[funnybone]

:D

Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law By Michael Peltier
Wed Apr 9, 3:49 PM ET



Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

"The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security.

Critics say the measure usurps business owners' rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

"This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments," said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky, and Mississippi have similar laws, although in Oklahoma, an appellate court barred the state from enforcing the legislation on grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.

"We are disappointed that politics clearly won over good policy," Mark Wilson, president and chief executive of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.

(Editing by Tom Brown and Eric Walsh)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc

[chris in va]

Don't count your chickens, as they say. We had a beautiful concealed carry law pass the house and senate here in VA, vast majority voting for the bill. Kaine veto'ed it citing some mythical LEO suggestions who, by the way were quoted as being "neutral on the subject".

[Winchester 73]

Don't count your chickens, as they say. We had a beautiful concealed carry law pass the house and senate here in VA, vast majority voting for the bill. Kaine veto'ed it citing some mythical LEO suggestions who, by the way were quoted as being "neutral on the subject".

Not to worry.
Crist is not Kaine, but able.
Terrible pun,but the Governor will sign the bill.

[TheReeves]

Maybe we can try that one in Virginia next year along with SB476 all over again.

[armoredman]

Winchester, that was baaaaaaad.
Way to go, Florida!

[R127]

Oh noze! There will be blood in the work place! Just like there is blood in the state parks after allowing CWL holders to carry there. Just like there was blood in the streets when the concealed weapons laws were passed decades ago! Everybody would be safer if they were in strict victim disarmament killzones!

Well, come to think of it none of those bloody idea ever came about and the victim disarmament killzones have been a disaster.

Here's something to think about though... homeland security jobs still won't let you have a weapon. How stupid is that? Wait a minute, I'll answer for you... Extremely stupid! Yet another sign of how completely aimless and ineffectual the current paranoid security state is.

At some point in time we have to figure out a way to eliminate the false paradigm that suggests being defenseless makes you safer. This is not something we have to hash out with the anti's, they are not involved. This is something we have to hash out with the government, law enforcement and the military because these are the people ramming it down our throats.

[Soybomb]

Thats disappointing to me, I hate to see someone lose the ability to decide what happens on their own property. I'm not a fan of the law that prevents a bar owner from deciding if his customers can smoke in his establishment or not, and I'm not a fan of a law that prevents a property owner for instituting whatever dumb rules they want about their property.

[LawBot5000]

Crist is going to have enough people after his head without pissing off gun owners too.

And we're not really talking about losing control of your property in any real sense. These are strangers who have been invited on to the property to conduct business for the benefit of the owner. The owner of the property has little direct control over their behavior or the contents of their coat pockets. All this law does is strip away some of the illusion of control that wasn't there in the first place.

I can personally attest to:
-having carried nearly all the time at work despite it being forbidden. I have always tended to work long hours.
-knowing that many of my coworkers were packing as well.
-management being completely clueless of the company gun culture until they caught wind of me shipping crates of ammunition (this was back when it was like 7 cents a round) to my desk. They were horrified but quickly swept it under the rug because they didn't want to fire me.

The only business owners who object to this law(and I know a few business owners who should know better) seem to beleive on some level that:
-people that will disobey rules against threatening people's lives or killing them are going to obey some stupid company policy against carrying when the non-insane ones are disobeying it left and right
-that letting employers fire people for having guns is necessary when there aren't better reasons. This is nonsense because Florida is easily the strictest at-will-employment state in the union.
-that employees will go postal if you let them have guns. Which doesn't make sense because an enormous number of workers in Florida own guns but workplace shootings that aren't robberies are extremely rare here. Most employees realize that going on a murderous rampage isn't really the answer to being fired.

[cajun47]

"Thats disappointing to me, I hate to see someone lose the ability to decide what happens on their own property. I'm not a fan of the law that prevents a bar owner from deciding if his customers can smoke in his establishment or not, and I'm not a fan of a law that prevents a property owner for instituting whatever dumb rules they want about their property."

there are tons of laws that tell property owners what they can or can not do if they are running a business. you are anti 2nd.

[AndrewGWU]

I wish I did not live in a state run by democrats.....

gun laws would be so much better.

[ufstuddmuffin]

i wish the news would stop labeling this as "bring your guns to work" because it isn't. They should title it "leave your gun in your car at work"

[Soybomb]

there are tons of laws that tell property owners what they can or can not do if they are running a business. you are anti 2nd.
And there are lots of gun laws too. The existances of acceptance of either of those sets of laws doesn't mean they're right. If I said I think an employer should be able to set a dress code does that mean I'm anti 1st amendment too? The 2nd amendment protects you from government. it doesn't give you the right to do anything on my property any more than the 1st amendment give you a right to right to hold a religious rally on my property.

