Action on SB199 including parking lot carry

[schmieg]

Not that it will do much good in my opinion, because:
- I cannot see any penalty for an employer who violates this section.
- I cannot see any remedy for an employee fired by a company violating this section.
- Ohio is still an at-will employment state, so they can just find another reason to fire you if they discover you have a firearm in your vehicle.

Mississippi is also an at-will state, and their parking lot protection law doesn't explicitly call out a right to sue, but in August the Fifth Circuit ruled that law allows an employee to sue if fired for violating such an employer policy.

As far as the possibility of finding an alternate excuse, that's a possibility for other types of employment protection (age, religion, etc.) too, but that doesn't automatically make those protections without value.

Also, if you can prove you were fired for that reason, you should be eligible for unemployment.

[curmudgeon3]

Our Legislators and Governor should be commended for effectively declaring it legal for LACs to carry a defensive firearm in their cars while on their way to and from their places of employment.

[WY_Not]

How sad that we celebrate the trespass and infringement of one Ohioan by another Ohioan made legal.

[WY_Not]

You were perfectly legal to carry on your way to and from your place of employment. What was not was the trespass and infringement and arrogance of thinking you had more rights to someone else's property than they did once you arrived.

Our Legislators and Governor should be commended for effectively declaring it legal for LACs to carry a defensive firearm in their cars while on their way to and from their places of employment.

[pirateguy191]

Does this law permit post office employees in Ohio to have their firearm locked in their car in the post office parking lot?

[JustaShooter]

Does this law permit post office employees in Ohio to have their firearm locked in their car in the post office parking lot?

Good question - and I'm not even going to try to unravel that mess... And since the new law does not only apply to employees, does it then permit *anyone* to have their firearm locked in their car in the post office parking lot?

[FormerNavy]

Does this law permit post office employees in Ohio to have their firearm locked in their car in the post office parking lot?

Good question - and I'm not even going to try to unravel that mess... And since the new law does not only apply to employees, does it then permit *anyone* to have their firearm locked in their car in the post office parking lot?

Isn't the post office prohibition a federal law, and therefore unaffected by this?

[slowquest]

Question becomes can an Ohio LEO arrest someone for the Federal offense?

[westsidebestside]

Am I correct in saying that the penalty for concealed carry on a campus that has not voted to allow it is a minor misdemeanor?

[DontTreadOnMe]

You were perfectly legal to carry on your way to and from your place of employment.

Not if you work someplace where the only available parking is the employer's lot. In that case the employer's choice to restrict guns even if they never leave the vehicle infringes the employee's natural right of self-defense, by preventing access to the most effective tool for that defense, even before and after the workday.

Invective aside, there's infringement both ways but the new law IMO shifts to the much lower infringement. With all the states that have parking lot protection (I think it's around half) I've never seen anyone point to a single example of an employer suffering harm because of an employee's gun inside their own car.

[WY_Not]

And no one is forcing anyone to choose to work at any particular place of employment. The employee weighs the pros/cons and makes that choice when they accept employment. Don't like the rules, then work elsewhere, convince the employer to change their policy, or start a business and make your own rules. This law does absolutely nothing to protect anyone. If an employer wants someone fired, they will be fired. All this does is grants legitimacy to the old adage that some are more equal than others.

Whether it causes harm to the employer or not is irrelevant. It is THEIR property. They have the right to say how it is used. To quote the much missed Tweed Ring...

Would you allow my church to hold an outdoor service, after work hours, of course, in your privately owned parking lot? We would shower you and the parking lot with our blessings.

Why not push a bill allowing a church congregation to freely use the parking lot of a business, after hours of course, to hold worship services there? After all, the property owner wouldn't suffer any harm.

[walnut red]

Are corporations people? Do corporations have the same rights as individuals? If so, which corporate rights are specifically protected by the Bill of Rights?

[WhyNot]

ENUFF!!!

Seriously, time for the paper bag to be turned inside out to see if it's still a paper bag....

And no one is forcing anyone to choose to work at any particular place of employment. Conversely, no one is forcing the employer to have a business there.The employee weighs the pros/cons and makes that choice when they accept employment. The employer can now weigh the pros & cons of maintaining the business at current location. Don't like the rules, then work elsewhere, convince the employer to change their policy, or start a business and make your own rules. Don't like the law, MOVE, or easier yet and a better business decision just absorb it, get over it, pout, shout (type)...move on. Move on one way or another.

It can be successfully argued that the business can pour concrete elsewhere in case of manufacturing, or plug in a new ethernet cable elsewhere in case of an internet based affair. Just as successful as arguing the employee , simply due to 12 inches of rubber touching a parking lot for 7-9 hrs a day, should move.

And I hazard to guess the latter will outweigh the former. Well, ......

[WY_Not]

One simple flaw in your "logic"... The property owner has a right to be there, it is after all their property. Employee does not. What the employee has is a privilege.

Just because a "law" is passed and signed does not make it right or just. Just because a trespass and infringement becomes a "law" does not mean one must cease to speak out against it. There are parts of this bill that are right (poorly worded in a few cases) but still right. This part of the bill is not among those.

ENUFF!!!

Seriously, time for the paper bag to be turned inside out to see if it's still a paper bag....

And no one is forcing anyone to choose to work at any particular place of employment. Conversely, no one is forcing the employer to have a business there.The employee weighs the pros/cons and makes that choice when they accept employment. The employer can now weigh the pros & cons of maintaining the business at current location. Don't like the rules, then work elsewhere, convince the employer to change their policy, or start a business and make your own rules. Don't like the law, MOVE, or easier yet and a better business decision just absorb it, get over it, pout, shout (type)...move on. Move on one way or another.

It can be successfully argued that the business can pour concrete elsewhere in case of manufacturing, or plug in a new ethernet cable elsewhere in case of an internet based affair. Just as successful as arguing the employee , simply due to 12 inches of rubber touching a parking lot for 7-9 hrs a day, should move.

And I hazard to guess the latter will outweigh the former. Well, ......

[walnut red]

Are really quoting yourself?