I’m reaching out to bring attention to an emerging Second Amendment issue that may warrant USCCA and other organizations involvement. With the federal government forcing thousands of remote workers back into federal office buildings, many lawful gun owners are being stripped of their Second Amendment rights due to blanket federal firearm bans in government facilities all of which are moronically designated as “sensitive areas”.
As an organization and community committed to protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners, I believe this situation represents an unconstitutional overreach that deserves legal scrutiny and potential action.
Key Concerns & Talking Points:
Government-Mandated Disarmament of Federal Remote Workers
Federal employees who accepted as part of the terms of employment “remote work” designated positions were fully protected under the second amendment. Mandatory change of the remote employee work location to a federal facility without the voluntary consent of the employee to the new work condition constitutes involuntary compromise of a critical constitutional right.
Federal employees who worked remotely could legally carry firearms in their homes while performing government duties.
Now, these same workers are compelled to work in federal buildings where firearms are entirely prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 930—effectively stripping them of their second amendment gun rights while working in those facilities.
This is not a voluntary choice; it is a government-mandated restriction based on mandated return to office policies per Presidential Executive Order. Furthermore “reasonable accommodations” to remain in “remote employee” status do not extend to conceal carry or open carry. Those reasonable accommodations only extend to circumstances covered by the Americans disability Act (ADA).
Misuse of “Sensitive Places” Doctrine
The Supreme Court in Heller (2008) recognized that firearms could be restricted in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
However, not all federal office buildings should qualify as “sensitive places.”
Routine administrative offices are not high-security facilities, and banning firearms in such locations is an overextension of the “sensitive places” doctrine.
Lack of Historical Justification Under the Bruen Test
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) requires the government to prove that firearm restrictions align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
There is no historical precedent for banning law-abiding workers from carrying firearms in ordinary office spaces.
The federal government must justify why a blanket prohibition is necessary, rather than using a less restrictive alternative such as secured firearm storage in federal buildings.
Federal Overreach into State Gun Laws
Employees who live in shall-issue or permitless carry states were lawfully carrying at home but are now subject to a federal-level gun ban in their workplace.
This effectively overrides state law and imposes a more restrictive standard than the states intended.
The federal government should not be able to even temporarily revoke gun rights simply by changing an employee’s work location.
Discriminatory Impact on Law-Abiding Citizens
Armed federal law enforcement officers and security personnel are exempt from this ban, but lawful concealed carry permit holders are denied their rights.
There is no evidence that licensed concealed carriers present a safety risk in federal buildings, yet they are disarmed while criminals remain undeterred.
Law-abiding employees should not be treated as second-class citizens in their own workplace.
Recommended Actionable Steps for USCCA:
Legislative Advocacy: Push for reforms allowing secured firearm storage in federal buildings for federal employees rather than outright bans.
Awareness Campaign: Raise public and political awareness about how the return-to-office mandate is being used to infringe upon gun owners of their rights.
Executive Order Advocacy: Push for an executive order allowing USCCA members who have transitioned from remote work to federal facilities the ability to exercise their right to conceal carry in federal offices deemed not sensitive. For sensitive areas and sites secure firearm storage should be provided.
I believe this is a clear case of government overreach that demands action.
We have an opportunity with a friendly President and Congress to prevent FURTHER loss of our second amendment constitutional rights by making the federal workplace a pro 2a environment. AND/OR by protecting the 2nd amendment rights of Remote Federal Employees which REQUIRES NO ACT OF CONGRESS or LAW that liberals can block; just a stroke of the POTUS pen. WIN WIN WIN
The President and his administration can make an immediate public “clarification” of the return to office policy allowing for reasonable accommodation to extend to law abiding gun owning remote employees allowing them to stay at home and continue to exercise their full and uninfringed second amendment rights which is a win for the President and law-abiding gun owners. Or if returning to office is the only path allowed for remote Federal Employees then the actions above should be considered. Again, I see a HUGE opportunity for the President to show his support of the second amendment in this situation and a win for USCCA and all gun owners who care about the 2nd amendment.
Thank you for your time and for all the work everyone here does to defend the Second Amendment! PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REPOST AND SHARE THIS POST.
Guess what? It’s been an issue since we were told we need permits, what kind of firearms we could have and how many, and where we could carry, by local & state governments and a federal government that do not abide by the 2A.
Please take a number, and your place in the back of the line.
As a green federal agent I was stunned when I found out that I had to stash my gun in a locker before being allowed to enter a federal building. Sorta like weapons being prohibited on a military base. Aren’t those the places where there should be the most weapons?
I’ve been employed in private industry for decades. My existing employer has not allowed firearms on premises since I’ve been there (16 years now). Welcome to the club. And yeah, we have to show up at work once in a while too. As Ron said, the problem is “local & state governments and a federal government that do not abide by the 2A”. Been that way for a long time.
If your employer tells you to get to work and that no firearms are allowed, then you either get to work unarmed, or go find somewhere else to work that will allow you to carry.