[k_dawg]

The law isn't even about locking your firearm in your car. That is already legal.

This law is about employers can not fire you for observing your second amendment right.

[usmarine0352_2005]

The law isn't even about locking your firearm in your car. That is already legal.

This law is about employers can not fire you for observing your second amendment right.


You are correct sir. It should be called the "Protect your Constitutional Rights from Employers Law".

[CBS220]

When Crist signs this, make sure to send him a letter of thanks for setting an example for the rest of the country.

[Winchester 73]

I wish I did not live in a state run by democrats.....

I wish you didn't either.
Here in Florida, we did from 1877 to 1998.
So we know the pain.
Democrat ,running for whatever office ,meant "tantamount to election".
So keep the faith.Our 120 year nightmare finally changed.
Hopefully, so will yours.

[TexasSkyhawk]

Thats disappointing to me, I hate to see someone lose the ability to decide what happens on their own property. I'm not a fan of the law that prevents a bar owner from deciding if his customers can smoke in his establishment or not, and I'm not a fan of a law that prevents a property owner for instituting whatever dumb rules they want about their property.

Property owners' rights can never--and should never--trump the individual civil rights of the citizenry.

Your analogy of a dress code versus First Amendment is erroneous as the preamble to that amendment has "Congress shall pass no . . ."

In the Second Amendment, no where does it say in the amendment WHERE or WHEN or in WHAT MANNER your right to keep and bear arms is allowed.

Rather, it says that your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Jeff

[siglite]

It almost pains me to say this. But I agree with soybomb. I do not like the government telling me whom I have to allow, or not allow on my property, with what.

It's easy to celebrate this today because we agree with the cause. But it'll be harder tomorrow when the government starts telling you you MUST allow Obama campaign stickers to be placed in YOUR windows by employees on 1st amendment grounds.

[Winchester 73]

In the Second Amendment, no where does it say in the amendment WHERE or WHEN or in WHAT MANNER your right to keep and bear arms is allowed.

Rather, it says that your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Thank you,Jeff

[siglite]

Rather, it says that your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

By the government of the United States.

Would you allow someone on your property with Pro Al Queda signs? Should the government require you to do so under the first amendment?

[siglite]

We could take this even further.

Should the government REQUIRE you to allow a flag burning in your parking lot under free speech? YOUR lot. YOUR company. YOUR property.

[Rustynuts]

I've still got the fingers crossed. I've seen a lot of anti-rhetoric come out since this passed. The big business lobbyists are working overtime to sway the Gov. I'm sure the Nazi Mouse (Disney) is in the mix as well.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I don't see cars as employer property. So the law really has nothing to do with telling an employer what he has to allow.

It almost pains me to say this. But I agree with soybomb. I do not like the government telling me whom I have to allow, or not allow on my property, with what.

It's easy to celebrate this today because we agree with the cause. But it'll be harder tomorrow when the government starts telling you you MUST allow Obama campaign stickers to be placed in YOUR windows by employees on 1st amendment grounds.

If those Obama stickers are on an employee's car, that's fine. It's his property. Same with guns. Guns in his car are his property. Once the stickers come off his window and onto mine, then it becomes a property rights issue. And once the guns come out of the car and into my building, that is when it also becomes a property rights issue.

It has nothing to do with Obama stickers in your building's windows, people burning flags in your parking lot, or Al Queda signs on your property. None of those are the employee's car. The lot is yours. The windows are yours. The property is yours. The car is not.

[siglite]

Then address the flag burning question, taurusowner.

[Winchester 73]

I've still got the fingers crossed. I've seen a lot of anti-rhetoric come out since this passed. The big business lobbyists are working overtime to sway the Gov. I'm sure the Nazi Mouse (Disney) is in the mix as well.

Don't worry, Rusty.
This one is in the bank.:D

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Fire ordnances and safety violations that apply to everyone aside, what an employee does, says, displays, listens too, or puts in his car is an extension of his home and property. The minute he takes it out of the car and onto my pavement, my walkway, my elevator, my building, my garage, etc THEN it is up to me what happens. Not before. Car=extension of home.

All of the hypothetical examples you're going to come up with all can be boiled down to one question: did it stay in his car? If the answer is yes, than it's out of your grasp.

