I have a friend who works at citi in Tucson which is on Ratheon property. Raytheon apparently sent out a memo telling citi management that guns were banned in employee vehicles on Raytheon property. Citi then sent out an employee memo telling employees that anyone with a firearm in their car would be terminated. Now the question is, what is the legitimacy of Ratheons ban on firearms? Are they somehow exempt from SB1168?

In my opinion, defense contractor or not they are nobody special and should abide by state law and be punished for violating it. We are talking about people's safety.

This exception might apply.... check with AZCDL

Is this the UofA science and tech park location?  If so I'm not 100% sure what legal standing they have as a tenant there...

I suggest securing a copy of the CITI memo and we shall see what AZCDL can find out.

Yes this is the one on rita road, the UofA tech park, but I don't know if they have a part of Ratheon on base in Tucson, as that is one of the stipulations.

If that is the case, they really need to beef up security. If i recall, their security is less than stellar, and the security at citigroup is all unarmed securitas and allied barton guards.

so are they going to search cars?  Wouldn't find shit in mine Id be carrying the pocket gun in that situation
 

If Citi is on Raytheon property, then this applies. It sucks, but that's how it is - their defense contract is very specific about firearms on the property. As juan223 mentioned, contact the AZCDL if you think the claim is invalid, but it sounds valid to me, unless there's a loophole somewhere that I don't know about.

Concealed is concealed. Don't ask, don't tell. Loose lips sink ships. Mind your business. Know what I'm sayin'?

That is ultimately what I told my friend. They aren't worried so much about needing a firearm at citi, from citi to home is what they worry about. I'll try and research it before I waste azcdl's time.

Well, wait a second.  It seems like they would only be exempt if the property is on a military base.  Looking at the map of the location, it certainly doesn't seem to be on base to me.  Then, regardless of Raytheon being a defense contractor, they have to allow firearms in vehicles.  Or am I missing something?

Government installations or those doing certain types of government work are included. Places like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing are a few examples.

You're correct, as always.    I went and actually read the law, not just the section posted above.  

It's actually Section 4 that would apply here.

4. The property owner's, tenant's, public or private employer's or business entity's compliance with this section necessitates the violation of another applicable federal or state law or regulation.

The law, in it's entirety, can be read here:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/12/00781.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS

Thanks for clarification guys.

While I don't agree with it, as the security is a joke, it is what it is.

You do remember we are in Arizona right? We are a right to work state.  Start a battle with any company that states that and you will lose....start a battle with a government contractor or any company like Raytheon..yea, you'll lose, quickly. Companies like Raytheon, Boeing, Intel, honeywell, etc do not play games and do not ask questions. You will just go away. Military is elementary compared to their contractors.

I work for all these guys and I just have to remember it is what it is and if I want a paycheck in the short term or a relationship with the customer/employer and more money in the long term it all starts with following their goofy little rules.....for instance. My current project. It is written in the safety manual that skipping is not allowed. Yes, skipping,  as in what you did as a little kid instead of running. First offense if found guilty for skipping is a 3 day ban. If 3 strikes your done forever.

Moral of the story is short term thinking is stupid, you'll lose. Know the rules and regs, understand them, live them, value them. More you know, the more ammo you have.

Right to work, it;s their property, and you don't have a "right" to be there. If they call it, that's the way it is. It's nothing like you are breaking the law, it;s a company rule, and you forfeit your job. If Raytheon owns the land, they call the shots.

This kind of stuff sucks in this day and age, but it seems to be happening more and more recently, especially with bigger companies.

Where did right to work come into this? Ratheon appears to be exempt from this law based on their industry position.

"B. Any policy or rule that is established or maintained or the attempted enforcement of any policy or rule that is in violation of subsection A is contrary to public policy, is null and void and does not have legal force or effect."

That applies to everyone else not exempted. The poster that said concealed is concealed is on the right track with that though anyway.

Why do you conclude that section 4 applies to Raytheon?
––-
(section 7 could only possibly apply to the airport site. As far as I know Raytheon only leases sites in the Tucson area, including the airport site.)

I would contact azcdl. My guess is that it is a bluff.

If their contract with the government requires (Federal Regulation?) that no firearms are allowed on their property, then that's why it would apply.

