Florida pro-gun legislation filed


PDA






camacho
January 22, 2008, 06:15 PM
Florida Legislation To Protect Your Right To Have A Firearm In Your Private Vehicle Has Been Filed

DATE: January 22, 2008
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
NRA Past President
Executive Director Unified Sportsmen of Florida

The following bills have been filed to protect your constitutional and statutory right to have a firearm stored in your vehicle in a parking lot for self-defense and other lawful purposes. Please start contacting your Representative and Senator and ask him or her to cosponsor this critical legislation.

House Bill 503 by Greg Evers (R) (CO-SPONSORS) Mitch Needelman (R)
Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008: Creates "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008"; prohibits public or private entity from prohibiting customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm that is lawfully possessed & locked inside or locked to private motor vehicle in parking lot; prohibits such entities from violating specified privacy rights by verbal or written inquiry or by search to ascertain presence of firearm within motor vehicle; prohibits certain actions by public or private entity against customer, employee, or invitee; prohibits employer from conditioning employment upon agreement by prospective employee that prohibits employees from keeping legal firearm locked inside motor vehicle; prohibits employer from attempting to prevent or prohibiting any customer, employee, or invitee from entering parking lot of employer's place of business when customer's, employee's, or invitee's motor vehicle contains legal firearm; prohibits employers from terminating employment of or otherwise discriminating against employee, or expelling customer or invitee, for exercising specified constitutional rights; provides specified immunity from liability; provides for enforcement of act; provides for award of costs & attorney's fees.

Senate Bill 1130 by Durell Peaden (R) Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008: Creates "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008"; prohibits public or private entity from prohibiting customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm that is lawfully possessed & locked inside or locked to private motor vehicle in parking lot; prohibits such entities from violating specified privacy rights by verbal or written inquiry or by search to ascertain presence of firearm within motor vehicle; prohibits certain actions by public or private entity against customer, employee, or invitee; prohibits employer from conditioning employment upon agreement by prospective employee that prohibits employees from keeping legal firearm locked inside motor vehicle; prohibits employer from attempting to prevent or prohibiting any customer, employee, or invitee from entering parking lot of employer's place of business when customer's, employee's, or invitee's motor vehicle contains legal firearm; prohibits employers from terminating employment of or otherwise discriminating against employee, or expelling customer or invitee, for exercising specified constitutional rights; provides specified immunity from liability; provides for enforcement of act; provides for award of costs & attorney's fees.

WHY THESE BILLS ARE NEEDED

These bills will stop business entities from searching private vehicles and violating the constitutional rights of customers and employees.

Your Second Amendment rights are at the very heart of this issue. In addition to prohibiting searches of private vehicles in parking lots, these bills also prevent businesses from asking customers or employees to disclose what personal private property is stored in private vehicles and prevents action against customers and employees who refuse to divulge that private information. Furthermore, it prohibits action against a customer or employee based on information provided by a third party.

Some Florida businesses are trying to ban firearms in cars in parking lots used by customers and employees. They are discriminating against people who exercise their constitutional rights – they are violating the constitutional rights of gun owners and Florida law.

Corporate giants have been trampling constitutional rights. Some are even attempting to coerce and intimidate gun owners into giving up their constitutional rights as a condition of employment.

Your Rights are in Danger!

Carrying firearms in a vehicle for hunting, target shooting or protection of yourself and your family obviously means you can leave that firearm locked in the vehicle in a parking lot when you go grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to a movie theater, to visit a sick friend in the hospital, to rent a movie, to the shoe store or anywhere else normal people travel to conduct business.

Florida law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Florida Constitution clearly and unequivocally give law- abiding citizens the right to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes.

How can anyone justify telling a woman who is being stalked that she can't have a firearm for protection? In many cases police tell these women to get a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them -- and calling 911 is nothing more than government sponsored dial-a-prayer.

A business owner or manager has no more right to say you can't have a firearm in your private vehicle than they have a right to say you can't have a pair of sunglasses, an umbrella, a Bible or a baby seat.

