Carrying at work...

[BigHayden 77]

your hypothetical rights to carry end where your "place of business" ends.. meaning that any time you set foot on a "lot" the gun would have to be removed first..

 

Actually, it says premises, which would include any lots/parking areas that fall within your property line. For example, my father-in-law has an auto repair shop that has 2 fenced in lots on either side of his building. As long as he stays within the confines of that fence/building, he would be legal to carry (and yes, he "owns" the property; much the same way many of us "own" our homes).

[BigHayden 77]

I argue the logical point because I prefer it over emotional response..

like I was saying.. if ANY employee could legally carry a firearm while "on the job" there would be no real need to spend time and money obtaining licensing to be armed security..

 

I'm not sure I agree with that last part... In NJ, every F'ing thing has to be licensed. Contractors, electricians, plumbers, roofers, dog walkers, etc. Don't fall into the trap that licensing is anything more than government control with an added benefit of a revenue stream. Just because there are "licensed" anything doesn't mean you can't do it yourself.

[Dan 177]

if ANY employee could legally carry a firearm while "on the job" there would be no real need to spend time and money obtaining licensing to be armed security..

 

I would say there are legal ramifications if you hire someone under the auspice of them bringing a gun for security guard duty. That is like hiring a guy with pliers and a multimeter under the auspice that they will be an electrician for the company. There are rules, regs, and laws to follow around officially carrying out these types of activities and roles.

 

Now if someone wanted to bring pliers and a multimeter for work for their own personal use, that would be totally fine. Just like someone bringing a gun to work (provided the employer allows it and the "place of business" is a fixed location like a office) for self-protection.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

So I work for my father at a business owned by himself and my grandmother (its an LLC). Can I legally CC on the premesis? Its by no means a dangerious place however I would like to get used to having it on my person for when i make out of state trips with my soon to come UTAH permit.

 

Its an 11 acre mobile home community..

 

You have a lot of answers going both ways I see. My wife owns her own business and she can carry at work, even though her and my last names are the same, as I read it, My Name would need to be listed as an owner for me to carry there, I am not listed as an owner so I can not carry there.

 

Do yourself a favor, if in the future you will be more than a employee in the family business and will one day be a part owner or the owner have yourself legally listed as an owner and avoid any hassle that could arise if something happened.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Actually, it says premises, which would include any lots/parking areas that fall within your property line. For example, my father-in-law has an auto repair shop that has 2 fenced in lots on either side of his building. As long as he stays within the confines of that fence/building, he would be legal to carry (and yes, he "owns" the property; much the same way many of us "own" our homes).

 

I agree with that.. when I referred to "lots" I was referring to the individual lots that he is leasing out to individual owners.. other than himself..

his situation is slightly different.. as the "place of business" includes areas that are being rented out.. I would assume that all land rented out.. and all common land would be off limits to carry because once it is leased to a tenant it stops becoming a commercial "place of business" and is someone's personal residence..

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with that last part... In NJ, every F'ing thing has to be licensed. Contractors, electricians, plumbers, roofers, dog walkers, etc. Don't fall into the trap that licensing is anything more than government control with an added benefit of a revenue stream. Just because there are "licensed" anything doesn't mean you can't do it yourself.

 

I am pretty certain that in NJ licensing for "armed guards" is not just a scheme you can get around.. I am pretty sure that being an armed guard requires licensing by the state.. as in I do not think you could just go out tomorrow and apply for a position as an armed guard and tell them.. hey that licensing.. don't sweat it.. I am a good shot.... licensing is just some piece of paper anyway...

 

I would say there are legal ramifications if you hire someone under the auspice of them bringing a gun for security guard duty. That is like hiring a guy with pliers and a multimeter under the auspice that they will be an electrician for the company. There are rules, regs, and laws to follow around officially carrying out these types of activities and roles. Now if someone wanted to bring pliers and a multimeter for work for their own personal use, that would be totally fine. Just like someone bringing a gun to work (provided the employer allows it and the "place of business" is a fixed location like a office) for self-protection.

 

I strongly disagree that the intent is for anything other than the owner...

the local LEO stated it was only the owner...

NJSP firearms division stated the same..

I was reading that even Nappen (who I generally could care less about) agreed it was owner only...

