Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2003 The Conceal Carry Law On April 28, 2003, Governor Pawlenty enacted the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2003. This Act amends Minnesota Statute 624.714 to allow qualified individuals to obtain a permit to carry a pistol or other firearm anywhere in the State, except for location prohibited by statute. It is to become effective 30 days after enactment, May 28, 2003. I. General Provisions of Statute The thrust of the statute is to foster more uniform and consistent procedures for obtaining permits to carry guns lawfully in Minnesota. Consideration of the matter prompted considerable debate over the separate matter of where those holding permits could carry their guns lawfully. The bill that was passed authorizes owners of private establishments, under stipulated conditions, to prohibit the carrying or possession of pistols or other firearms within their establishments, subject to the limitation that guns may not be prohibited from parking areas and parking facilities. The new statute further explicitly recognizes an employer s right to restrict the possession of firearms by its employees while they are acting in the course and scope of their employment. According to the statute, the owner or operator of a private establishment may prohibit the carrying of a firearm in that establishment by making a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment. The statute provides definitions for these key terms: A private establishment means a building, structure, or portion thereof, that is owned, leased, controlled, or operated by a non-governmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose. However, the statute explicitly provides that the owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of a firearm in a parking facility or parking area. A reasonable request means: (1) the prominent posting of a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the establishment containing the following language [COMPANY] BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES, and (2) the requestor personally informs the person carrying the firearm of the posted requirement and demands compliance. A prominently posted sign is defined to be readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance, with the bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor. To be conspicuous, the sign must contain lettering in black arial typeface at least 1 ½ inches in height against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Persons refusing to leave private establishments after all the foregoing conditions have been met are guilty of a petty misdemeanor, subject to the nominal punishment of no more than a $25 fine. They can also be deemed trespassers. Schools, defined to include day care centers, are expressly exempted from the reach of gun permits. Knowing possession of a firearm on school property, with or without a permit, is a felony. While this statute does not apply to a private residence, where the lawful possessor of the residence may prohibit firearms and provide notice of the prohibition in or by any lawful manner, a landlord may not restrict the lawful possession of firearms by tenants or their guests. II. The Employer s Next Step This statute will become effective on May 28, 2003. Between now and that date, employers will be well advised to review their circumstances and determine whether their current policies prohibit the carrying of firearms on a worksite, or during working hours, or whether a new policy should be created and implemented. If the employer s policy does not explicitly prohibit handguns or other firearms, a decision should be made whether to revise the policy to conform with the new statute. However, be aware that in the unionized setting, such changes or additions to work rules may be subject to a duty to bargain. Accordingly, the employer must review its individual circumstances before modifying any incomplete workplace rules. III. Practical Concerns Notwithstanding the specificity of some aspects of this new legislation, employers are finding that it presents them with a number of vexing issues. Some of those are highlighted below, together with some current recommendations: Should we Post our Buildings? Your answer to this central question will depend on your circumstances. Many employers are hearing expressions of anxiety from their employees about the prospect of guns being introduced into the workplace, if not by fellow workers, then by vendors, independent contractors, customers or guests. It appears clear that policies prohibiting employees from possessing guns while at work are not dependent on posted signs, but assuring that non-employees not carry firearms into the workplace may be. At the same time, there is concern that so many prominent posters about guns may raise consciousness on the subject and thereby inject apprehensions, contribute to violent thoughts or otherwise subtract from the atmosphere desired for workers, customers or other guests. In addition, there are lesser but significant concerns about the costs and aesthetics of so many conspicuous signs at every entrance. There appears to be no one universal answer to these dilemmas. Businesses operating in a retail environment indicate that they are feeling particular competing pressures. 2