Raytheon's Airport site is leased from the Air Force, Hence AF Plant #44......  Howard Hughes sold it to the AF when Pima Cty decided they wanted to start getting property taxes from (then) Hughes Aircraft Co.  They originally gave Hughes a tax exemption.

So, it is against Federal law to have any firearms on the plantsite.  I doubt it actually applies to the Rita road site, but, I am not positive. That property is owned by U of A.

Actually the south part of the property is USAF.  The north part where the main office building is owned by Pima County who also owns the adjacent airport property (with gates that open between the two so planes can taxi onto to the Raytheon site).  It's all inside one outer security perimeter so unless you know the boundaries you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell which is which.   .  Hughes gave the main missile plant and property to the USAF not so much b/c of taxes but b/c back in the day once the USAF decided missiles were going to be a real part of their mission they sent in DoD auditors who found all kinds of shit that Hughes needed to address.  He promptly went to other contacts he had with brass in the USAF and said "you can have this property, I just want to make missiles for you." So they bought the property for like $1 and then as the new owners of the property, he handed them the DoD audit findings.  The Pima County property also used to belong to Hughes.  

The Rita Road site is indeed owned by U of A and you drive past one complex "security" checkpoint to get into the science park but you drive through a real security checkpoint staffed by Raytheon security services to get into Raytheon's parking area.  This is why they can ban the guns in the cars.  Without the manned/gated entry it would be harder to enforce there (but probably still technically not preempted by AZ law).  

Not only does that not suck, it's the way it should be.  You work for them at their pleasure, you are not entitled to bring your rules to their place of business.  If you don't like that, you've got the right to leave and work elsewhere.

 

Please.....continue your thought process.
They operate in the state of Arizona and shall follow Arizona state law. If they don't like it they can operate elsewhere.

Maybe we could invent some kind of organization that could actually insure laws are enforced.
Maybe we could even get some folks, paid folks, to enforce laws.
And if they don't like that, they have the right to leave and work elsewhere.
You probably should not consider such a line of work based upon your statement.

Either way, no matter what side, we are doomed.

(I was only picking on you a little bit, please don't get bent out of shape)
––––––––

There is still no answer to the legal question posed by the OP, just emotions and opinions.

Is the Raytheon letter a bluff?

Drive up to the gate and tell them you have a gun.  I'm sure you'll get the explanation you require.  Seriously though you have to remember you are dealing with a corporate entity that holds the feelings of the one or the few in higher regard than anyone else.  Hence, guns are bad so they must be banned and the buildings will all be kept at 80 degrees so no one is cold.  Applying logic in these cases will only make your head hurt.

I answered it (as did a few others) just a few posts from the top.

No, it's not a bluff.

Hell, Corporate offices ARE in Massachussetts.......    

Good point.  Raytheon is all about diversity and tolerance when it comes to sexual preference and ethnicity- yet not so tolerant of the right to personal protection while commuting to/from work.  

I can understand no firearms on the Air Force property, but Raytheon LEASES space at the Science Park- with their own secure parking lots.  Citi employee's cannot even access those lots, so I don't see how Raytheon can dictate policy to a fellow tennant?  

Rich hits the nail on the head;  Massachusets mentality is tainting the desert.

park off site and walk on .....

So....

OP,  have you at least emailed your inquiry to the AZCDL?   Charles Heller?

Perhaps post it in the other Az websites AZCDL sub forum if you have not already done so.

While Raytheon may have exemptions on some properties,  they may or may not on others.   If it turns out that any property where a "DOD contractor" rents even a partial space is off limits to firearms safely stored in vehicles we may have  a problem.

I do not see "DOD Contractor" defined in ARS,  is it in there?    While we may all envision missles,  bombs,  and other sensitive items,   "DOD contractor" can be broadly interperted.   DMAFB has an on property "Starbucks",  I would imagine a USAF/DOD 'contract' of sorts was signed to provide those onsite services.  Does this make them a "DOD Contractor"?

If so can Starbucks inturn disallow firearms storage on all non DOD properties they occupy?

Extreme example?   Absolutely,   but food for thought.....  

its kinda sparse out there...

I did this morning

Nevermind, I didn't read the rest of the replies.