Such an anti-gun political exercise is not good business sense. They want your money, but don't respect your rights.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against employees and customers because of race, religion, political party, color of eyes, hair or weight. And they certainly can't discriminate because of the exercise of lawful self-defense. And, make no mistake, these gun ban policies are blatant discrimination against people who chose to exercise a constitutional right and take responsibility for their own safety.


This is the second time around after last year, several of what we thought were pro-gun Florida representatives betrayed us:barf:

Let's hope it passes this this time!

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida pro-gun legislation filed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JohnMcD348
January 23, 2008, 10:02 PM
Where can I keep tabs on this legislation? I'd like to know who voted for and against it when it goes through.

Winchester 73
January 23, 2008, 10:09 PM
Where can I keep tabs on this legislation? I'd like to know who voted for and against it when it goes through.

This may help.Click on Govt. links.

http://www.myflorida.com

Another source:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/Sec048.HTM

iiibdsiil
January 24, 2008, 12:20 AM
I really have a hard time with telling a private property owner that they have to accept anything... It's your property, you make the rules. No one is forcing me to work for an anti-gun employer.

It seems like too many of us say "Government regulation is wrong, unless it is what we want to hear."

Maybe I'm off base here, just something to think about.

And don't get me wrong, I support it. But I support it because it is helping us gain back inches that were given up/taken away. It's a win for gun owners and a loss for property/business owners.

hoppinglark
January 26, 2008, 09:05 PM
most people feel like a parking lot is a legal "right of way"
You have to provide a place for people to park their cars, and the car itself is like a big outside locker.
Regulating what a person keeps in that locker is not the Employers concern.

mekender
January 27, 2008, 04:26 AM
its illegal for a private property owner to only server one gender or race, its illegal for them to deny access to the handicapped, it would be illegal for them to require a woman to remove her shirt upon entering, it would be illegal for them to require everyone that entered to smoke a joint or snort a line...

but for some reason its ok that they choose to deny a constitutionally guaranteed right... none of the above examples are a constitutionally guaranteed right... hmmm...

k_dawg
January 27, 2008, 01:05 PM
I really have a hard time with telling a private property owner that they have to accept anything... It's your property, you make the rules.

I agree. Who is the govn't to tell a business owner if he doesn't want to serve those "d@mn ni@@ers".. comply with the ADA, or hire women when they belong at home in the kitchen??? :cuss:


[ the above is sarcasm for those who don't have a working sarcasm detector ]

k_dawg
January 27, 2008, 01:13 PM
Does anyone have a contact list of those who voted this down last year, but who otherwise claim to be pro 2nd amendment?

theaof1
January 27, 2008, 01:29 PM
SB 1130 is listed as identical to HR 503. There is no vote of record shown for either.

JBB
January 27, 2008, 01:51 PM
I'll have my CCW license in a few weeks. My employer has a written policy against firearms on company property, so I hope this passes, as well. I would hate to be unemployed, but I will have a gun in my vehicle when I wish to.

camacho
January 27, 2008, 04:02 PM
Does anyone have a contact list of those who voted this down last year, but who otherwise claim to be pro 2nd amendment?

Below is an email that was sent by the NRA-ILA last year:


Some Florida "Pro-Gun" Republicans show their true colors -THEY'RE ANTI-GUN!


The House Environmental and Natural Resources Council held a hearing today, April 18, on House Bill 1417, sponsored by Representative Dennis Baxley. Unfortunately, HB 1417 was defeated by a vote of 10 to 4.

Seven (7) Republican Committee Members sold out the citizens they were elected to represent in favor of corporate giants like PUBLIX, DISNEY and WALMART.

The anti-gun Florida Chamber of Commerce targeted two Committee members (Representative Faye Culp & Representative Rich Glorioso) with TV attack ads that ran over the weekend and put pressure on others to subvert your constitutional rights. Those two Representatives did not cave to anti-gun pressure, and they stood strong for the people.

Three (3) Republicans and one (1) Democrat voted FOR the bill: Representative Debbie Boyd (D), Representative Faye Culp (R), Representative Rich Glorioso (R) and Representative Paige Kreegel (R). These are four of the most honorable members of the Florida House. NRA will always remember their courage and support for HB 1417.