There remains the concern that the ability to call in the police or other public authority to evict someone with a permit carrying a weapon into the workplace or parking lot may be circumscribed by the stipulations of this new statute. On the other hand, owners of private property generally have the right to control who is welcome on their property, regardless of whether a criminal statute is being violated. However, assertion of this right against a person with a gun permit, where the issue is possession of a gun, may be fraught with the prospect of a hazardous confrontation. When and how should or must we personally approach individuals? It does seem clear that in order to conform to the statute, at some point before a permitted person carrying a gun properly can be asked to leave, that person must be spoken to individually. This could be accomplished by a personal communication to everyone at the time of entry, perhaps incident to a search. More likely, the occasion would arise when it first comes to the attention of someone in authority that a person has possession of a firearm inside a posted building. At that point, some direct personal interaction would be required. Presumably, it would be best if that person were trained in how to handle a potentially threatening situation adroitly. He or she would need to calmly inform the armed guest of the policy against guns in the building, respectfully ask them to leave, and be aware of what steps to take if the request is refused. Must we tolerate guns in the parking lot? This is the hot topic of the hour. The gun permit is essentially a defense to a criminal charge of illegal possession of firearms. Rules incident to defining the scope of the permit quite arguably simply modify that criminal defense. They have no clear bearing on the entirely civil matters of how employers manage their work environment and how owners of private property grant access to their property. Indeed, this new law expressly recognizes employer prerogatives to manage their businesses. With respect to employees, employers would seem at liberty to take, or stick to, the position that possessing guns at work, even in the parking area, will not be tolerated, on penalty of discipline or discharge (subject to the potential duty to bargain mentioned earlier). Employees employed at will remain so employed, and are subject to termination of employment for any reason not legally prohibited. The flat mandatory provision in the statute stating that owners of private establishments may not prohibit guns in parking areas will be argued to bar such disciplinary action, but that provision quite arguably should be read in the context of the entire bill. In any event, it does not create a cause of action which an employee could easily use to sue for wrongful discharge. Prospectively, consideration might be warranted to inserting into the standard employment application the applicant s promise that if employed, he or she agrees not to possess any firearm or weapon anywhere at work, including in the parking area, or at any time while at work. 3
The greater concern relative to the parking lot or ramp is with respect to nonemployee guests. Again, the owner presumably remains in control of the premises, but the intent of the statute does seem to be to circumscribe the owner s rights to bar guns. The measure of incorporating into vendor and customer contracts a provision precluding guns in the parking area could address some concern moving forward. Advice could be provided that anyone possessing firearms in the lot will not be viewed with favor in future dealings. But for immediate purposes, it would seem that it will be difficult to assure that parking areas are fully gun-free. What training of supervisors and staff seems warranted? This is an important subject to consider. Especially during the immediate transition period, it will be important to make sure all those in positions of authority are fully versed in the content of this new law and your company s policies with respect to violence and guns. What policies are needed? Most employers will want to seriously consider issuing or reissuing policies against violence in the workplace and prohibiting possession of guns or weapons of any kind at work (without express reference to the parking area). 4
Example Policies Firearm Policy THE CARRYING OR POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS OR OTHER FIREARMS BY COMPANY PERSONNEL WHILE ON WORK PREMISES OR DURING WORKING TIME IS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPANY'S WORKPLACE VIOLENCE POLICY AND IS PROHIBITED. ANY VIOLATIONS OF THIS RULE WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATOR TO SEVERE PENALTIES, INCLUDING REMOVAL FROM THE PREMISES, TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTIONS. Workplace Violence Policy The Company is committed to providing a safe work environment. Employees who engage in violent acts or engage in behavior that threatens the safety of employees or visitors in the workplace may be subject to immediate disciplinary action, up to and including termination. The Company specifically prohibits the following activities: Engaging in, or threatening to engage in, an act of violence against an employee, visitor, or others in the workplace. Using or possessing any weapon or firearm on Company property or while conducting Company business. Storing any weapon in a vehicle, locker, desk, purse, or any other repository on Company property. Any person who engages in, or threatens to engage in, violent acts will be removed from the premises as soon as safety permits and shall remain off Company premises pending the outcome of any investigation. At that time, the Company will determine the appropriate action to be taken. Each employee is responsible for reporting acts of violence or threatening behavior to his or her supervisor, the Company s security personnel, or the Human Resources Department. 5