Ready, Fire, Aim: Minnesota's New Concealed Gun Law
By: RICHARD A. ROSS
August 2003
The Minnesota Citizen's Personal Protection Act of 2003 (commonly referred to as the "Conceal and Carry Law") became law on May 28, 2003. Individuals with a permit to carry a "firearm" now are permitted to carry a weapon to work or while engaged in work, unless the employer restricts that right. Although the statute did not provide much guidance regarding such restrictions, it would appear that an employer's published policy (acknowledged by every employee) will suffice. If the employees are represented by a union, the employer must bargain with the union regarding implementation of the policy, if it is a new policy.
To avoid having non-employees bringing guns onto its premises, a private employer must post a notice and provide personal notification that guns are banned on the premises. The statute defines, in great detail, what must be on the notice and how it must appear. Notices must be posted at every entrance to the facility. There have been some interesting interpretations of this provision. One of the churches that is suing the State over the law has a sign quoting the Bible. Another employer (a restaurant) has a picture of a woman in a cooking apron holding a machine gun. It appears that some are using the posting to make a statement as well as to comply with the law.
The new law also requires the employer to provide some type of "personal" notice. Again, it does not specify how employers are to provide the personal notice. Many employers have added specific personal notice language to the "sign-in" logs that are typically kept at the receptionist's desk.
However, despite an employer's right to promulgate a policy prohibiting firearms on its premises, the statute clearly states that individuals with permits may bring their firearms into a private parking lot or parking facility. There may be ways employers can ban guns from their parking lots.
One possibility is to not employ anyone with a permit to carry a firearm. Employers could screen out "permit-holders" during the hiring process and could also canvass their current employees. Assuming, all current employees are at-will, they could be given the choice of continued employment or surrendering their permit. Of course, this does not solve the issue as it relates to non-employees. It also may have the effect of unduly limiting the employment pool. This option may be viewed by some as extreme and could result in a test case to determine whether being a "permit holder" is a protected class of employees.
A second, and perhaps better, option is to ban firearms on company premises, including parking facilities, under the "General Duty" clause of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). That provision, provides, in part:
"Each employer . . . shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. . . ."
Because federal law pre-empts state law, an employer could argue that it is obligated under OSHA to provide a safe working environment and therefore has the duty under federal law to ban firearms from all its premises, including parking lots.
It is unclear how the Courts will interpret and apply this new statute. An employer who adopts either or both of the policies may find itself involved in a "test" case. Employers should consult with their employment counsel before taking any action in connection with this new statute, and especially when considering implementing a restrictive hiring policy as described above.