[siglite]

So you'd address the flag burning question by technical "fire codes" and "safety codes" instead of answering the question. We're being hypothetical here. Assume there are no "fire codes" prohibiting open burning of materials in parking lots. Or they simply require a fire extinquisher present. Whatever.

Do you think it would be hunky dory for the government to require you to allow flag burning in your parking lot? Maybe if he does it in the bed of his pickup, since it's an extension of his home.

[Vector]

This has been long overdue for law abiding gun owners. However it needs to be readdressed next session so that average Joe's who do not possess a CWP can legally bring their firearms to work without fear of legal or employer reprisals. I see nothing wrong with people getting CWP's, but they should not be forced to get one just to have a means of protection to and from work.

The real issue I have with leaving a firearm in the car is that more guns will wind up being stolen as a result. Most people do not have a GunVault or other means of securing it beyond the glove box or trunk. If an employer insists that their employees cannot have a firearm on their property (which I fully agree with if they so choose), then they should provide a safe and secure means of locking the firearms up during work hours.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yeah, I would be fine with that. Can an employer tell someone they can't listen to Christian music or Rush Limbaugh in their car? Can and employer tell them they cannot have a bible or Quoran in their car? Can an employer fire someone over political bumper stickers?

No. Car=personal property, not business property.

The flag burning isn't in my parking lot, it's in the employees car.

And bringing up fire codes is not a diversion. If someone burns a flag on their lawn, and there is a law against burning anything on their lawn, it's not a free speech issue. If the law is specifically against burning flags, then it is.

[siglite]

Wow. Well, at least we know where you stand on that issue.

If someone burned a flag in the bed of their truck in my driveway, I'd be going to $#%ing jail. Guaranteed. I would not be cool with that at all. Let alone outside my business in full view of my customers.

But I can't fault you for an inconsistent view.

[lacoochee]

Do you think it would be hunky dory for the government to require you to allow flag burning in your parking lot? Maybe if he does it in the bed of his pickup, since it's an extension of his home.

Nope and it's not the same thing and you know it.

First of all, you would be going to jail if you attacked the person that did that and depending on who it was you were attacking you might be going to the hospital, but you and I both know your home is treated differently under the law. I would agree with you if an employee of your showed up in your home with a gun you can fire them. A business is completely different.

[siglite]

Nope and it's not the same thing and you know it.

Why isn't it? Both are the practice of a constitutionally guaranteed right.

[Kind of Blued]

HETHENS! I forecast at least once every monday a disgruntled Floridian employee will have his stapler stolen for the last time, run to his/her car, retrieve an evil assault rifle, and shoot up the place.

It will be reported with the headline "Looks Like Someone Had a Bad Case of the Mondays..."

http://threeminds.organic.com/assets_c/images/case-of-the-mondays.jpg

[siglite]

Well then, (I note you edited your post, so I'll respond here to the part you added) answer the question with regard to your business. Taurusowner was consistent. I'm not seeing the same consistency here.

[vzenmn]

Great.

I hope something simular gets passed in Texas.

[cajun47]

great!!!

we need a law like this in louisiana. im told i can't have a gun in my truck on chemical plant property. i was gonna work for contractors at many different plants. having second thoughts now. its not a dont ask dont tell rule, they have dogs that will detect gunpowder.

a business is subject to countless laws already so yea, those here against this should be ashamed as a pro gun rights person(which is questionable imo).

fact is i feel a need to have guns at home, more so in my car out on the streets. louisiana law says your vehicle is an extension of your home. how do we even have this problem with anti gun employers, i dont know.

anyone know where do i start to find out if louisiana is gonna pass this law?

[jon_in_wv]

Originally I was torn between a land owners right to decide who is armed on his property but everyone needs to work and our litigious society would have EVERYONE disarmed. Its a prudent measure in my opinion. It doesn't mandate they carry their firearm at work, just they are allowed to have it locked in their vehicle which is their own property. Good stuff.

[texas bulldog]

siglite...

a flag-burning demonstration in the lot is nowhere near the same as keeping a gun locked in your vehicle. that would be more analogous to me taking my gun out, waving it about, shooting it in the air, etc.

one is an act of demonstration that occurs clearly on your property. the other is an object you have no knowledge of, out of sight, completely contained within my property. you don't get to search my car for bibles or nazi flags, so why is a gun any different? and you certainly can't control what a customer has in their car either. they have a right to privacy within their own vehicle, and so does the employee.

if, as an employer, you are uncomfortable with the idea that people may have things in their own cars that you don't like, you are free to disallow employee parking in your lot (lots of retail places do). but if you allow my car, you allow its contents, just as you do with customers. hell, you could disallow them parking there too, but i don't think it'd be real good for business. ;)


ETA: oh yeah, and the fire ordinances do make a difference. again, that would be more analogous to waving a gun around and/or firing it. both are prohibited by ordinances that have nothing to do with property owners' rights and everything to do with public safety.

