'm just completely misunderstanding).