One of the most disappointing votes was Representative Bob Allen (R), who was a co-sponsor of the bill and assured NRA he was pro-gun and would vote in support of HB 1417. However, he then VOTED AGAINST HB 1417. Please call Representative Bob Allen at his Tallahassee Office number (850) 488-4669 and express your disappointment in his actions.

The following Representatives voted AGAINST the bill, your privacy rights, your personal property rights and your Second Amendment Rights:

Rep. Bob Allen (R) (850) 488-4669
Rep. Mary Brandenburg (D) (850) 488-0260
Rep. Denise Grimsley (R) (850) 488-3457
Rep. Will Kendrick (R) (850) 488-7870
Rep. Rick Kriseman (D) (850) 488-9337
Rep. Bryan Nelson (R) (850) 488-2023
Rep. Richard Machek (D) (850) 488-5588
Rep. Stan Mayfield (R), Chair (850) 488-0952
Rep. Baxter Troutman (R) VC (850) 488-9465
Rep. Trudi Williams (R) (850) 488-2047

Their email addresses are:

Bob.Allen@myfloridahouse.gov
Mary.Brandenburg@myfloridahouse.gov
Denise.Grimsley@myfloridahouse.gov
Will.Kendrick@myfloridahouse.gov
Rick.Kriseman@myfloridahouse.gov
Richard.Machek@myfloridahouse.gov
Stan.Mayfield@myfloridahouse.gov
Bryan.Nelson@myfloridahouse.gov
Baxter.Troutman@myfloridahouse.gov
Trudi.Williams@myfloridahouse.gov

NRA will not forget these anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-constitution Representatives. Some Representatives are term-limited and planning to run for other offices, others will have to run for re-election in 2008. We will keep you posted on others who worked behind the scenes to help sell out Florida’s law-abiding citizens gun owners.

The following is the Testimony of Marion Hammer on this bill to the House Environmental & Natural Resources Council 4/18/07:

Committee Members,

This bill is about the individual rights of everyday people. People are more important than a chunk of asphalt parking lot. You don't stop being a person when you accept employment or become a customer.

A grocery store or an amusement park has NO right to search your private vehicle just because you parked in their parking lot. They have NO right to tell you what private personal property you can have inside your private vehicle.

Well, that's what this bill is about.

Constitutional rights and statutory rights do NOT end when you cross from one piece of asphalt upon which you drive - to another piece of asphalt upon which you park.

There has been a lot of talk about taking away property rights.

Let's be very clear. This bill doesn't take away ANY property rights. It doesn't give any property rights.

It protects EXISTING property rights of customers and employees.

Opponents of this bill are trying to dream up or manufacture rights for themselves while trampling existing rights of others. The Constitution has NEVER given business owners the right to subvert the privacy rights and Second Amendment rights of customers or employees.

This bill protects a person's right to have legal property that is lawfully possessed locked inside a personal private vehicle in a parking lot. A private vehicle, by the way, that is an extension of your home.

Think about women who work late hours as cashiers at supermarkets. And what about employees of all-night pharmacies, or nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night?

As one female legislator asked, what about lawmakers who travel their districts at night for speaking engagements? Are they not supposed to park anywhere or stop for a cup of coffee or a soda or a bite to eat because they carry a gun in the car for protection?

A woman who is being stalked needs protection. Police often advise these women to buy a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them. An employer violates her rights if the employer attempts to force her to waive her rights and chose between her life and her job.

Her employer has no right to tell her that she'll be fired if she exercises her right to have a firearm in her vehicle for protection.

This bill is about staying alive to get to work and staying alive to get home to your family after work. THERE CAN BE NO STRONGER RIGHT.

Legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights.

The Florida Chamber says they represent over 100,000 business owners and those businesses employ over 3 million workers. The Chamber ONLY represents those few business owners.

The Chamber is NOT representing the rights of those 3 million workers or the rights of the millions upon millions of customers.

We're asking you to protect the rights of those workers and customers - the people whose rights you were sent here to protect. Please pass this bill.

rogerjames
January 27, 2008, 11:15 PM
iiibdsiil, you have a hard time requiring a private property owner to comply with a federal/state given right that public properties have to honor?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So I should be able to ignore federal and state laws and rob your ass at gun point because your private property is exempt from constitutional protection!!

