I recently got a question from a gentleman who was asking about whether or not an employer could legally prohibit a person from keeping a firearm in their locked vehicle while at work. He specifically asked about keeping the gun in the car unloaded and out of sight. He also asked about the legal liability that the employer might have if you were unable to defend yourself in a carjacking or similar situation as a result of this prohibition.

This is a pretty serious issue for a lot of us in Arizona and also for gun owners in general in many other states. The NRA has been lobbying hard to get state legislatures to address this issue which they feel unfairly limits a person’s Second Amendment rights.

There are really two issues to discuss here. First is the right that a property owner has to prohibit firearms on his or her private property. This right also extends to businesses. In Arizona, an individual or company can legally prohibit persons from bringing a firearm on their premises. They need only provide reasonable notice of that prohibition, such as a sign at the entrance to the building or parking lot. In the case of an employer, that notice could simply be a statement of company policy. There is a much larger question that deals with whether this type of policy can be made a condition of employment. We aren’t going to try and address that issue here.

The second issue is the right of an individual to carry a firearm for personal protection as provided under the Second Amendment to the Constitution and under the laws of the State of Arizona.

At this point, there is a conflict in the law. That conflict means that as a visitor to a business or as an employee of a business that prohibits firearms on their premises, you are breaking the law if you bring a gun into their building or parking lot in violation of their prohibition. The specific law you would be breaking would most likely be Criminal Trespass. This is a misdemeanor crime in most cases. If you are interested in a discussion of the laws regarding criminal trespass in Arizona, you can read a prior post I have written by clicking on the following link: http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2008/06/01/penalty-for-trespassing/

Regarding the question of liability, the law is silent. You could certainly sue your employer if their prohibition resulted in your injury or a property loss as a direct result of your inability to defend yourself. In reality, it would be a tough thing to prove and since most companies have much deeper pockets than most of us who work for a living, it would be a tough case to win.

There is legislation pending in Arizona right now that would make it legal for you to have a firearm in your locked vehicle in your employer’s parking lot as long as that parking lot is ‘publicly accessible’. It also releases the employer or business from any liability that might result from a careless, negligent or illegal act that might occur on their property as a result of someone bringing a firearm on their property. Similar laws have passed in Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

The law recently passed in Georgia did not get quite as much bang for the buck as was originally hoped. The original law was more of a blanket prohibition of any limitation on bringing a firearm into a public parking facility. What actually came out of the legislature was much different.

Essential, the Georgia law limits the ability of public or private employers “to search the locked privately owned vehicles of employees or invited guests on the employee’s parking lot and access thereto;” or “conditioning employment upon any agreement by a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from entering the parking lot and access thereto when the employee’s personal vehicle contains a licensed concealed firearm in his or her vehicle.” It should be noted that these limitations don’t apply to company leased or owned vehicles.

In addition, the law provides for the possibility of search of the vehicle by the company if “a reasonable person would believe that accessing a locked vehicle of an employee is necessary to prevent an immediate threat to human life or safety”.

Finally, employers will not violate the Georgia law if they perform a search that has been consented to by the employee and performed by “licensed private security officers for loss prevention purposes based on probable cause that the employee unlawfully possesses employer property”.

This raises a whole multitude of issues with respect to who is a “licensed private security officer”. Whether or not a supervisor that participated in the search would be violating the law. Whether the search was reasonable based on the size of the employer and the property that has been alleged to have been taken. Certainly, one can imagine several scenarios where overzealous application of the narrow exceptions could result in employee’s vehicle being searched.

As you can see, this is going to be a tough issue to resolve. Let’s hope that Arizona is able to do a better job than Georgia was able to do. That’s said, it is a positive development that at least Georgia has done something to protect the rights of their licensed concealed permit holders.