Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop New Guns in Parking Lot Law


PDA






Winchester 73
April 22, 2008, 11:57 AM
Governor Crist just signed the bill last week .It's due to go into law July1.

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/NEWS0120/80421086/1075

Florida business groups try to muzzle guns at work
Associations cite conflicts with safety rules in lawsuit
By Paul Flemming • news-press.com Tallahassee bureau • April 22, 2008

TALLAHASSEE — Business interests Monday filed suit in federal court seeking to block the guns-at-work law Gov. Charlie Crist signed into law less than a week before.

The Florida Retail Federation and Florida Chamber of Commerce brought the suit in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee.


Rick McAllister, president and CEO of the Florida Retail Federation, said federal court was chosen because of the stark constitutional implications of the case. Similar suits in other states that have passed such laws still are on appeal. In Oklahoma, McAllister said, a challenge to a guns-at-work law was successful because it put state law in conflict with federal workplace safety regulations.

The Florida law is similar to legislation in several other states, including Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

But McAllister wants a bigger win.

“We don’t want to win on a technicality,” McAllister said. “We’d like there to be a clear decision on how constitutional rights are interpreted.”

The law allows employees who have a concealed-weapons permit to keep a gun locked in their vehicles at work, even if the employer wants to ban guns on the property.

Marion Hammer, an NRA lobbyist who was the prime mover of the legislation, along with its sponsors, Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, and Rep. Greg Evers, R-Baker, said as the bill worked its way to passage that it was merely a protection of existing Second Amendment rights.

Hammer could not be reached late Monday.

With Crist’s signature, the new law is set to take effect July 1.

McAllister said that in addition to the suit filed Monday, his group will seek to delay that.

“We’ll also be filing an injunction to set aside the beginning (of the law) until the court can make a decision” on the larger suit, McCallister said.

The two groups filed the suit on their own behalf as well as for their members. The Retail Federation has more than 11,000 member businesses. The chamber represents more than 139,000 Florida businesses.

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop New Guns in Parking Lot Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
divemedic
April 22, 2008, 12:11 PM
Until then, don't ask, don't tell. If you have a gun in your car at work, as long as you keep your mouth shut, your boss won't know. It isn't illegal to have a gun in your car, just against company policy.

Dick1911
April 22, 2008, 01:38 PM
While I understand that people want to carry to work and leave their guns in the car, I am having difficulty accepting that the State of Florida can over rule private property rights. I know that happens in many other areas, particularly environmentally related but I have issues with that as well.

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights. You certainly don't have full 1A rights at work, at least not without the employer excercising his right to give someone else the job you are working at. In most cases I think the employee can park off the premises and leave his gun in the car if the employer won't allow it.

What do y'all think? I'm still trying to logically settle this contradiction. :scrutiny:

Blackbeard
April 22, 2008, 01:53 PM
If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights.

I agree. However, the government already heavily regulates the employer/employee relationship, and those would seem to trump private property rights. I have free speech on my own land, but I can't tell my housekeeper she looks mighty sexy today.

Dick1911
April 22, 2008, 02:26 PM
I have free speech on my own land, but I can't tell my housekeeper she looks mighty sexy today.

Well, you can say that but your 1A right doesn't protect you from the consequences - just like slander is not protected from prosecution although it is your 1A right to say it (I think, although I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one even on TV - but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a few weeks ago :)). The consequence isn't necessariy for the words, but the harassment, which doesn't have to be verbal to legally occur, so my companies lawyers have told me in many corporate training sessions.

To me it would be the same for 2A, your employer doesn't allow it on the premises, you can carry it there but if you are found out you are subject to being fired with no recourse. You have the right but must be willing to suffer the consequences of violating anothers right.

MakAttak
April 22, 2008, 03:07 PM
Well, you can say that but your 1A right doesn't protect you from the consequences - just like slander is not protected from prosecution although it is your 1A right to say it (I think, although I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one even on TV - but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a few weeks ago ). The consequence isn't necessariy for the words, but the harassment, which doesn't have to be verbal to legally occur, so my companies lawyers have told me in many corporate training sessions.

I agree this should be how this is handled: corporations can ban guns on their property, but individuals who are harmed because they were denied the ability to defend themselves may sue the company for disarming them.

Make the company face consequences for their ill-advised policy.

BattleChimp Potemkin
April 22, 2008, 03:09 PM
If your company doesnt care about your well being, then to heck with em. Dont ask dont tell is correct Divemedic.

I would rather be fired, then be killed needlessly. Someone comes in spraying, I get my gun out of the car, go ahead and fire me. That is not the worst that can happen :(.

Dick1911
April 22, 2008, 03:20 PM
I agree this should be how this is handled: corporations can ban guns on their property, but individuals who are harmed because they were denied the ability to defend themselves may sue the company for disarming them.

I'm down with that!

