Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

JU-87 wrote:

CroManGun wrote:"This law will NOT negate the employer's right to request a vehicle search in regard to anything it deems prohibitive. As always, an employee is free to refuse any such request.

I find that funny. ANY employer can request ANYTHING, at any time. Request denied. It's really that simple.

CroManGun wrote:Said refusal could subject the employee to disciplinary action which could result in termination. Proceed at your own risk.

Or it could not. Anyone can get fired for any phony reason. You just won't get fired for having a gun locked in your car, in Ohio, on your employer's property, after this law takes effect.

Best regards.

But here's the thing....

Boss: We have report that you have something suspicious in your vehicle and we request to search it. Will you agree to a search?

Two possibilities...

Employee: Yes sir, you can.
Boss: Gee, we have a gun in here and we can't do anything about it.
Employee: Yay, Thank you SB 199 for helping me keep my job.

Option 2...

Employee: No sir, you cannot.
Boss: You're fired.



People here all the time complain about their rights. Now all of the sudden they are willing to give up their right to privacy to gain the right to safety? Which one is worth more? To me privacy trumps safety. Employers are smart...and HR are some of the smartest in the conniving department.

JediSkipdogg wrote: But here's the thing....

Boss: We have report that you have something suspicious in your vehicle and we request to search it. Will you agree to a search?

Two possibilities...

Employee: Yes sir, you can.
Boss: Gee, we have a gun in here and we can't do anything about it.
Employee: Yay, Thank you SB 199 for helping me keep my job.

Option 2...

Employee: No sir, you cannot.
Boss: You're fired.



People here all the time complain about their rights. Now all of the sudden they are willing to give up their right to privacy to gain the right to safety? Which one is worth more? To me privacy trumps safety. Employers are smart...and HR are some of the smartest in the conniving department.

They won't fire you for having a gun in your vehicle. They will find another excuse to fire you.

Just ask anyone in the military reserves. An employer cannot fire you if you get deployed but they will fire you after you return for another reason.

Employer: "Schmidlap, you were late for work and I'm going to have to terminate you."
Employee: "But sir, I was only five minutes late."
Employer: "I'm glad you admit it. The fact remains; we cannot tolerate tardiness in this company. I'm going to have to take your ID and key to the door. Have a nice day."

High Power wrote: They won't fire you for having a gun in your vehicle. They will find another excuse to fire you.

Precisely. My employee handbook currently says "no firearms...or other dangerous goods" allowed on company property. In the future, they may have to walk back the 'firearm' part if push came to shove. But, they might then declare that the ammunition is a 'dangerous good'. Of course, in reality, this is Ohio and they need NO excuse to fire. But having one sure helps.

You forgot Option 1a...

Employee: Yes sir, you can.
Boss: Gee, we have a gun in here and we can't do anything about it.
Employee: Yay, Thank you SB 199 for helping me keep my job.
HR (next day): Your services are no longer required. Please hand me your ID. I'll escort you to your desk to gather your things and then to your vehicle.

JediSkipdogg wrote:Boss: We have report that you have something suspicious in your vehicle and we request to search it. Will you agree to a search?

Two possibilities...

Employee: Yes sir, you can.
Boss: Gee, we have a gun in here and we can't do anything about it.
Employee: Yay, Thank you SB 199 for helping me keep my job.

Option 2...

Employee: No sir, you cannot.
Boss: You're fired.

WY_Not wrote:

JediSkipdogg wrote:Boss: We have report that you have something suspicious in your vehicle and we request to search it. Will you agree to a search?

Two possibilities...

Employee: Yes sir, you can.
Boss: Gee, we have a gun in here and we can't do anything about it.
Employee: Yay, Thank you SB 199 for helping me keep my job.

Option 2...

Employee: No sir, you cannot.
Boss: You're fired.

You forgot Option 1a...

Employee: Yes sir, you can.
Boss: Gee, we have a gun in here and we can't do anything about it.
Employee: Yay, Thank you SB 199 for helping me keep my job.
HR (next day): Your services are no longer required. Please hand me your ID. I'll escort you to your desk to gather your things and then to your vehicle.

This right here. Although it would likely be separated by more than one day. Give them time to come up with something to document for the unemployment review board.

WhyNot wrote:MARCH 19TH,all romanticizing & fantasizing ends

More likely the 20th since the 19th is a Sunday and Acts can't take effect on Sunday but it does depend on when it was filed with the Secretary of State - and I can't seem to find out when that was.

JU-87 wrote: I TOTALLY disagree with "tweeds rules" regarding gun ownership and employment! I have had employees & managers go to Camp Perry and shoot for the first time because I shared the 2nd Amendment with them and rejected the so-called "tweeds rules".

I forgot to mention something in my previous reply about "tweeds rules," because I had forgotten about this until I found a notebook I had used at a former health care employer for mandatory employee Inservices. One of the ones I had to attend was "Workplace Violence." In addition to reminding staff that employees were prohibited from bringing firearms onto the property, it stated how employees should report to management other employees who show signs of being a danger for committing workplace violence. Among the many factors was anyone who brought a weapon to work, had "inappropriate" talk about firearms, or had a fascination with weapons. I carefully asked that suppose I heard an employee talking about weapons, what was "inappropriate" and what was a "fascination" with weapons. The lecturer gave examples of people who talk about carrying whenever and where ever, the 2nd amendment, or that gun carrying is a God given right, (some people laughed at that one) Also what gun or ammo is more effective at killing someone, commenting on a purchase of an "assault weapon", etc. including people who obviously bring a gun to work or tell someone that they bring one to work. Anti gun comments weren't mentioned as inappropriate conversation, just pro gun ones.