[MinnMooney]

Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.


Employees should be able to protect themselves and have all other basic rights even if they work for an employer who is anti-gun. Sure, an employee can choose to work somewhere else or not take the job in the 1st place but people NEED jobs and sometimes sign the employee agreement borne out of that need (akin to minor duress). I'm glad the the FL legislature is taking the action that they are. I wish the MN legislature would do the same.

[BruceRDucer]

In the Second Amendment, no where does it say in the amendment WHERE or WHEN or in WHAT MANNER your right to keep and bear arms is allowed.

Rather, it says that your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.--TexasSkyHawk



Yep, that's exactly what it says. Thank you for posting that TexasSkyHawk.

Isn't it weird how plain English gets twisted around to mean the opposite? :o

your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, unless it is INFRINGED!--Me. (that's nuts!)

/

[Jimmy Dean]

Um Cajun....we DO have this law, it passed a few weeks ago.

now, there are some weird stipulations. I would suggest going to bayoushooter.com and looking in the legal department for the specifics.


(we being Louisiana) granted....my gun was in my truck while at work anyways even before the law got passed, I would rather get fired for having it in my truck at work than killed while at the gas station headed home.

[GarandOwner]

Lets not forget, a security guard at Disney has already lost his job by following this law after they said "they were exempt" from this law

[Rustynuts]

It's ridiculous we even need these laws. I, for one, don't buy the private property BS. Your property is NOT a sovereign nation. Anything legal on the sidewalk (or car) is legal IMO anywhere not explicitly prohibited by law.

There should be no reason for a business or employer to have the right to deprive you of self-defense everywhere else on your trip simply because of his/her views on the subject. I don't even believe they should have the right to make you leave if your CCW is "discovered" or if legally open carried. What's legal is LEGAL, period.

[antsi]

If those Obama stickers are on an employee's car, that's fine. It's his property. Same with guns. Guns in his car are his property. Once the stickers come off his window and onto mine, then it becomes a property rights issue. And once the guns come out of the car and into my building, that is when it also becomes a property rights issue.


I like this way of drawing the distinction.

Clearly, the employees have rights. At the same time, a business owner has rights too. It is simplistic to say that either one is always paramount and can never be infringed.

The fact is, that sometimes two legitimate rights come in to conflict with each other and you have to make a distinction about which right takes precedence in which situation.

Otherwise I would have to allow a Communist political rally in my living room at 0300 every day for ten years, if the local Communists wanted to exercise their rights of assembly that way. The Commies have a right to free assembly and free speech, right? So I guess I must have to allow them to exercise that right in my bedroom when I'm trying to sleep.

Obviously in some cases private property rights do trump Constitutional rights - thus I have the right to tell the Commies to go have their political rally elsewhere.

I think viewing the car as the employee's private property is a good place to draw the line in this situation. Thus, sitting in his car in the parking lot, the employee has the right to launch off on a White Supremacist tirade. However, if he has the same tirade on the job in front of customers, the employer can ask him to shut up or fire him.

[siglite]

if, as an employer, you are uncomfortable with the idea that people may have things in their own cars that you don't like, you are free to disallow employee parking in your lot (lots of retail places do). but if you allow my car, you allow its contents, just as you do with customers. hell, you could disallow them parking there too, but i don't think it'd be real good for business.

I suppose if that's what it took to enforce property rights, that'd be the route I'd have to go. (Please remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) From a more broad philosophical perspective, I believe that property rights trump civil liberties. The Bill of Rights is not a limitation on what citizens can do. It is a limitation on what government can do. Am I against such a restriction on public property? Absolutely! But I firmly believe in my right to dictate what occurs on my property.

So, if the flag burning thing is a bit of a straw-man, or apples to oranges, what about the entire car that's painted with swastikas? That's arguably a first amendment exercise. Should the law force you to allow four or five employees to have swastika covered cars parked in YOUR lot?

We may have to agree to disagree. But I dislike government intrusion into private property and private lives regardless of whether I agree with the particulars of a given intrusion.

