We need this here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04 ... kers-from/

But... that makes sense. Can't have that here.

This is a sticky one...there is something to be said for the employer's property rights. Which right trumps which?

Look at it this way, the USPS does not allow guns inside their buildings but doesn't say squat about them being in your car.

Then by all means, keep a gun in your car.

There are other employers (e.g. a large software company in Redmond) who specifically forbid guns and ammo in the parking lot too. And that goes for buildings they lease too.

That's a good question and was discussed at length here: viewtopic.php?t=54114


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Not quite the same context, but...Yes, the general conversation was 2A vs Personal Property Rights.
The is a difference here, as this is an Employee vs Employer thing. Under the current law, there is an expressed, and possibly real, contract between the two on conduct.
Under the current law, I think it's fine for an Employer to say, you can't carry a gun while you are working.
If 2A is recognized as a EOCC Right, then the employee gets to carry.

As currently posted in the OP....I don't think it's ok for an employer to block the possession of privately owned property, from being stored inside your privately owned vehicle.
This would be like saying, "You can't keep cigarettes in your car, because we have a no smoking policy for the property."

As I said in that other thread... It comes down to asking the Courts the right question. That question needs to be "Is it a violation my Rights, granted under the 2nd Amendment, for an employer block the possession of a firearm, inside a privately owned vehicle, while that vehicle is on their property?" or something to that effect.

I view it as an extention of my home. If an employer wants to prohibit guns on the job, they can. To prohibit guns in employee vehicles (to me) is to invite a lawsuit. Suppose you get shot at a 7-11 on the way home. You could have protected yourself if your employer didn't prohibit you from commuting unarmed.

That being said, Washington employers can fire you for any reason. So long as they don't give a reason, who is there to know why you were dismissed, and the legal burden would be on the dismissed employee if they claim discrimination.

Well, unless you have an employer who searches your vehicle o.O ...I view it as one of those, "They didn't see it, I didn't do it." matters.

Exactly, why would you let your employer search your vehicle? Is it a condition of employment that they can search your vehicle?

My employer does. Luckily for me, 75% of my coworkers are gun people. Hell the maintenance boss has been asking me questions about suppressors.

Boeing is a prime example. No tobacco usage on the property. Also states even having it on the property is a violation.
Firearms are the same way....not even. In your POV parked on the property.
...and it is a conditiin of employment for persons and vehicles on the property to allow searches of the same.
Hell, security can come to your home as well and search. Most people dont realize that.
Read the fine print..