Do you really think that this new law is going to protect you if an employer like this finds out that you have a gun on company property? If you work for an employer that you're not sure of and want to talk gun rights with them or other employees, or be obvious in bringing a gun onto company property, go right ahead. I never knew about Tweeds rules before being on here, but over the years I've tried to do something similar while on the job, just to keep that job. Tweeds rules may not apply to every employer, but they are certainly good advice for many of them.

JU-87 wrote: I TOTALLY disagree with "tweeds rules" regarding gun ownership and employment! I have had employees & managers go to Camp Perry and shoot for the first time because I shared the 2nd Amendment with them and rejected the so-called "tweeds rules".

Sure, some people can legitimately ignore those rules and not have an issue. For example, I started with my company when it was very small (fewer than 20 employees) and worked closely with the founders as the company grew. They never were anti, and a couple of them were very pro, as were many of the senior staff like me, so I've never had to worry - and became the guy to go to ask about gun stuff.

But companies change - we've now grown to the point that there are 200 employees and have an actual HR department and the founders sold the company to an investment group that brings in money and helps grow companies. Fortunately, the new upper management are even more pro than the founders were, so I still have no worries - but it could have gone the other way, and put me in a position to be more circumspect or have my job be at risk.

The point is, many people don't have the same luxury, and failing to follow Tweed's Rules could very well limit their opportunities at the company, or at worst, get them unemployed.

Ultimately, to me this thread's title is ironically humorous, or humorously ironic, because it starts with "Action". Yeah, what a thrill ride our gun rights advancement was these last two years. I'd rather sit through a week's worth of consecutive showings of "My Dinner With Andre".

JustaShooter wrote:

JU-87 wrote: I TOTALLY disagree with "tweeds rules" regarding gun ownership and employment! I have had employees & managers go to Camp Perry and shoot for the first time because I shared the 2nd Amendment with them and rejected the so-called "tweeds rules".

Sure, some people can legitimately ignore those rules and not have an issue. For example, I started with my company when it was very small (fewer than 20 employees) and worked closely with the founders as the company grew. They never were anti, and a couple of them were very pro, as were many of the senior staff like me, so I've never had to worry - and became the guy to go to ask about gun stuff.

But companies change - we've now grown to the point that there are 200 employees and have an actual HR department and the founders sold the company to an investment group that brings in money and helps grow companies. Fortunately, the new upper management are even more pro than the founders were, so I still have no worries - but it could have gone the other way, and put me in a position to be more circumspect or have my job be at risk.

The point is, many people don't have the same luxury, and failing to follow Tweed's Rules could very well limit their opportunities at the company, or at worst, get them unemployed.

All it would take would be one disgruntled employee to complain about a "hostile work environment" because of "all the talk about guns" and the culture and character of a company could change overnight.

M-Quigley wrote:

JU-87 wrote: I TOTALLY disagree with "tweeds rules" regarding gun ownership and employment! I have had employees & managers go to Camp Perry and shoot for the first time because I shared the 2nd Amendment with them and rejected the so-called "tweeds rules".

M-Quigley wrote:...Do you really think that this new law is going to protect you if an employer like this finds out that you have a gun on company property?

Yes.
But, really, they will never find out. If asked for permission to search my car, the answer is NO.

M-Quigley wrote:If you work for an employer that you're not sure of and want to talk gun rights with them or other employees, or be obvious in bringing a gun onto company property, go right ahead.

I do. With gusto. But also in good taste/ politeness. Situation does dictate. I strive to be a good ambassador for the 2A and the shooting sports.

M-Quigley wrote:I never knew about Tweeds rules before being on here, but over the years I've tried to do something similar while on the job, just to keep that job.

Wow. I have never done that. I guess situation does dictate. What is it like to live in fear?

M-Quigley wrote:Tweeds rules may not apply to every employer, but they are certainly good advice for many of them.

[/quote]

I hope your wrong on that...I only know my past jobs. I believe the so-called "tweeds rules" are good for "tweed" and very few others.

Best regards.

Can we get a copy of Tweed's rules posted on this thread? I haven't been able to find them. It would help to clarify the issues.

Here you go:
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php? ... 3#p4283073

JU-87 wrote:

M-Quigley wrote:I never knew about Tweeds rules before being on here, but over the years I've tried to do something similar while on the job, just to keep that job.

Wow. I have never done that. I guess situation does dictate. What is it like to live in fear?

I'm retired now, so I could care less what my former employer thinks. Back then however I never considered it living in fear. I just wasn't going to risk a very good paying job (and possibly future employment) for no benefit. It wasn't like anything I said at work would've changed the minds of middle level management or corporate anyway. I also didn't start conversations with employees about other politics as well, or religion. It didn't stop me when not at work from pro actively supporting legal CCW and the 2nd amendment both with words and money donated to pro gun and pro CCW organizations.

On the occasional times I talked to someone about guns it was because they started the conversation, and I was always polite as well. Occasionally the results were amusing or confusing, listening to the so called logic of the anti gunner. Just prior to licensed CCW happening in Ohio, one of the nurses in a hospital break room commented about how terrible that was, and spouted all the usual anti CCW nonsense at the time. (high noon, dozens of cops getting shot at traffic stops, blah blah) I politely responded that my brother lived in Indiana and had a carry permit, along with many other people, and that none of that was happening in Indiana. She loudly accused me of lying. I politely told her, no, I've seen my brothers permit, not lying. She loudly responded that wasn't possible because she sometimes went shopping in Richmond, and said, "I've never seen anybody there carrying a concealed handgun!"