Did they have the right

[RCB]

Is it possible that an actual crime has occured here. I mean the 'threat' made by the other employee, though indirect... does that constitute a crime? If so, is the handgun evidence?

I am very curious about this case and hope to hear an update once it is resolved.

p.s. To the original poster... You may want to hold off on releasing any more information to the world until you speak with your attorney.

If the Attorney route doesn't give you any results, then I would go to the media, and you may even want to contact the NRA.

And, not that I am a vengeful person, but do you ever make notes of transgressions that nearly every company commits? That would be the time to consider whether a call to whistle blower type hotlines can come in handy. Don't make any false claims... but it can give those companies more to worry about than, infringing upon a person's constitutional rights.

 

[jennybird]

I'm curious. Did the guy who made the threat to shoot his boss get fired too?

 

[JetGirl]

In this state, does it even matter? (Since Indiana is an "At Will Employment" state...)
I thought that means you don't need a reason to quit and they don't need a reason to fire you (unions excepted).

 

[femurphy77]

Since Indiana recently ruled (or was it federal) that you are in your right to have a legal weapon in your car on company property; and IF they stated that's why they fired him, I would think there would be a legal recourse. I understand Indianas' employment law but isn't this right now protected? OTOH if they gave no reason, yeah I agree he's SOL!! Gee makes you want to shut your piehole the next time somebody threatens the boss!!! Just another barstool attorneys opinion, if you are granted millions in the lawsuit remember your buddies

 

[jennybird]

In this state, does it even matter? (Since Indiana is an "At Will Employment" state...)
I thought that means you don't need a reason to quit and they don't need a reason to fire you (unions excepted).

Generally speaking yes, but there could be a way out for him if the company breached its own termination policies or if he was fired for an unlawful reason such as discrimination. Could an attorney twist this into a discrimination suit? In my opinion it is an absolute possibility. He committed no crime or violation of company policy and yet was discriminated against for being a right winged 2A extremist criminal thug.

Yes, I have quite the imagination. It works well for me though so I stick with it.

 

[Bigum1969]

It sounds like this may have a lot to do with the threat tht your co-worker made. Perhaps law enforcement felt compelled to retrieve the firearm because of the threat. I don't know. You really need to read the fine print on everything you signed and were given when hired.

 

[RCB]

I think the best shot at litigation would probably be unlawful search and seizure. Companies need to be made to recognize that the constitution still applies to them as well. Something they (they being the board of directors) forget a lot. While he can be terminated at any time, their unlawful practice caused the loss of his job.

Of course this opinion is worth what you payed for it

 

[Crystalship1]

I lost my job on friday the reason i was given was because I had a firearm on the company property. Now the gun is legal I have a permit to carry the firearm and there is no company policy against it. The county officers went through everything i owned on the property without my approval and removed my firearm from my locked car and I was told that I could retrive the firearm after 72 hours. Now for the questions did the company have the right to terminate my employement? And did the officers have the right to do what they did? I understand the officers have a job to do but did they have the right to take my firearm? The officers were polite and professional but,i dont understand how they can do this?
THANKS
Matt

Brian Ciyou (Indianapolis 2nd Amendment attorney) :

Ciyou & Dixon

Not Rated | Write a Review

320 N Meridian Street, # 600,
Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 972-8000
(317) 955-7100 Fax

 

[ewoodworth1]

now if only you replaced the whole "fired because of having a gun in your car" with "fired because of your race" now that would be one hell of a case...

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[RCB]

If he signed an agreement, then yes. If not, then it was unlawful search and seizure. The company can fire him for anything. But trespassing on your private property, they can not do unless you give them permission. Nothing is actionable anyhow save for the courses of legal action. They called law enforcement right? That is to say they didn't go into the vehicle directly, but called law enforcement. The police had no right to search, as there was no law broken, no emergency, nothing save the request from the company to search property that didn't belong to them.

As was mentioned, if he actually gave permission, then there isn't anything to be done, other than bad press for the company. (or good if you are pro gun control)

 

[Scutter01]

I think the best shot at litigation would probably be unlawful search and seizure. Companies need to be made to recognize that the constitution still applies to them as well. Something they (they being the board of directors) forget a lot. While he can be terminated at any time, their unlawful practice caused the loss of his job.

