Early in my career, the company was still awarding shotguns if one desired them for years of service and safety. Of course that's no longer politically correct in spite of none of these firearms ever being used locally to intimidate, threaten, harm, maim, injure, or kill anyone.
If you think for a moment that you're relatively safe from termination because someone does not know of a locked firearm in your vehicle. You may wish to read on. Parking off property is the best option if you wish to carry. As far as I'm concerned on this issue, if you are a law abiding CCW holder, you should have every right to carry a legal firearm in your vehicle (property). Unfortunately it does not work that way at this time.
(Submittion to the local newspaper)
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A recent news story focused on the use of local police agency dogs performing sniff [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]searches on employee vehicles in company parking lots at the request of some area employers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]My understanding is what hasn't been told is the firing of some employees [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]as a result of such search in spite of no law violation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]In addition to searching for [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]illegal drugs and related contraband, the dogs have also been trained to search for firearm related scents. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A positive indication could range from an actual firearm itself to residue left over from [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]transporting empty shotgun shell casings after a prior night of trap shooting. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]When a positive is indicated, reports state the police run the plate and give [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]the vehicle ownership information to the employer. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The employee is then called to the vehicle by the employer and given the option of subjecting themselves [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]to an immediate vehicle search and being vindicated or fired, based on what the officers [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]report finding to the employer and the discretion of corporate policy; not law.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Disagree with me on the right to legally posses a secured firearm or ammunition in [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]one's vehicle if you wish, that's not really the issue here. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]What's truly at issue here is the misuse of public resources that you and I pay for and seems to [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]always be spread too thin. I contend it's not unreasonable to equate this use of police power [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]at taxpayer expense for enforcement of heavy-handed corporate policy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]In these instances the officer and dog are in effect acting as a security service to the private sector. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]This distasteful liaison between police agencies and local corporations should not [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]exist and at the very least needs to cease being performed on time funded by the rest of us. [/FONT]