 

"we" could ALL be wrong.. do what you like.. I disagree.. and I disagree because of the possessive use of "HIS" and I disagree because I have been conditioned to disagree by the numerous discussions I have had on the matter..

 

I think if it said "his place of employment" that would be FAR different than "his place of business" the tone is possessive and to me indicates owner.. all I can really say is agree to disagree and if you choose to carry.. and get caught up in a shoot.. hope you are right.. I find this law far less clear than most..

[RedBowTies88 41]

Well i sure opened a can of worms... going to need some thought to decide for sure what I wanna do.

[Dan 177]

Case law unfortunately backing up Vlad's argument that it only applies to the business owner.

http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=1973549124NJSuper425_1477.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

 

Sadly predictable, NJ courts have levied their opinion and interpretation of the law against gun owners. Sure this guy sounded fishy, lying to police and he even had a stolen gun, but the implications for law-abiding gun owners are pretty harsh.

 

What was interesting is the mention that there was no evidence that the owner acquired the gun for the manager to use while on duty in connection with operations of the business. Implying that if the owner did purchase the gun and instruct the manager to carry it, it would have been OK. They even list a prior case from 1933 saying that it would be allowed.

 

I also love the basis comment "However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible." Basically the court is saying, "no matter what the law says, we're going to twist it as much as possible to make having or using a gun illegal".

 

Arguably, since a small business man can defend his premises by armed force, the owner should be permitted to delegate this power to the one he leaves in charge of the premises. Cf. dictum in State v. Bloom, 11 N.J. Misc. 522, 524 (Sup. Ct. 1933).

However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible. The bar was not defendant's business. He held no proprietary interest therein. By extending the statutory exception to include a manager, the door is opened to a multiplicity of situations where the term manager might be invoked to sanction possession of a weapon otherwise proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41. Moreover, there was not a scintilla of evidence produced that the revolver was acquired by Kozlow and in the possession of defendant in connection with the operation of the business. The motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied.

[RedBowTies88 41]

Well technically my dad did buy this gun, as a christmas present. But it came into the FFL as mine becuase he doesnt have an FID he just put it on hid card

[madmnk78 3]

Case law unfortunately backing up Vlad's argument that it only applies to the business owner.

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

 

Sadly predictable, NJ courts have levied their opinion and interpretation of the law against gun owners. Sure this guy sounded fishy, lying to police and he even had a stolen gun, but the implications for law-abiding gun owners are pretty harsh.

 

What was interesting is the mention that there was no evidence that the owner acquired the gun for the manager to use while on duty in connection with operations of the business. Implying that if the owner did purchase the gun and instruct the manager to carry it, it would have been OK. They even list a prior case from 1933 saying that it would be allowed.

 

I also love the basis comment "However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible." Basically the court is saying, "no matter what the law says, we're going to twist it as much as possible to make having or using a gun illegal".

 

this backs conversations i've had with a few of the NJ ranges - Owners only, not employees. Apparently BA used to let their staff carry, but had a visit from the NJSP..

 

it sounded like there was a process to allow staff to carry, but as always, it was a hassle.

[vladtepes 1,060]

this backs conversations i've had with a few of the NJ ranges - Owners only, not employees. Apparently BA used to let their staff carry, but had a visit from the NJSP..

 

it sounded like there was a process to allow staff to carry, but as always, it was a hassle.

 

that makes sense since one of the people I reached out to was the NJSP firearms division when inquiring about employee carry.. and I was met with a big fat NO.. this was a retail business so no other info was provided.. as stated they instructed that if there was a security issue the owner of said business should investigate having an armed guard..

[Malsua 1,422]

this backs conversations i've had with a few of the NJ ranges - Owners only, not employees. Apparently BA used to let their staff carry, but had a visit from the NJSP..

 

it sounded like there was a process to allow staff to carry, but as always, it was a hassle.

 

Brick employees should be able to carry because it's a range.

[vladtepes 1,060]

@ Dan your google searching is strong.. how the hell did you find that case anyway.. I looked for quite some time to try to find SOMETHING like that..

[Dan 177]

@ Dan your google searching is strong.. how the hell did you find that case anyway.. I looked for quite some time to try to find SOMETHING like that..

 

I wish my shooting skills were as strong as my google-fu.