Of course this opinion is worth what you payed for it

The Constitution doesn't apply to the company in that way. However, according to the OP, the company did not search his vehicle; local law enforcement did:

the car was locked with the windows up. the officers went into my lunch box and retrived the keys and i signed nothing about a search when I hired in i still have copies of everything that i signed oh the gun was out of sight and not visible

 

[The Meach]

Another Element that could be added into this case by the company, Is that you failed to secure that firearm.

Its obvious that people knew that the gun was in your car, and that your keys were in your lunchbox.

So the company could make the argument that anyone could have gotten into your car and "gone on a rampage". So they can state in court that you were irresponsible and by firing you and temp taking the gun they were mitigating a threat to their business and the people inside.

I think you are getting a raw deal but in the end i doubt you have a legal leg to strand on. Welcome to unemployment, sorry homes.

 

[Bubba]

Since Indiana recently ruled (or was it federal) that you are in your right to have a legal weapon in your car on company property

Link, please. If you are referring to Indiana SB 11 it was only passed by the Senate. It is currently stalled in committee in the House and not likely to get a hearing this year.Senate Bill 0011

I think the best shot at litigation would probably be unlawful search and seizure. Companies need to be made to recognize that the constitution still applies to them as well.

It most certainly does not. The Constitution applies to the police officers who searched the car, but depending on their justification for the search it may or may not have been a violation. The company was probably well within their rights to go into the lunch box, assuming it was inside a company building or locker.

e:f,b

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Scutter01]

The company was probably well within their rights to go into the lunch box, assuming it was inside a company building or locker.

e:f,b

I think you're probably right about this (although it's still personal property, just like the car), but even finding the keys doesn't necessarily give them the right to search your car. It just makes it easier to open the door.

 

[RCB]

I think you do have a leg to stand on, given that you didn't sign over rights. It may not be the company, but the police department itself, as the company wasn't actually the ones who got into your car.

And even if you have keys, it's still considered breaking and entering/trespassing if you don't have permission. Like I said originally, need to check to see if they did get a search warrant.

But x2 on the sharing of information. Bad idea in general. You can't trust anyone these days, least of all for them to be sensible.

One other question though... did you have a LTCH at the time of the incident?

 

[glock34]

WOW

I think you're probably right about this (although it's still personal property, just like the car), but even finding the keys doesn't necessarily give them the right to search your car. It just makes it easier to open the door.

I would agree just because they found the keys does not make it ok to use them. If they had found $20 could they have spent it. I think someone is getting the shaft here.

I came this thread trying to get an update the bill to allow you to have a handgun in your car. Seems like crimes are still growing. Car jacking 2 blocks from work or home in Fishers makes me want to be able to defend myself.

I would also agree with some of the other here that is this is going to become a legal issue then you should not discuss it anymore until there is a final outcome. Then flame the company.

 

[RCB]

I would agree just because they found the keys does not make it ok to use them. If they had found $20 could they have spent it. I think someone is getting the shaft here.

I came this thread trying to get an update the bill to allow you to have a handgun in your car. Seems like crimes are still growing. Car jacking 2 blocks from work or home in Fishers makes me want to be able to defend myself.

I would also agree with some of the other here that is this is going to become a legal issue then you should not discuss it anymore until there is a final outcome. Then flame the company.

Yeah good idea. These forums don't need you to be a member/logged in to see threads.

 

[dburkhead]

Actually, no, the Constitution does not apply to private entities. This is why websites can ban you if you say something that they do not like, and companies can make you sign an agreement to subject your vehicle/person to search as a condition of employment. The Constitution only outlines what government can and cannot do.

The things that would be unconstitutional for the government to do are generally crimes when performed by private entities. Tings like search and seizure don't need to be "unconstitutional" when they're already covered by things like "breaking and entering" and "theft."

Agreement to being subject to search as a condition of employment is one thing, but the OP does state that that was not the case here. OP could be mistaken, but if the statement is correct then the folk who ordered that search and seizure and the folk who carried it out committed a crime, possibly several.

That said, I will reiterate what others have said: talk to a lawyer and get actual expert legal advice rather than the advice of a bunch of unknown people on the Internet.