pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
can some one help me on this please???
#1
some one sent this to me and i dont really know much about it. can you please let me know what you think thanks.



Hey i saw your pretty good with research, so i was wondering if maybe you can help me. Im from WilkesBarre PA. I got a new part time job which has a policy that no employees can carry firearms. What i wanna know is if i carry anyway and there comes a time where i have to use my firearm in self defense will I still fall under Castle Doctrine. I was thinking yes, because im only violating the company policy, not the law. But I cant find any information to back that up. If you can find anything information on it id really appreciate it, Thank you.
crazydazy86, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#2
It will protect them more or less from retaliation from the police (charges) and from the assailant (suing) but as seen from many cases, it may not stop their employer from firing them from violating the company's no firearms policy.

Look at the guy who worked at Autozone down in Virginia.
May have saved his boss's life but he lost his job.

I believe there was a court decision to allow firearms to be in your personal vehicle on company property. (But this may be challenged if he works at a government facility.)

In regards to a firearm in a vehicle on company property (non-gov) maybe "don't ask, don't tell" is the best policy.

Here is the NRA release regarding the signing of the Pa. Castle Doctrine:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRele...x?ID=15275

I also recommend he get his LTCF if he does not have it yet.
This covers keeping a firearm in your vehicle also.

God bless!!

PPP
Proud to be a member of pa2a.org since 11:18 PM Sept 7, 2012!
Reply
#3
crazydazy86;50872 Wrote:some one sent this to me and i dont really know much about it. can you please let me know what you think thanks.



Hey i saw your pretty good with research, so i was wondering if maybe you can help me. Im from WilkesBarre PA. I got a new part time job which has a policy that no employees can carry firearms. What i wanna know is if i carry anyway and there comes a time where i have to use my firearm in self defense will I still fall under Castle Doctrine. I was thinking yes, because im only violating the company policy, not the law. But I cant find any information to back that up. If you can find anything information on it id really appreciate it, Thank you.


Act 40 (HB40) is not prerequisite on what your employer says.
(Here's the act) -> http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legi...40&pn=1038


BUT... PUFA requires that you leave the premises if you're asked to if you're carrying a firearm. I am not aware of any Act 40 cases that have headed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where it's been sorted-out whether or not an employee HR handbook direction not to bring-on-premises trumps your affirmative defense in Act 40.

A real-world situation would be that you work in a shop, you are in a situation that requires you to retrieve your firearm, charge it and fire--then a DA proceeds to slap you with VUFA. You would use Act 40 to defend against it and then the ADA would come back with your employer's firearms policy hoping to squash your affirmative defense claiming you had no right to have that firearm while you were on the employer's property and therefore, VUFA. Act 40 is meant to protect you from prosecution but it doesn't enumerate which P.A. Cs's your affirmative defense applies, so it would really take a test case in Common Pleas to figure out how judges will treat it.

In short, I don't think anybody can truthfully give you clear direction until this is actually tested or the laws are clarified.
Reply
#4
You can carry, but your boss can fire you for it as violating policy if the boss finds out.

Furthermore, you'd probably disqualify yourself from unemployment compensation, as carrying would likely be considered willful misconduct.

As to the castle doctrine - it should make no difference whether you were carrying on the job in violation of a work rule. If you were charged, you will have the burden under the crimes code to prove justification of use of force in self defense under 18 Pa CS 505.

Furthermore, if you were sued civilly for shooting someone in self sefense, you might be in hot water if the evidence that you carried in willful violation of a work rule comes in. That Temple student, Gerald Ung, who was acquitted of criminal charges, is now being civilly sued.

Hopefully this helps. It's a balance of whether you want to carry v risking losing your job if your boss finds out.
Leo, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Dec 2012.
Reply
#5
Leo;50894 Wrote:You can carry, but your boss can fire you for it as violating policy if the boss finds out.

Furthermore, you'd probably disqualify yourself from unemployment compensation, as carrying would likely be considered willful misconduct.

As to the castle doctrine - it should make no difference whether you were carrying on the job in violation of a work rule. If you were charged, you will have the burden under the crimes code to prove justification of use of force in self defense under 18 Pa CS 505.

Furthermore, if you were sued civilly for shooting someone in self sefense, you might be in hot water if the evidence that you carried in willful violation of a work rule comes in. That Temple student, Gerald Ung, who was acquitted of criminal charges, is now being civilly sued.

Hopefully this helps. It's a balance of whether you want to carry v risking losing your job if your boss finds out.

Thanks for that!
Reply
#6
ArcticSplash;50879 Wrote:BUT... PUFA requires that you leave the premises if you're asked to if you're carrying a firearm

Citation please?
Reply
#7
It is gross willful misconduct not willful misconduct that sets the threshold. I don't think having a firearm in your own personal property meets the gross threshold and I might be your juror. Regardless, it isn't explicitly against the law and If I'm going to my car to get my firearm to kill someone it is an life threatening or active shooting in progress and I could give two shits about any law at that point. No reasonable jury should ever think about convicting someone clearly saving the lives of others.
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.