Conceal at work place??

[super7ball 0]

Hello all, new to forum. Wondering what the "legal" position is on carrying or having a firearm within reach at my place of business which operates late hours?

[Jon 264]

Do you own the business?

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Welcome to the Forum and if you are not the owner of the business, it's illegal..

[vladtepes 1,060]

been discussed at great lengths..

 

if you own the business you can carry at work

if you are hired licensed armed security you can carry at work

 

and that is about the only time you can legally carry at work.. there are anecdotal stories of others carrying at work.. but the law says "at HIS place of business" meaning ownership.. so no.. unless you OWN the business (not your dads friends aunts neighbors business.. lol).. YOUR business..

[Daedalus 19]

The interpretation that "HIS place of business" infers ownership is unclear to me. Is there NJ case law supporting? I can't find it anywhere. Lots of reasoning (mostly good) and opinion, but cannot find case law.

[Malsua 1,422]

Hello all, new to forum. Wondering what the "legal" position is on carrying or having a firearm within reach at my place of business which operates late hours?

 

As others have said, unless you own it, you can't carry. If it's that dangerous, maybe it's time for a new job.

[Soju 153]

The interpretation that "HIS place of business" infers ownership is unclear to me. Is there NJ case law supporting? I can't find it anywhere. Lots of reasoning (mostly good) and opinion, but cannot find case law.

 

There was a 1973 case that Dan and vlad posted a while back, though even that is not explicitly clear.

 

State of NJ v. Valentine

 

http://174.123.24.24...1985&SizeDisp=7

 

Other relevant threads.

 

http://njgunforums.c...ce-of-business/

 

http://njgunforums.c...rrying-at-work/

[vladtepes 1,060]

The interpretation that "HIS place of business" infers ownership is unclear to me. Is there NJ case law supporting? I can't find it anywhere. Lots of reasoning (mostly good) and opinion, but cannot find case law.

 

yes...

there is case law where the court rendered that decision..

and while I am NOT into assuming anything.. we all know the gun rights climate in NJ.. and I think most will agree..

if it is clear.. it is clear.. (transport.. AWB.. all that is pretty clear).. in that case just follow the law..

if it is even KIND OF not clear.. err on the side of assuming NJ will side with the anti-gun mindset..

With that said.. they say his place of business.. his is a word that expresses ownership.. "Dan" dug deep and found a case where the basically asserted that it was the owners right because he had a right to protect his financial interest/business and an employee would not have that same interest. They EVEN openly admit that the intent is to limit guns as much as possible.. I have been told directly by a local municipality AND NJSP that only owners could assume that right... not that either is the end all of info..but basically everything I have ever encountered has indicated that it was solely for owners.. OR licensed armed guards..

[Daedalus 19]

There was a 1973 case that Dan and vlad posted a while back, though even that is not explicitly clear. State of NJ v. Valentine http://174.123.24.24...1985&SizeDisp=7 Other relevant threads. http://njgunforums.c...ce-of-business/ http://njgunforums.c...rrying-at-work/

Thanks, Bones I'm digging through lots of case law to see what I can find. So far there is little to report. If I get lucky I will find a published case conflicting with this decision

 

Agreed, Vlad. I'm not disputing what you or others were told. I am hoping to find an actual published case that would negate the NJSP and municipalities making up their own regulations.

[Daedalus 19]

Well, four of my associates and I have been researching for a couple of hours. Not a lot of effort, I grant you, but the results are disappointing.

 

NJ employees are basically screwed by the Valentine ruling. They actually came out and said it - "However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible". The courts on ruling on perceived philosophy of others. How wonderful!

 

I'll keep digging but do not hold your breath.

 

One interesting observation: It may be construed the appellant was on probation. If so, he would be a convicted felon and therefore unable to possess. Did this sway the court? It's impossible to tell, but may well be the case.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Well, four of my associates and I have been researching for a couple of hours. Not a lot of effort, I grant you, but the results are disappointing.

 

NJ employees are basically screwed by the Valentine ruling. They actually came out and said it - "However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible". The courts on ruling on perceived philosophy of others. How wonderful!

 

I'll keep digging but do not hold your breath.

 

One interesting observation: It may be construed the appellant was on probation. If so, he would be a convicted felon and therefore unable to possess. Did this sway the court? It's impossible to tell, but may well be the case.

 

keep in mind.. this is a ruling YEARS ago... I was not even born yet... but I am going to go out on a limb here and say the climate while maybe not "pro-gun" was probably a little less "anti-gun"... I would venture a guess that a case today would likely be even worse on the violator.. when it comes to NJ not much has changed in the mentality of limiting guns.. which the exception of laws being MORE strict..

[super7ball 0]

Sorry I posted than actually had to get ready for work. Thanks for all the information. I am the business owner and close most nights after 1-2 AM.

[Jon 264]

Sorry I posted than actually had to get ready for work. Thanks for all the information. I am the business owner and close most nights after 1-2 AM.

 

If you are the business owner, you are good to go to carry on any of the premises leased or owned by yourself. IE, no common areas in a strip-mall type setting, etc.

[vladtepes 1,060]

sure this goes without saying.. but must be transported TO and FROM directly as in any other exempted location.... not on your persons till you get there..

[SpecialK 193]

...or when you leave. So right before you walk out into the dark parking lot at 2am make sure to disarm yourself as your right to self defense is not absolute in this state.

[Malsua 1,422]

...or when you leave. So right before you walk out into the dark parking lot at 2am make sure to disarm yourself as your right to self defense is not absolute in this state.

 

Yeah, make sure you make a point of taking the gun off, unloading it in the parking lot and putting it in the trunk. This way anyone who happens by knows you're unarmed and not a danger to anyone. You should probably do this under in the bright light and make a big production of it. Maybe even say it out loud "I'M UNLOADING MY GUN NOW, IT'S IN THE TRUNK SO I DON'T VIOLATE ANY TRANSPORATION LAWS". Then you can put a sign in the back window "unarmed" sorta like the ones you see in the back of a bus "empty". It's for everyone's safety, dontcha know.

[vladtepes 1,060]

If the parking lot is his property as well and not communal ground he has no obligation. To disarm till IN his car... He Is also of no obligation to transport in the trunk... Walk out armed... Get in car... Warm it up lock doors... Unload and case gun... Stick on backseat or floor... LEO tends to prefer trunk transport but the law does not mandate it...

[SpecialK 193]

If the parking lot is his property as well and not communal ground he has no obligation. To disarm till IN his car... He Is also of no obligation to transport in the trunk... Walk out armed... Get in car... Warm it up lock doors... Unload and case gun... Stick on backseat or floor... LEO tends to prefer trunk transport but the law does not mandate it...

 

^THIS

 

I assumed that he would not own the parking area as well as I have become an urban dweller here in NJ and no one owns parking

[Murphy4570 15]

Is it legal for the owner to keep a firearm stored at his place of buisness, within easy access for employees to use if needed for self defense?

[vladtepes 1,060]

Is it legal for the owner to keep a firearm stored at his place of buisness, within easy access for employees to use if needed for self defense?

 

There is no mention of anything that would grant individuals immunity from handling any firearm at a place of business further there is a case in which the courts ruled that employees do not have the same financial interest as owners and thus are not granted the ability to carry at work... An OWNER can carry at work but that is IMO about the limit..

[SpecialK 193]

The owner may legally keep a weapon on his property. If an employee is in a situation to pick up a gun and use it then it being legal or not is the least of their worries.