[Maksim 1,504]

this backs conversations i've had with a few of the NJ ranges - Owners only, not employees. Apparently BA used to let their staff carry, but had a visit from the NJSP..

 

it sounded like there was a process to allow staff to carry, but as always, it was a hassle.

 

a Few BA employees were legally allowed to carry in general based on their outside employment. Just saying.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Brick employees should be able to carry because it's a range.

 

I thought this was the case also being if I am at the range I holster my gun and it is one of the exempt locations.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I thought this was the case also being if I am at the range I holster my gun and it is one of the exempt locations.

 

may vary from range to range.. I have been to certain ranges where you could ONLY holster a gun and shoot from holster while on the line.. but NOT on the general property..

[hd2000fxdl 422]

may vary from range to range.. I have been to certain ranges where you could ONLY holster a gun and shoot from holster while on the line.. but NOT on the general property..

 

I agree with that as a customer of a range, but as an employee of the range or gunshop??

[Soju 153]

We had this discussion before. I repeatedly asked for the term "his place of business" to be defined in the law. Nobody could do so. If it is not explicitly defined, any interpretation of such is just that, a personal interpretation of it, and has no legal meaning.

 

Unless "his place of business" is defined, then vlad's interpretation is no different than dan's.

 

In fact, besides it saying it is a fixed location, here is the only other place I see the term.

 

e. Applications. Applications for permits to purchase a handgun and for firearms purchaser identification cards shall be in the form prescribed by the superintendent and shall set forth the name, residence, place of business, age, date of birth, occupation, sex and physical description, including distinguishing physical characteristics, if any, of the applicant, and shall state whether the applicant is a citizen, whether he is an alcoholic, habitual drunkard, drug dependent person as defined in section 2 of P.L.1970, c.226 (C.24:21-2), whether he has ever been confined or committed to a mental institution or hospital for treatment.

 

So if you list said place of business when you apply, why can't you carry there? Same term.

 

Past thread in case anyone wants to read it.

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23021-place-of-business/

[Rifleman1 32]

Where I work is my "place of business" and where I live is my "place of residence" and it doesn't hurt to have a letter from the owner with his OK for your concealed carry at your place of business.

[vladtepes 1,060]

you both missed this instance of case law..

 

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

 

where the court offered that was not a defense.. and it was intended to be the owner..

 

At the close of the evidence defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that he came within the exception prescribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:151-42(a), which provides that:

Nothing contained in section 2A:151-41 shall be construed:

a. to prevent a person from keeping or carrying about his place of business, dwelling house, premises, or on land possessed by him, any firearm or from carrying the same from any place of purchase to his dwelling house or place of business, or from his dwelling house or place of business to or from any place where repairing is done, to have the same repaired * * *.

However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible. The bar was not defendant's business. He held no proprietary interest therein. By extending the statutory exception to include a manager, the door is opened to a multiplicity of situations where the term manager might be invoked to sanction possession of a weapon otherwise proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41. Moreover, there was not a scintilla of evidence produced that the revolver was acquired by Kozlow and in the possession of defendant in connection with the operation of the business. The motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied.

 

the question has already been answered.. in court..

 

 

Where I work is my "place of business" and where I live is my "place of residence" and it doesn't hurt to have a letter from the owner with his OK for your concealed carry at your place of business.

 

the court has decided otherwise..

[Soju 153]

Thank you for the post. This is the first time anyone has attempted to give any actual legal precedent on the issue despite my many requests.

 

With that I will say it only adds more confusion. At first I thought it was clear, in that your interpretation that you must be the owner or hold proprietary interest to be true. But a couple points of confusion.

 

After it states that, it adds, that in that case (State v. Valentine), they found that in addition, they did not find that his possession of the firearm to in conjunction with the business. It confuses me for a couple of reasons.

1. The statue does not say that it has to be for any specific reason, rather the possession there is either legal, or it isn't.

2. I am unclear if the firearm was even his to begin with, as they mention that he lied, and changed his story with how he came into possession of it.

 

Secondly, they mention case law from a previous case, which states,

 

"since a small business man can defend his premises by armed force, the owner should be permitted to delegate this power to the one he leaves in charge of the premises. Cf. dictum in State v. Bloom,"

 

So this would seem to imply, that a small business owner could in fact delegate to an employee, and therefore that employee would almost be acting as an agent of the owner, and be able to legally possess a firearm there.