@Paul612 Welcome to the community! Not sure if you’re a remote employee working at home for the federal government and being ordered to report fulltime back to work at the federal building instead of working from home, then if so, it’ll be business as usual and ALL FEDERAL POLICIES IN PLACE, then there is nothing that can be done about carrying a firearm in the workplace. Furthermore, if the parking lot is part of the federal building property, you cannot even have a firearm locked in the vehicle on the premises, there’s no one that can make any changes as per your request if these locations are “Sensitive Areas”. Please refer to your local Federal Government Policies, they have not changed since before the “PLANDEMIC”. Good luck reporting back to work fulltime at the Federal Building (unarmed ) . Just remember that in every work place there are anti-gun law abiding people as well as pro 2A gun owning law abiding people working side by side. “NO GUNS ALLOWED”. That’s the purpose of the policies. Look, does your job for government have anything to do with guns? Law Enforcement Agencies are allowed. All Others “NO”. Oh, and USCCA Members are NOT considered Federal Agents.
Paul, Welcome to the Fold Brother
You are right where you’re suppose to be (I guess)
My two cents? Don’t bother with USCCA making any kind of effort
in going up against ‘The Big dog in the yard .gov’
IF you want anything done: Gun Rights, Fights against Infringements etc
My answer would be GOA, or other avenues of GUN RIGHTS sites that
actually DO SOMETHING.
IF you’re in a shoot USCCA Insurance ‘should’ back you up till cleared.
Other than that? Good Luck. If you are one of those remote workers
and you love your job, go back to the office as ordered Federal Security is pretty good
It’s getting there and back home that could be dicey.
A lot of Federal Remote workers won’t need to worry about all this anyway if they refuse the Commander-In-Chiefs order to return to work. They can carry all they want when they are sitting at home looking on Indeed.com for a job.
I would like to clarify a very big point about my post that some may have missed. At no point am I saying Federal Remote workers should be able to refuse going back into an office. VERY much the OPPOSITE! Refusal to go into the office is an offense that can and should be cause for termination of the employee.
What I saw here is an opportunity to establish a PRECIDENT in the workplace. One that doesn’t require congress or any debate. One that once in place would help to normalize conceal carry in the workplace and open the door for further legal action in private business.
I’m sorry some of y’all see this as just a way for federal remote workers to stay at home and eat popcorn while binging Netflix. Because that just aint the truth here. I am genuinely looking to exploit this situation to EXPAND gun owners rights. I’ve got a lock box in my cars for my side arms and plan on using them when I’m ordered back to a duty station. I will gladly report back to an office. BTW at no point in my post did I say federal employees can or should refuse to go back.
But the situation presented a legal and constitutional argument that I thought was novel enough to bring to the community and USCCA. One that doesn’t require litigation or congressional action. Just an executive order that perhaps could have established legal precedent and justification for real litigation and action.
But hey to all the haters you go on living your best life. We are all in this fight to save the second amendment together even if you don’t agree with other folks’ career choices.
I GET IT BRUH.
Not a Hater, just stating facts (as I see it)
A lot of folk’s don’t wish to return to the office as the C.I.C dictates. That’s it.
(NOT CALLING you one of those EVER)
You wanting MORE Rights for Gun owners is a wonderful thing. Bravo!
It’s just MY OPINION this group (USCCA) isn’t the one to ‘Go to’
for answers or backing to help make your dream a reality.
Don’t get all upset reading into what I wrote I am just stating facts that the gravy train of
sitting in their PJ’s for SOME Fed workers is over and they don’t like it. They can RESIST
all they want, twist their panties in a wad, all that’ll get them is a Pink Slip.
Fair Enough.?
There is another thread by CCRkba.org that is looking for us to sign a petition for NATIONAL RECEPROCITY ! Just call their phone number hit (1) three times and you signed up! THAT
will go to DJT’s desk. THAT’S A START.
And I personally have nothing against Fed Workers or their jobs. I have been waiting months to get into HOMELAND SECURUTY myself. So I have no idea if you are responding to me or just us in general. My unasked for advice is don’t fly off the handle so fast on folk’s you asked for advice all you’ll hear from us is friggin’ CRICKETS from now on.
Paul, I wasn’t trying to be snarky either. Fact is, ALL OF US should be able to carry anywhere if we don’t have a felony against us. (Unless the felony was itself felonius, like that perpetrated against the president.)
There isn’t a federal employee or contractor that didn’t know the situation before they took the position. I don’t think you will get any reaction on this, but good luck.
Unless your employer is the federal government the 2A doesn’t apply to them directly.
The 2A says the government cannot infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Your private employers can infringe upon all sorts of rights if you agree to work on their property. The government isn’t supposed to be able to do that without very justifiable reasons.
Actually there are likely hundreds of thousands of employees and contractors that didn’t know the situation since they were actually hired under full or part time remote work agreements.
This is a very common practice. A lot of employees serve multiple locations and do not have assigned in person duty stations, sometimes there isn’t enough office space or local housing, etc. In many case it saves the government money because they don’t have to provide office space, don’t have to pay moving fees or can pay the employees lower salaries because their homes are in rural areas that don’t require cost of living increases.
No one here seems to have a problem with the fact that Trump spent well over half his first term working at home in FL and NY and/or on the golf course. Where is Musk doing all his work from? What does it matter where people are working if they are getting their work done?
) . Just remember that in every work place there are anti-gun law abiding people as well as pro 2A gun owning law abiding people working side by side. 
“NO GUNS ALLOWED”. That’s the purpose of the policies. Look, does your job for government have anything to do with guns? Law Enforcement Agencies are allowed. All Others “NO”. 
USCCA Members are NOT considered 