Guitargod1985
January 27, 2008, 11:34 PM
Well, I guess we won't have to worry about Bob Allen voting against us this time!! Unless he votes with a twenty dollar bill slid under a stall partition. Hehehe!

Samuel Adams
January 27, 2008, 11:44 PM
2nd Amendment vs Private Property Rights. That's a tough one. :confused:

Robert Hairless
January 28, 2008, 01:01 AM
iiibdsiil:

I really have a hard time with telling a private property owner that they have to accept anything... It's your property, you make the rules. No one is forcing me to work for an anti-gun employer.

It seems like too many of us say "Government regulation is wrong, unless it is what we want to hear."

Maybe I'm off base here, just something to think about.

Nope, you're not off base. A property owner should be able to do whatever he wants on his property without interference from any government.

John Wayne Gacy should not have been arrested, tried, convicted, and executed simply because he entertained 33 boys and young men in his home. Okay, so he raped and murdered them but it all took place on his own property. He even buried them under his house on his property. It was his property, he made the rules, and they didn't have to go there if they didn't want to.

Pacific Gas Company got a raw deal in being forced to settle lawsuits against it for $333,000,000 just because one of its companies dumped some Chromium compound on its own property. Okay, so the chemical is a likely carcinogen and so it did leach into the public drinking water and onto other people's property, but that's not the company's fault. If the other people didn't want to die of cancer they had the right to remove the poison from their property.

Migrant farmworkers just don't get it. When they are employed by a company they are under the control of that company. If they don't like what happens to them there they can go to medical school and become physicians, law school and become lawyers, or get several million dollars and run for president of the United States. Instead they whine and complain about being virtual slaves, working for minimal pay and having it docked for the shacks in which they live, and being excluded from the mainstream economy.

These other guys don't get it. When anyone steps onto someone else's property there are no laws except those of the property owner. The property owner can enslave his customers, search their persons or cars, take their womenfolk, sell their kids, confiscate their credit cards and use them for his own benefit, trade in their cars, libel or slander them, poison them, expose them to toxic radiation, and do anything else he wants.

The Second Amendment doesn't apply on private property. No one has any Constitutional rights on private property. Every property owner makes his own rules and laws, and no one has any rights if he enters upon someone else's property. Restaurant owners can choose which customers to serve, doctors can choose which lives to save, hospitals can choose who to admit, and all businesses that invite the public can decide which drinking fountains and restrooms are used by which kinds of people. Anyone who doesn't like it can go somewhere else.

Hey, it worked in this country for a couple of hundred years until some troublemakers decided to agitate for change. But now, in these enlightened times, there's no reason not to roll back the calendar to the 1960s and earlier. And that's what many so-called enlightened people are arguing for, although they either don't realize it or don't care.

ilbob
January 28, 2008, 08:16 AM
how is this bill any different than the OK bill that the federal courts ruled violated OSHA requirements ands was thus invalid?

camacho
January 28, 2008, 01:11 PM
Well, I guess we won't have to worry about Bob Allen voting against us this time!! Unless he votes with a twenty dollar bill slid under a stall partition. Hehehe!

I was not sure what that meant and did a search on the "honorable" Representative. I guess his career is over now!

When anyone steps onto someone else's property there are no laws except those of the property owner. The property owner can enslave his customers, search their persons or cars, take their womenfolk, sell their kids, confiscate their credit cards and use them for his own benefit, trade in their cars, libel or slander them, poison them, expose them to toxic radiation, and do anything else he wants.

Amen brother! You said it. This is exactly what is wrong with the way some perceive property rights.

ExSoldier
January 28, 2008, 01:19 PM
Okay but will this legislation affect folks like me who teach in a public SCHOOL for a living or must we continue to have large targets painted on our backs as we manuever thru some very dangerous areas in order to get to and from our work locations?

Sans Authoritas
January 28, 2008, 08:52 PM
You have the right, as a homeowner, or a property owner, to decide who may or may not come into your house or pass onto your property.

The right to exclude and permit people onto your property does not give you the right to treat that person however you wish once you have admitted them onto your property. Whoever made the gross leap of logic regarding pedophiles, etc, was being entirely logically unsound. The law of morality is not suddenly suspended because you walk onto someone else's property. Such a leap in logic is absolutely absurd.

