Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 6/4/2008 4:01:15 PM EST
Already posted this on GPDO, I thought I'd try here too.

I apologize if this has been beat to death...
My employer just sent out an email concerning this law, and it included the following:

"The law became effective on May 14, 2008, and the company's policy, related to this subject, still applies for the following reason...

Georgia employers who are also owners of the property or who are in legal control of the property, may properly maintain and enforce policies that prohibit employees from keeping firearms in their vehicles, even if the employees have licenses and even if the firearms are locked out of sight.

A copy of XXXXXXX's Workplace Violence Policy is attached"

The policy says, in a nutshell:
-No weapons allowed on site
-Private vehicles/employees subject to search at any time for any reason - signed as a condition of employment
-Anyone caught with a weapon in a vehicle can be fired immediately

At first glance, I thought that all sounded correct, but after rereading the law, I don't think those policies are legal anymore (after 1 July, of course).

I got a lot of "just ignore it, conceal well, and refuse to consent to search" type comments on GPDO. That mentality is fine, but IMHO, if we're given a chance to change the policy, why not take it? Why rely on HR never choosing to enforce a bad policy?

My question is: Is their policy in violation of the HB 89 law changes? If so, why?
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 4:09:30 PM EST
No. H.B. 89 has no effect on private entities. The NRA language was designed for state like California where they have to have a reason to fire you; not Georgia where you can be fired for any reason (or no reason) at all. Also the language was then watered down to the point it means absolutely nothing. The only good in H.B. 89 is the expanded carry areas and GFL timeline that GCO tacked on at the end.

I sat through the hearing where they debated this. In the end it really means nothing.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 4:50:31 PM EST
Just looking at the vehicle search side of the law, ignoring the firearms side for the moment - Doesn't HB 89 prohibit an employer from making blanket consent to search a condition for employment? It also seems to make it illegal to search an employee's car except under very specific circumstances.

Or is your point that no matter what the law says about their policies, they can still fire you or refuse to hire you for not consenting to a search?
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 5:36:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/4/2008 5:36:46 PM EST by Malum-Prohibitum]

Originally Posted By DKing:
No. H.B. 89 has no effect on private entities. The NRA language was designed for state like California where they have to have a reason to fire you; not Georgia where you can be fired for any reason (or no reason) at all.

Ok, let us assume the following. George goes to his employer and says, "I carry a gun!" "But I want you to rest assured that I will keep it out of sight in the parking lot, like HB 89 says."

His employer freaks out.

The next day, George, who has had a stellar record up until that day, is fired for wearing his hair too short.

Assuming he does not instantly go on a rampage and kill everybody (the inevitable result of having a gun locked away in the parking lot), do you claim that George has no cause of action?

Link Posted: 6/4/2008 6:03:53 PM EST
We just got new handbooks too. Their lawyer was there to go over it today. When revision 1 comes out next week, the little section about guns in vehicles will not be in it!
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 3:46:57 AM EST
DKing, you stated "H.B. 89 has no effect on private entities"

Does this mean Privately Held Companies or does it apply to Publicly Held Companies (like ones that have shareholders and are publicly traded on the NY Stock Exchange), like Coke, Pepsi, WalMart, etc...?

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 5:22:01 AM EST
All I'm getting at is that in Georgia you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all by non-governmental entities. Like Malum says if the guy is fired under suspicious circumstances the employee will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was because of the gun alone. The employer will just make a showing there were other reasons. That boils down to a protracted legal battle, while you are out of work to boot. The law does not say they can't fire you at all, or that they have to prove cause before they fire you. The law (to my knowledge) doesn't provide for penalties either. It's just a policy statement.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 12:29:54 PM EST
I never park in the work parking lot, I park in the back lot of the Hotel next to work.
Top Top