The CCW in casinos thread got me thinking about my work.

I remember a thread where the guy worked for a car dealership, and the owner of the dealership had made him while carrying at work several times, and repeatedly told him to quit carrying while at his company.

That was pretty clear - the guy had been warned, and needed to knock it off as the owner of the company told him not to carry on the premises.

My employer has a sign on the gate that reads:

"Pursuant to NRS 202.3673, no firearms allowed on the premises"

I think we can all agree that "no firearms allowed on the premises" is not what NRS 202.3673 stipulates, or even covers (the company is a privately owned corporation, i.e. NOT the public buildings addressed in the statute).

With a CCW permit, technically speaking, "Pursuant to NRS 202.3673," I am allowed to carry a firearm concealed upon my person while going upon the premises.

My question is this:

Because they didn't do their research, and incorrectly cited the NRS, I believe I can carry at work with impunity, but really only on a one-time technicality (i.e. until they wise up).

However, their intent is pretty clear that they don't want any firearms on the premises (the entire upper management is a transplant for the Bay Area over the hill in Kommifornia, and the CEO is actually British). I know that because its private property, they have the right to hold me to the Tresspassing statue (NRS 207.200), and bar me from entry for doing anything they don't like once they have informed me of their wishes.

Is the sign at the gate enough of a notice that I should already consider myself so warned, and just not carry at work?

The whole reason I bring this up, is that I don't have a problem leaving my firearm in the car and not bringing it into the plant. But as written, I can't even leave the firearm in the car so that I've got it going to and coming from work

I can't speak to the legal aspects of it, but I'll give ya my 2 cents on the moral.
With the company's stated attitude, they have taken a political position on a topic that may carry a lot of weight in the area they originated, but is likely to cause them grief here.
To my way of thinking, they have chosen to make a statement contrary to both the National and State constituions, and have tried to implement it as a workplace policy. this is done under the guise of workplace safety.
I, personally, would just go right on carrying, and keep it a secret. My life is worth way more to me and my family then it will ever be to a corporate entity, and I believe a I have a God given obligation to return home each night to them and to provide for them the next day.
If I were caught, I'd point out their ignorance of the culture and show them how they are actually alienating law abiding citizens. Their platform can easily be taken to further extremes.
They could post a sign, citing the same statutes, reading," No Blacks allowed on the premises". Justifiably, due the traditionally high crime rates in black neighborhoods, the numbers of blacks in prison and the dangers of Gangsta Rap, it'd be a workplace safety issue.
Or perhaps with their Bay Area bent, a sign reading " No Homosexuals allowed on the premises" would help them understand. Considering the way a particular commicable, blood borne pathogen spread through the gay community, surely they wouldn't want to risk the safety of their employees.
I'd also like to see how well a "No Muslims" sign would fly.( No 9/11 pun intended).
When they try to tell you that those groups are all constitutionally protected, just tell them the founding fathers never intended to protect those folks, they couldn't have imagined AIDS/HIV, 9/11,or that blacks would be free people. Your proclamations of ignorance will sound just as stupid to them as theirs do to you.
NOTE TO THE PC POLICE: I do not hold or espouse those beliefs, they are used here for demonstrative purposes only!

I'll give you another take on it.  Even if you are legal to carry because they didn't post their sign properly, you are probably an "at will" employee, as are most of us.  This means they don't really need a reason to decide they don't want you to work there any longer, just as you don't need some reason to quit.  You might win in court re: the right to carry concealed, but I would bet you'd do it as an ex-employee.  Your choice.

Quoted: I'll give you another take on it.  Even if you are legal to carry because they didn't post their sign properly, you are probably an "at will" employee, as are most of us.  This means they don't really need a reason to decide they don't want you to work there any longer, just as you don't need some reason to quit.  You might win in court re: the right to carry concealed, but I would bet you'd do it as an ex-employee.  Your choice.

OK, so I make myself an absolutely indispensable employee, demand that they double my salary, and rewrite my contract where I get to open carry, and keep a shotgun above my desk

Problem solved!

Seriously though - the At Will employment (you're correct  - we are At Will here) issue crossed my mind regarding this matter. However, they've never actually fired anyone here. We have a very strict drug policy, with random on-site drug testing. There are a couple guys who chronically failed the drug test, but the company simply wouldn't fire them (guess the policy isn't so strict, then ....).

Instead, they essentially made them into janitors, and had them cleaning all the toilets and mopping the floors several times per day. The intent was to get the guys so fed up that they would finally just quit.

It worked, and the company didn't have to fire them

If you are a gov't employee, the law allows you to carry at you work and prohibits your employer from stopping you.

You just need to get on the gov't tit....

Quoted: If you are a gov't employee, the law allows you to carry at you work and prohibits your employer from stopping you. You just need to get on the gov't tit....

Just show me where to suckle ......

Hey just because your CEO is a Brit doesn't make him anti gun it is more like the Bay area Komifornians. I agree with your position 100% but just wanted you to know us Brits are as gun madas the rest of you given the chance.

Quoted: Hey just because your CEO is a Brit doesn't make him anti gun it is more like the Bay area Komifornians. I agree with your position 100% but just wanted you to know us Brits are as gun madas the rest of you given the chance.

So with a handle like "Pedro," you're coming from the UK? If you say so, buddy

But OK, mea culpa. I assumed that because my boss is from the UK, lived in the Bay Area for untold years, and approved posting the sign at the gate, that he is anti-gun.

I may be way off base ...... I dunno. You know what they say about  what happens when you ASSume -- I guess I made an Ass out of me and myself

Point well-taken, Pedro, and maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm going to hold off on barging into his office and exclaiming "OK, what gives with anti-gun, closed-minded propaganda BullShit on the front gate mis-referencing the NRSs ??????"  

That will be a fight left for another day

Quoted: Quoted: If you are a gov't employee, the law allows you to carry at you work and prohibits your employer from stopping you. You just need to get on the gov't tit.... Just show me where to suckle ......

Reminds me of a great Pic, and I just can't help myself ..... it makes me chuckle every time

Quoted: I'll give you another take on it.  Even if you are legal to carry because they didn't post their sign properly, you are probably an "at will" employee, as are most of us.  This means they don't really need a reason to decide they don't want you to work there any longer, .

"At-Will" is a bit of misnomer, as exemptions to that policy are allowed on a state by state basis.  For example, if you are fired because you filed a sexual harrasment claim, do you really think that falls under the "At-Will" doctrine?  (It actually does in some states!  But not in NV...)

From my limited research, NV has the similar "At-Will" exemptions as CA, of which bargaining in bad faith is one.  My point is, if the company manual makes no references to weapons at work, and you are in legal compliance with the posted sign, they would be firing you for engaging in a legal act.  Probable grounds for a lawsuit here.

Where's Chiz?