Bless the businesses who do not want to allow peaceful, gun-carrying people onto their property. There are lists of such places on websites, especially for gun owners. They are to encourage retaliation by peaceful, moral and just means: letter writing and boycotts. This is America. Don't force your viewpoint down their throats by legislation: take your business elsewhere.

As it is, if someone violates the will of the property owner by merely and peacefully carrying a firearm, he should be charged nothing but simple trespass, and that only if he refused to leave when asked.

If you want to force renters to rent apartments to Satan worshipers who use their apartment for black masses and goat sacrifices, you have got some real problems. That is because the apartment owner owns his property. If you say that government can legislate as to what peaceful and just things you do with your property, you are saying that his property is not really his property at all, but the property of the Government. Such a notion is not true, nor is it just.

As for a business that does not want to allow black people, etc? I would laugh to see some storeowner put up a sign saying "Whites Only" in this day and age. He would be bankrupt within a month, and justly.

Laws against discrimination on private property only got passed only after there were enough people who didn't believe in such racist foolishness to begin with. The laws were a product of what people believed, not a cause. Anti-discrimination laws are not what cause people to not be racist. Only a legal positivist could believe such nonsense.

-Sans Authoritas

TBT
January 28, 2008, 09:06 PM
Sans Authoritas ... bravo man. Bravo.

camacho
January 28, 2008, 10:42 PM
Laws against discrimination on private property only got passed only after there were enough people who didn't believe in such racist foolishness to begin with. The laws were a product of what people believed, not a cause.


Great! I do not see a problem then! Let's just codify what we already believe in, i.e., our rights extend to our cars.

Sans Authoritas
January 28, 2008, 10:50 PM
Sans Authoritas said: Laws against discrimination on private property only got passed only after there were enough people who didn't believe in such racist foolishness to begin with. The laws were a product of what people believed, not a cause.

Camacho said: Great! I do not see a problem then! Let's just codify what we already believe in, i.e., our rights extend to our cars.

If you consent to having your car searched by a private business owner by voluntarily parking on his clearly marked lot, if you believe that any such business owner would stay in business very long, or if you are indiscreet enough to let people know you have a firearm in your car, your beliefs have problems that all the codification in the world won't help.

-Sans Authoritas

eric.cartman
February 5, 2008, 04:54 PM
You have the right, as a homeowner, or a property owner, to decide who may or may not come into your house or pass onto your property.

The right to exclude and permit people onto your property does not give you the right to treat that person however you wish once you have admitted them onto your property. Whoever made the gross leap of logic regarding pedophiles, etc, was being entirely logically unsound. The law of morality is not suddenly suspended because you walk onto someone else's property. Such a leap in logic is absolutely absurd.

Bless the businesses who do not want to allow peaceful, gun-carrying people onto their property. There are lists of such places on websites, especially for gun owners. They are to encourage retaliation by peaceful, moral and just means: letter writing and boycotts. This is America. Don't force your viewpoint down their throats by legislation: take your business elsewhere.

As it is, if someone violates the will of the property owner by merely and peacefully carrying a firearm, he should be charged nothing but simple trespass, and that only if he refused to leave when asked.

If you want to force renters to rent apartments to Satan worshipers who use their apartment for black masses and goat sacrifices, you have got some real problems. That is because the apartment owner owns his property. If you say that government can legislate as to what peaceful and just things you do with your property, you are saying that his property is not really his property at all, but the property of the Government. Such a notion is not true, nor is it just.

As for a business that does not want to allow black people, etc? I would laugh to see some storeowner put up a sign saying "Whites Only" in this day and age. He would be bankrupt within a month, and justly.

Laws against discrimination on private property only got passed only after there were enough people who didn't believe in such racist foolishness to begin with. The laws were a product of what people believed, not a cause. Anti-discrimination laws are not what cause people to not be racist. Only a legal positivist could believe such nonsense.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans, and others, listen up, and listen good.
This is not about 2nd A. vs. private property.
We're not talking about carrying CW onto someones property.
We're talking about having one in YOUR car.