[redneckrepairs]

It's ridiculous we even need these laws. I, for one, don't buy the private property BS. Your property is NOT a sovereign nation.
Rustynuts could you please let me know ( pm is ok ) just what you consider sovereign . I have seen this word a lot and would be intrested in just exactly what it means to you .

[texas bulldog]

So, if the flag burning thing is a bit of a straw-man, or apples to oranges, what about the entire car that's painted with swastikas? That's arguably a first amendment exercise. Should the law force you to allow four or five employees to have swastika covered cars parked in YOUR lot?

at least this is a bit more analogous, as it deals only with one's vehicle. still, it's on the outside of the vehicle rather than hidden within, so it's not quite the same.

even if i were to agree with you (which i don't) that the property owner has an absolute right to dictate what is allowed on their property, i would certainly never agree that they have any effective means of enforcing that right (i.e. searching your car). that makes it a moot point in my book. they may arguably be able to ban it, but they can't go through my car looking for it, just as they couldn't go looking for anything else. the car is my property.

as to the example you give, i'll admit it's a tough one. liberty and rights aren't always easy. i think i would have to say yes, it ought to be allowed. there's really no difference between that and having any other type of bumper sticker on your car. again, i'm left (IMHO) with only the options of:

1. disallowing all employee parking in my lot,
2. living with it (i'd probably choose this, honestly. and i think the risk of it actually happening is low), or
3. (being honest and realistic here) finding another way to get rid of the employee in question. honestly, that isn't hard in a "right to work" state. the first time he opened his mouth at work about his supremacist beliefs, he'd be gone, for instance.


to sum up, i can totally understand that the rights of property owners should be respected. my sticking point is that my car is my property, and i am still entitled to privacy within it, even when parked on someone else's property. if the owner is permitting me to park on his property, he accepts that i may have things in the car he doesn't like. as long as they stay in the car i do not see this as a violation of the property owner's rights.

YMMV

[divemedic]

I suppose if that's what it took to enforce property rights, that'd be the route I'd have to go. (Please remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) From a more broad philosophical perspective, I believe that property rights trump civil liberties. The Bill of Rights is not a limitation on what citizens can do. It is a limitation on what government can do. Am I against such a restriction on public property? Absolutely! But I firmly believe in my right to dictate what occurs on my property.

The government has the power under the constitution to dictate what you can and cannot do on your property. The only limits are enumerated rights, and whether or not they are taking your property without just compensation.

Can you kill another person on your property if they are an invitee? No.
Can you make a rule that prohibits female employees from owning or possessing clothes on your property? No.
Are you required to have handicapped parking spaces? Yes.
Are you required to allow utility right of way? Yes.
Are you required to maintain fire alarms and emergency exits on business properties? Yes.

Obviously, property rights do not trump all.

[cajun47]

louisiana gun owners win against the anti gunners:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=501776

im told this takes affect aug. 15!

[siglite]

Can you kill another person on your property if they are an invitee? No.
Can you make a rule that prohibits female employees from owning or possessing clothes on your property? No.
Are you required to have handicapped parking spaces? Yes.
Are you required to allow utility right of way? Yes.
Are you required to maintain fire alarms and emergency exits on business properties? Yes.

Ahhh, but in many cases, property rights DO INDEED trump civil liberties. Specifically the BoR. As an agreement / condition of employment, you may be asked to surrender your 1st amendment rights (no hate speech on the property) your 2nd amendment rights (no weapons on the property) your 4th amendment rights (ever worked in a secure facility where you're searched for removable storage media, cameras, etc..?), and I'm sure there are other examples. People can, and routinely do waive their rights as a condition of employment. And I'm fine with that, because I believe in a free market. Those people are free to seek employment elsewhere. And if I can't find enough qualified employees, I'm free to change my policies.

I find no legal fault with requiring employees to voluntarily concede some of their rights while on my property and representing my organization. However, doing such a thing is rife with moral and perhaps logical fault in my opinion. Again, remember I'm playing devil's advocate. I will never deny an employee their second amendment rights.

However, I will concede that Texas Bulldog touches upon what makes this discussion very gray. He's right that the car is still his property. He's wrong, however, that employees are immune to having their vehicles searched. Go apply at Boeing. You'll find quite quickly that a searches of your vehicle are in black and white in the employment agreement. Your failure to consent to such search, by your own agreement, is grounds for instant and immediate termination. And the courts will back Boeing.

(I have nothing against Boeing, I just happen to know that this language is in their employment agreements.)

And isn't there a big ruckus being stirred up by a guy at Disney that was fired for not allowing them to search? (had a gun in the car).