 

1. This seems to be contrary to the ruling in Valentine.

2. It does not specifically address the issue, or to say, the issues for the rulings are different.

 

Man this is confusing.

 

Having read some other cases from other states, as well as what you just posted, I am now inclined to agree with you.

 

As it turns out, there was a Connecticut case in which this exact issue was addressed. As far as I understand, the CT statues are, or were, worded almost the same as the NJ statues are now. They ruled specifically, that "his place of business" only applied to a business owned, or with proprietary interest held within. Ones "place of employment" was not the same, and did not qualify as an exempted location.

 

The

structure of the sentence in § 29-35 (a) indicates that

the phrase ‘‘place of business’’ is to be read in conjunction

with the preceding phrase: ‘‘his dwelling house or

. . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) The use of the possessive

‘‘his’’ informs the reader that both ‘‘dwelling house’’ and

‘‘place of business’’ are possessory or proprietary in

nature and that the two are parallel in terms of ‘‘his’’

relationship to each. One’s dwelling house is one’s own

place of abode; similarly, one’s place of business is the

place in which one conducts one’s own business. One

does not have a possessory or proprietary interest in

one’s place of employment; rather, one has such an

interest in one’s place of business. Thus, individuals in

the places in which they have a possessory or proprietary

interest, such as one’s own home or the premises

in which the business one owns or controls is located,

are exempt from the general law requiring one to have

a permit for a handgun.

 

Though this is not binding case law for NJ, I would assume NJ would rule the same, and it is really the best we have. With all that being said, I would now have to agree, that "his place of business" does indeed refer only to a place where you are an owner of sorts.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I think finding hard fact will be a difficult because it will end up on a per basis instance, and they will likely take court cases like the one outlined into consideration.. but I think all the signs point to what we were all just saying.. business owner only.. we know NJ doesn't want anyone to be armed.. so they will error on the side of limitation of rights unless it is in plain black and white..

[Anselmo 87]

However, the overriding philosophy of our Legislature is to limit the use of guns as much as possible.

 

And there you have it. Any interpretation by the court will be done to limit the use of guns.

[vladtepes 1,060]

 

 

And there you have it. Any interpretation by the court will be done to limit the use of guns.

 

i think we could have all told each other that around post #1 lol

[johnott 5]

After examining the following phrase, "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm"

 

I find the the the term "or other land owned or possessed by him" to be the qualifying statement. That is to say, the following places: a business, residence, premises or land that are owned or possessed by him. It reads like a list of specific places followed by a catch-all phrase to include any other place that falls into the same category. (ie. places that you own or possess.)

 

Whether by lease, deed or contract your name is assigned to the place in question and that is what gives you the right to carry there.

 

(IMHO of course.)

[dpas1973 0]

It's a grey area. In my opinion it depends who you shoot if they or there family have $$$ for a lawyer. If its some dirt bag with nothing chances are you will be fine.

[Jon 264]

It's a grey area. In my opinion it depends who you shoot if they or there family have $$$ for a lawyer. If its some dirt bag with nothing chances are you will be fine.

 

Civil is different from Criminal. Criminal prosecution is a gray area. If you shoot someone in NJ you WILL be sued and have to defend your actions in civil court.

[Maksim 1,504]

And my understanding, Civil is not innocent until proven guilty... it can be more likely guilty than innocent is good enough. iirc from Business Law.

[Jon 264]

And my understanding, Civil is not innocent until proven guilty... it can be more likely guilty than innocent is good enough. iirc from Business Law.

 

Preponderance of the evidence is what needs to be met, as opposed to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[NJJim 37]

I think you are good to go. This "his place of business" doesnt specifically mean you have to be the owner. Just means your place of business.

 

I know people that work in a jewelry store. Each person in there carries openly. Its mostly a family business, but i dont think they all have partial ownership. Most are just employees..

You interpret that as you being the owner?

IANAL, but I'd say you look good to go. If you work at the 11 acre park, and have a w-2 and paychecks from your father's company, it is your "place of business" that is a "fixed location".

 

It is his father's and grandmother's "place of business". It is where he is employed not "his" place of business. The mobile home park is not his business.

 

That's how I understand it.