To all of you against such legislation, answer me this:

Your car, is who's property?
Your car becomes who's property once it leaves your garage and enters the public road and/or private parking lot?
The INSIDE of your car is already considered the extension of your home in FL.
So who's property is THE INSIDE of your car, where the gun is storred?

So are you really bringing a gun onto someone's private property???

:banghead:

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
February 5, 2008, 07:05 PM
I am a supervisor at a florida home depot and was always a little pissed about their gun policies. They even have it listed in the employee sop book. They do allow guns in cars in two or three states one of them being alaska. Now to the loophole I've gone as far as having a long discussion with my store manager about the rule, well a few weeks ago I was called to the customer service desk about a customer being injured in the parking lot, when I called the manager about how to handle it he instructed me NOT TO FILL OUT AN ACCIDENT REPORT BECAUSE WE DO NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT PROPERTY THUS IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO COVER AN INJURY IN THE LOT. Looks like they have no say about what employees can and can't keep in our cars at least at this location.:neener::neener::neener:

Winchester 73
February 5, 2008, 07:36 PM
Looks like they have no say about what employees can and can't keep in our cars at least at this location

Great news for you!Hope I can find a loophole of my own in my employers parking lot.

SparxSP
February 5, 2008, 07:46 PM
I really have a hard time with telling a private property owner that they have to accept anything... It's your property, you make the rules. No one is forcing me to work for an anti-gun employer.

It seems like too many of us say "Government regulation is wrong, unless it is what we want to hear."

Maybe I'm off base here, just something to think about.

And don't get me wrong, I support it. But I support it because it is helping us gain back inches that were given up/taken away. It's a win for gun owners and a loss for property/business owners.

I respectfully disagree. I am not an attorney, but I know that in the world of real estate in Florida, businesses (and Realtors) are legally prevented from discriminatory practices; Private property owners are not. If I choose to sell my home myself, I am legally free to discriminate as I see fit, and sell to blue people with 3 arms only, at the exclusion of all others, should I so desire.
That being said, I do not see this as a conflict between the 2 types of rights, both of which I have a vested interest in. It should (continue) to be illegal for a business to discriminate, and this bill seems like a logical extension of that prohibition (to us gun owners, at least...lol). On the other hand, I would not foresee negative fallout for those of us true "private property owners" as a result.
Just my opinion; Thanks for listening.

teknoid
February 5, 2008, 07:52 PM
We've had a law like this in Kentucky for a while, now. Some politicians actually realize that your rights don't end at the end of your driveway.

States who permit employers to prohibit LEGAL firearms in cars must believe guns kill all by their lonesome. I haven't seen this one do any damage, yet.

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

I doubt the one in your car will behave any differently. If people are willing to submit to this, what's next? Are you ready to have the local mall do the same? After all, it IS their parking lot. Even if your car IS your property.

Sans Authoritas
February 5, 2008, 08:20 PM
eric.cartman wrote: Sans, and others, listen up, and listen good.
This is not about 2nd A. vs. private property.
We're not talking about carrying CW onto someones property.
We're talking about having one in YOUR car.

To all of you against such legislation, answer me this:

Your car, is who's property?
Your car becomes who's property once it leaves your garage and enters the public road and/or private parking lot?
The INSIDE of your car is already considered the extension of your home in FL.
So who's property is THE INSIDE of your car, where the gun is storred?
So are you really bringing a gun onto someone's private property???

Eric, is your car your own personal mobile sovereign nation? Are you able to park your car on someone else's property and say, "This car is my property, and I will have or do anything I want to on my property? Oh, yes, and I won't pay a dime of rent?"

Should you be able to get drunk in your car on another person's property, against his will? Get friendly with your wife? It's the same as your house, isn't it?

-Sans Authoritas

teknoid
February 6, 2008, 07:43 AM
Are you able to park your car on someone else's property and say, "This car is my property, and I will have or do anything I want to on my property? Oh, yes, and I won't pay a dime of rent?"

Should you be able to get drunk in your car on another person's property, against his will? Get friendly with your wife? It's the same as your house, isn't it?

The problem with this hypothesis, is that the things you list are illegal (trespassing, PI, indecent exposure, etc), while carrying a weapon in your car is not. Quite a difference, I'd say.