I would've loved to have sat in on the committee meetings in Florida. This argument/discussion is good here. It had to be epic there. And again, remember, I'm playing devil's advocate. I'll never deny someone's 2nd amendment rights on my property.


<diversion>
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of leaving guns in cars anywhere. (this is a diversion from the core of the discussion, I know) I consider a gun in a car "unsecured." A friend of mine, who works for an organization that requires guns be left in the car was burglarized not once, but TWICE. Now criminals somewhere are in possession of two very nice Sig Sauer pistols. Unfortunate. And who do we blame for this? My friend who excersized his rights exactly to where his employer (and the law) allowed, or the company for restricting his right to carry in the buildings (there's where my vote goes)? </diversion>

[divemedic]

This law has nothing to do with whether or not a property owner can trump rights. The question here (when talking about the law) is whether or not the government has the POWER AND AUTHORITY to pass a law restricting a land owner from controlling the behavior of persons on that property.

The answer is yes, the government does indeed have that power and authority, again proven by fire codes, handicapped parking, utility rights of way, and anti-discrimination law.

[siglite]

Of course that answer is yes. But you'll not see me applauding government intrusion into private property. Even when I agree with a particular intrusion.

[JohnKSa]

But you'll not see me applauding government intrusion into private property.So "private property" = "public parking lot" to you?

And you consider it "government intrusion" when there's a law that prevents my employer from firing me if I won't let them search my vehicle or for the legal objects I have in my car while it's parked in the public parking lot?

The bottom line is that this isn't about "property rights", this is about "employer power". A company can't go out and conduct forced searches of customer's vehicles simply because those vehicles are in the public parking lot owned/controlled by the company--in fact, the idea is ridiculous.

The issue is NOT that they own the lot and are worried about controlling their property. The issue is that they want to maintain control over their employees. They know they can search my car, NOT because it's parked in the public lot they own/control but because I'm an employee and they know I have to let them if I want to remain employed.

How about if we stop pretending that this is a government intrusion into property rights and admit what it actually is. This is about people pushing for a law that prevents employers from enforcing tyrannical policies against their employees.

[siglite]

So "private property" = "public parking lot" to you?

I must have been sorely confused. I didn't realize we were talking about a municipal parking lot owned by the government. (Hint, we're not. We're talking about a parking lot owned by a corporation or individual)

And you consider it "government intrusion" when there's a law that prevents my employer from firing me if I won't let them search my vehicle or for the legal objects I have in my car while it's parked in the public parking lot?

Actually, yes, I do. Assuming it's a privately owned parking lot. But you seem confused. At no point were we talking about a municipal or state owned parking lot. This whole thread has been about private parking lots.


The bottom line is that this isn't about "property rights", this is about "employer power".

No kidding it's about control. I like control over what happens on my property. I often work with and handle very sensitive information. And I may require as a condition of employment, that my folks, or any contractors who likewise handle this information subject themselves, their computers, their cell phones, and yes their cars to searches for devices which may contain that information without authorization.

And this leads me to believe you need to do some reading.

A company can't go out and conduct forced searches of customer's vehicles simply because those vehicles are in the public parking lot owned/controlled by the company--in fact, the idea is ridiculous.

See, I'm convinced that you're VERY confused. You need to go somewhere and learn the difference between private and public. (Hint: Private means owned by an individual, corporation, or other non-government organization. Public means it's owned by the government.)

This leads to an amusing contradiction in your condemnation of reality as "ridiculous." You should be aware, that employees enter into agreements with their employers every single day in this country (perfectly legal and binding agreements) that grant their employer the right to search their vehicles on company property. I'm sorry you find it ridiculous. But it simply is. And I'm fine with it. I think it's perfectly ok for a private corporation to search employees for stolen material or fire the employee for failure to consent to search, PROVIDED that this has been agreed to by the employee in advance. Perhaps as a condition of employment. No one FORCED that employee to sign the agreement. They can work elsewhere.

How about if we stop pretending that this is a government intrusion into property rights and admit what it actually is. This is about people pushing for a law that prevents employers from enforcing tyrannical policies against their employees.

Oh, it's a little bit of both if you strike the word "tyrannical" from your position. You are not forced at gunpoint to sign that agreement. You would never be forced at gunpoint to work for me. No one is threatening to imprison your wife and children if you don't work at my place of business. So, I think you're playing it fast and loose with this "tyranny" thing. Tyranny applies to governments with a monopoly on force. Sony corporation is not rounding up employees at gunpoint, forcing them to work for them, and then forcibly searching their cars. Not even Disney's quite that evil. Yet.

