Dayton Daily News: June 22, 2017
Business groups are fighting an Ohio Senate proposal that will open them up to civil lawsuits by employees and others who bring handguns on to company property. “For us this isn’t a concealed carry issue as much as this is an employer rights issue,” said Chris Kershner, vice president, public policy & economic development for the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce. “Employers should be able to manage the actions in their private business on their private property, period.”I love this. I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme court.
By depriving this employee of the right to leave his secured gun in his (locked) car at work, he is depriving the employee of the right to carry the gun during the trip to and from work.
Which is a clear infringement of the employee's Second Amendment Rights. Especially if the employee has a Concealed Carry License.
It's not as if the employee is asking to carry his firearm into the workplace; he only asks that he be able to leave it stored. secured. in his private auto at the terminus of each trip to and from work.
The issue is whether the employer is legally permitted to deny the employee the right to carry during the transition period.
The employer is not. If the employee is legally empowered to possess a firearm on the public highway, that extends the right to keep it safely stored at the terminus of each transition.
The "personal property" rights of the employer do NOT trump the constitutional rights of the employee. In fact, the relationship between the employer and the employee are not a factor.
The lawyer is right in one point, though: this is NOT a "Concealed Carry Issue".
It's a constitutional issue, and this lawyer is being payed WAY too much to fight the issue, if he uses the "Employee Rights" claim to fight the Constitution.
At best, the lawyer should fight to require that the firearm be "safely secured" while on private property. But then he would have to hire a security consultant to define the term "safely secured".
He MIGHT convince a convivial judge that the employee should fit the bill to have his POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) guarded while at work. But given the big pockets of any corporation, vs the small salary of an employee, that would also be deemed Unconstitutional in a Supreme Court decision (not that they would touch this case!)
What do you want to bet that this lawyer didn't finish first in his Law School Class?
NOTE" This kind of contretemps has been fought between Colleges and their employees several times over the past few years; the ultimate result has almost universally been found for the employee.
On the other hand, if the Attorney can show a single incident when the care has been 'irresponsibly' left unlocked, it might turn the case.
how much do you think the Lawyer would have to pay to find a petty crook to jimmy the door of the employee's POV?
In other words:
PS: Boyd said the business groups hope the provision will be removed in the final version of the state’s two-year budget that is being discussed now in a 6-member conference committee made up of members of the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives. The House version of the state budget does not include the provision.“Looking at this new amendment we think it just exacerbates the problems of 199 by creating a new way to file a lawsuit against employers and private property owners,” Boyd said. “It’s a step backward for Ohio’s legal climate.”
Screw the citizen it's gonna be bad for business. Besides, we got the State on our side .. so screw him twice!! Who does he think he is?