If you're at work, I don't believe you'd be doing anything quite like what you mentioned, unless you have a really strange job.

An employer who prohibits weapons in your car isn't just preventing you from having them on the premises, they are insuring that you are vulnerable on your way to and from work. If I had the misfortune of working for a place like that, I'd park elsewhere, if it was possible. I'm glad we don't have to worry about that in KY. Preemption is nice, and state law prohibits the practice.

Sans Authoritas
February 6, 2008, 07:47 PM
Teknoid wrote: If you're at work, I don't believe you'd be doing anything quite like what you mentioned, unless you have a really strange job.

An employer who prohibits weapons in your car isn't just preventing you from having them on the premises, they are insuring that you are vulnerable on your way to and from work. If I had the misfortune of working for a place like that, I'd park elsewhere, if it was possible. I'm glad we don't have to worry about that in KY. Preemption is nice, and state law prohibits the practice.

An employer won't know unless you're really careless about carrying, and/or search your vehicle. Should you be working for a company if they're searching cars? Or should you patronize businesses that do the same?

-Sans Authoritas

eric.cartman
February 6, 2008, 10:44 PM
Sans Authoritas,
I think you're over extending the logic in this case.
I'm not talking about doing thinkg in your car.
I'm talking about having things in your car.
The inside of your car is still, legally, your home.
What right does ANYONE have to search, much less require, you have or have not certain things, legal things, in your home / car.
The location, legitimate location, an expected location of your car, should not change the rules of your home and car (extension of the former).

E.C.

P.S. Sans Authoritas, I respect your poinr of view. All your posts so far sound like the most beautiful poetry... except this one ;-)

Sans Authoritas
February 6, 2008, 11:47 PM
Eric, don't get me wrong, I never said that anyone should be able to search your car or person. I just said that they have the right to exclude armed people from their property. If you are careless, and reveal that you are armed, they have the right to ask you to leave. Even if it were as arbitrary as carrying a pack of cigarettes or exactly 74 cents in change. No matter how ridiculous their position is, it's their property. There's nothing morally wrong with not abiding by their arbitrary rules, but they do have the right to ask you to leave, and, if it is necessary to avoid an escalation in conflict, I think it is your duty to leave.

-Sans Authoritas

Harry Paget Flashman
February 8, 2008, 09:46 PM
I just got this in my email from the NRA:

ALERT! Florida Chamber of Commerce Renews Attack On Our Firearms Rights!




Date: February 8, 2008
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

Email address: USFinfo@aol.com

Senator Charles Dean (R- Inverness) appeared at a press conference held by the anti-gun Florida Chamber of Commerce. During his speech, Senator Dean touted his NRA membership and then disparaged NRA’s leadership for pushing legislation to protect our right to keep and bear arms and our right to self-defense. Senator Dean also claimed that the issue of having a firearm in your private vehicle for lawful purposes, while parked in a public accessed parking lot, is not important to NRA members.



Please contact Senator Dean and let him know how important the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the right to self-defense are to you.


Senator Dean's contact information is below.
Email: dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov

District Address: 415 Tompkins Street
Inverness, FL 34450
Phone: (352) 860-5175

Legislative Address: 311 Senate Office Bldg.
404 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100
Phone: (850) 487-5017

To view the News 7, WJHG article and television clip please click here.

(The television clip can be view by clicking on the words, GUNS AT WORK, located below the title of the article.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The link/video is here: http://www.wjhg.com/news/headlines/15406211.html

Sen. Dean's email address is: dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov

camacho
February 9, 2008, 02:48 PM
Email sent! Let's keep pressure on those guys and have this law passed this year. Let's not have them jerk us around this time!

Green Lantern
February 9, 2008, 03:11 PM
2nd Amendment vs Private Property Rights. That's a tough one.

It shouldn't be, look at it like this: The employers are infringing on the property rights of the people that own the CARS and the contents therein.

IMO, the only way an employer would be justified in regulating what LEGAL property an employee kept locked up within the confines of their own vehicle, would be if it was a "company car" and thus the car was ALSO owned by the EMPLOYER.

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida pro-gun legislation filed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!