That's the beauty of America and the definition of freedom. As an employer, I'm free to have my draconian policies. As a potential employee, you are free to say my policies are ... "tyranny" ... as misguided as that may be, and move on to seek employment elsewhere. I do love a free market. Someplace would have to be a pretty DAMNED good place to work before I'd sign away my 2a rights while on corporate property. But I have to admit, there are some jobs I'd do it for. Some that I have done it for. Did I like it? Well, no, of course not. But I didn't have to do it. In a country with so much opportunity, why not just work somewhere that doesn't suck?

[dalepres]

The chauvinist, arrogant, jerk in the executive offices does as much damage to the idea of capitalism as Dianne Fienstien. They serve to alienate fully half of the voting base. I hold them in equal contempt.

My employer should not have the option of searching me or my vehicle.

[JohnKSa]

I must have been sorely confused. I didn't realize we were talking about a municipal parking lot owned by the government. (Hint, we're not. We're talking about a parking lot owned by a corporation or individual)The parking lot is open to the public, it is not gated, there is no charge to park. That's a public parking lot by any reasonable interpretation of the term. I made it abundantly clear by stating multiple times in my post that the lot was owned/controlled by the company in question. If there's confusion I am not the one confused nor is it reasonable to misunderstand what I have said. Your definition of the term "public" is so extremely narrow as to be incorrect--consult a dictionary if you're in doubt of the veracity of this statement.I like control over what happens on my property.You're still ignoring the primary issue and pretending this is about property.

It is not about property and here's why.

1. A property owner doesn't have the level of control discussed here over what happens in their parking lot unless the person involved is contracted to the property owner in some way. One can't go out and search cars in his lot just because it's his property. He can only search his employees cars because if they don't comply he can fire them. It's not about property, it's about the ability to force employees to knuckle under.

2. The control affects more than just what happens in the parking lot, it's about what happens from the time a person leaves their home to go to work until they return home from work that evening. It's not about the company's property, it's about what happens to the employee from the time they walk out their door until the time they walk back into their home that evening.

3. Vehicles are private property, in fact, for many purposes they are considered to be an extension of the home. A vehicle does not become the company's property because it's parked in the company parking lot. It's not about controlling private property because if private property is sacrosanct then private vehicles would clearly enjoy the same protection.

I think we can dispense with the red herring that this is a "property rights" debate. If it were, this whole issue would be moot since it's about what goes on in employees' private property (i.e. their vehicles).

This is purely about the level of control that is reasonable for an employer to exert on employees. I think it's perfectly ok for a private corporation to search employees for stolen material or fire the employee for failure to consent to search, PROVIDED that this has been agreed to by the employee in advance.Are you really trying to equate theft with the legal posession of a firearm in a private vehicle?

If there is evidence of ILLEGAL activity then a search seems perfectly reasonable. But that's not what this is about. This is about searching for LEGALLY owned, LEGALLY carried items with the intent to punish the employee if such items are found.

You want this to look like it's reasonable (i.e. We have to be able to catch thieves.) when it's really not (i.e. I need to see if there are legal items in a person's car that, in my personal opinion, shouldn't be there; if I find any such items I will take that person's income and employee benefits from them and from their family).You are not forced at gunpoint to sign that agreement.If you strike the words "at gunpoint" from your statement then that statement is absolutely false. After I had worked for my current employer for years they implemented this policy. I was forced to sign the agreement in exactly the same way I am forced to comply with the parking lot policy. i.e. Do it or you lose your investment of time in this company, you will probably be forced to move, you may be forced to accept poorer benefits, you will probably end up with a lower standard of living.

No, I wasn't forced "at gunpoint", but the compliance was hardly voluntary.In a country with so much opportunity, why not just work somewhere that doesn't suck? Because I like where I live. Because it's near family. Because the gun laws are reasonable. Because the benefits I get are quite good. Because I have unusual and specialized work experience as well as an unusual skill set which means that finding work in a desirable area would be difficult or impossible.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY because there's no guarantee that after I moved to another company it wouldn't enact a similar policy. After all, the company where I currently work didn't have such a policy when I hired on.

Do I HAVE to work there? Of course not, but it's incorrect to imply that my compliance is purely voluntary.

In fact it's illogical to imply that having to change jobs is trivial while at the same time arguing that it's important for employers to retain the right to force an employee to change jobs in this situation. If just picking up and getting another job is no big deal for an employee then this law is also no big deal since it only affects the ability of an employer to make an employee get another job.

[wristtwister]

My question is simple... where does property rights give a landowner the right to dictate to others what legal rights they have on the landowner's property? My assumption has always been that your constitutional rights followed you anywhere you went, and when they were in conflict with a landowner's desires, the constitution trumped.

A lot of this trend started with school boards, who began dictating which rights existed on "school property" to students, and by extension, to adults... so now, everybody seems to think that because they own the property title that they can dictate what rights you have there. I've always been of the opinion that your only dictatorial power on your property was to allow someone there or tell them to leave.

Our company has a policy that says "you must allow a company representative to search your vehicle, or it is considered insubordination, and you can be terminated or disciplined for refusing to allow a search of your person or car". My take on that is easy... they can look in the windows, open the doors, and look all they want... if they open the glove box or console, they better have a warrant and be charging me with a crime. The police can't open those without one, and I fail to see where my employer has any right to search anything the police can't.

When I brought that up to HR in a meeting, they said that "they had the right to search anything or anyone on the property", and my argument was simple... I believe that as a "political opinion", I have a right to have a gun in my car, and South Carolina has a state law that no one can be fired or disciplined for political opinions... in fact, it is a criminal offense to do so, and anyone issuing orders to discipline or fire someone for their political opinion can be jailed for up to 6 months... so I put them on notice that they may assume anything they wish, it's my political opinion that my rights don't stop at the property line, and that as a licensed ccw holder, I am legally carrying a gun, even on my person in my car... which is another state law that was recently passed (ccw holders may carry concealed in their own cars).

What they better know, is that I would have them arrested for that in a skinny minute, so while the arguments are strong for both sides, the law is actually on my side... and could put them in jeopardy for millions in civil liability. Imagine the class action suit of 12-15,000 employees sueing for civil rights violations...:what:

WT

[divemedic]

Answer this-

Let's say that I own the largest business in town. I employ nearly 1 out of every 10 persons in a 40 mile radius. If my business were to close, this would mean that 1 out of every 3 persons within 60 miles would be unemployed. For this reason, I get many state law exemptions, and I even am granted law making ability in my city.

I pass a set of rules that state:

Persons who enter my property for any reason are:

1 Prohibited from wearing or possessing any item of clothing (even in their locked automobile) which covers the upper torso if they happen to be female, and;

2 females on my property for any reason are required to perform any sexual act that a company executive shall request, and;

3 employees are required to work for any rate of pay, or no pay at all, and;

4 the employee retirement fund is hereby dissolved, all employees who have contributed to it have no claim to those funds.

Anyone who does not like it is free to leave my property and employ, but this rules will be strictly enforced.

Would you still support it?

What if I got the state to declare my property, and the property around it, to be a regional government district with lawmaking abilities? The commissioners who pass the laws of this district are chosen by ballot, one vote for every acre of property you own within the district. Since I own 10,000 acres within the district, and everyone else in the district owns 8,000 acres combined, all of the commissioners of the district are my representatives.

That last paragraph is what Disney has done in Florida. (Google Reedy Creek Improvement District) Tell me again how Disney is fighting for anyone's rights except their own.

[M203Sniper]

This is not a "bring guns to work" it is an employee right to self defense law.

[dalepres]

My take on that is easy... they can look in the windows, open the doors, and look all they want... if they open the glove box or console, they better have a warrant and be charging me with a crime. The police can't open those without one, and I fail to see where my employer has any right to search anything the police can't.


You forget one thing. They can search your trunk and glove box without opening your vehicle: they use dogs.

And they get the local police department to do it for them - even though local and state laws prohibit the police from doing work for private companies. It happens where I work all the time.

[texas bulldog]

However, I will concede that Texas Bulldog touches upon what makes this discussion very gray. He's right that the car is still his property. He's wrong, however, that employees are immune to having their vehicles searched. Go apply at Boeing. You'll find quite quickly that a searches of your vehicle are in black and white in the employment agreement. Your failure to consent to such search, by your own agreement, is grounds for instant and immediate termination. And the courts will back Boeing.
(I have nothing against Boeing, I just happen to know that this language is in their employment agreements.)
And isn't there a big ruckus being stirred up by a guy at Disney that was fired for not allowing them to search? (had a gun in the car).

i would agree employers have a legal ability, as the law currently stands. i would not agree they have a right.

[scurtis_34471]

My car does not become your property if I park it in your driveway. If the state legislature were smarter, they would have left the gun part out of the equation entirely and simply said that employers could not demand to search an employee's car as a condition of employment. Problem solved.