And if I don't like the company policy I can go elsewhere as well. I have mentioned my dislike of my company policy concerning handguns on ocassion, but unless a large number of employees do so there won't be any change. We even had an HR meeting where it was stated "I've never known anyone that needed to shoot there way to or from work". Actually, there was a case about a year ago where a female employee was kidnapped from a public lot and later murdered. If she had been carrying she may have been able to save herself. I don't carry and leave it in the car because it is a public lot with no real security and breakins are not unkown. I'd hate to have my gun stolen and she may have felt the same but I don't know.

I've also told my wife that she should sue the company if I come to a violent end while working or travelling on business and a weapon could have made a difference. I doubt she would do it, however.

romma
April 22, 2008, 04:11 PM
Well, there is nothing preventing the property owners from banning parking in their lots.

So if a property owner will not accept a car as an extention of ones home, then ban parking on company property...

jlbraun
April 22, 2008, 04:12 PM
Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop Federal Law Banning Colored Water Fountains

Standing Wolf
April 22, 2008, 05:04 PM
If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights.

My life is my property, as is my car.

Ozarks
April 22, 2008, 05:27 PM
This is a great example of a conundrum. Obviously a person really doesn't want to offend someone's property rights. However, what about travel to and from work? Does someone's property rights trump someone else and their right to defend themselves while traveling to and from work?

We are mostly gunnies here, I think. So, would you wish to disarm a visitor to your privately owned property while they travel both to and fro? Please remember you can't disarm a Fed, or an LEO...

Dick1911
April 22, 2008, 05:34 PM
Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop Federal Law Banning Colored Water Fountains
A good point but a somewhat different issue as you cannot leave your skin color in your car or at home.

My life is my property, as is my car.
Quite true, and a private individual or company can legally ask that you and your car remain off their premises. Logically, why would a handgun be different? :confused:

So, would you wish to disarm a visitor to your privately owned property while they travel both to and fro? No, I wouldn't, but I don't understand how that impacts what someone else can do.

I just don't see how to decide which right is more of a right, although by definition all rights would be equal. But this is one issue where two individuals right are in conflict and how do you logically decide who wins? I personally would respect my neighbors property rights and not carry on his property if he asked, but that's me.

Any Leagle Eagles out there that can comment?

Mousegun
April 22, 2008, 06:02 PM
"If I don't like the company policy, I can go somewhere else"

That sounds wonderful until practicality kicks in. Most of us just can't or don't "go somewhere else" because it wasn't a cake walk getting the job we have now.

If the protesters in the 60's and 70's just went somewhere else, our eyes would still be closed to the BS that our goment was bestowing upon us at the time and the investigative reporters wouldn't have uncovered the dirty dealings that were going on. Hopefully, this kind of coverage helps keep the boys in office on the straight and narrow.

As far as keeping guns in cars in the parking lot goes, your beloved company will not cover your bacon on the way home or even for the most part, in the workplace.

By accepting the "no guns" policy without protest, we are simply caving in. They, like the goment are stripping us of 2 A rights. We are quick to climb Washington and the State for this travesty but seem to accept our employer's so called right to disarm in the name of personal and rights of the master (employer).

Protests to these policies should ring out loud and clear and don't ask, don't tell should be the plan of the day.

ptmmatssc
April 22, 2008, 06:31 PM
Can someone point me in the direction of "private property rights"? Like , where is it in our constitution? What amendment is it under?

One thing I'm trying to understand is how a corp , who is the property owner(not all the time , but many are ), having been GRANTED rights , can supersede individual rights , which are "inalienable" (not granted) . Kinda funny how something not alive and breathing can have "rights" just as an individual .

Dick1911
April 22, 2008, 07:47 PM
I believe it's all in the 5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


However, it appears to state that you cannot be deprived of property without due process. Is trespass ony covered under state law? Another question for the legal types.

lacoochee
April 22, 2008, 07:58 PM
The ability of the government to pass laws that trump the rights of private property owners who have made their property open to the public is well established. I cannot imagine that a court would over turn this new law in Florida, given the precedent that would set regarding the ability of a business to ignore other legislation dear to those same courts hearts.

Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop Federal Law Banning Homosexuals Only or Catholics Only Water Fountains

This law would be more analogous to the parking lot law, you can leave your "gayness" or your religion behind when you come to work. After all if you don't tell anyone how would they know? In many states and municipalities, these are protected groups.

Concealed carry permit holders are a special group and as such also may be in need of special protection under the law. We tend to forget because so many of us carry because we can, that many of the holders of concealed carry permits do so because their lives are under ACTIVE threat of being ended by ex-spouses, stalkers, former arrestees, crazed former students, etc., this law is about safety.

Hkmp5sd
April 22, 2008, 08:21 PM
Okay consider this. My company prohibits firearms in employee vehicles. At the same time, the parking lot is full of "park at your own risk" signs. So it is okay for them to tell me what I can have in my car yet claim they have no liabity as to what happens to my car (or me in my car) on their property?

So what if your employer wants to ban cigarettes on their property. Can they prohibit you from having them in your vehicle too?

If the cops search my car at work and find drugs, who gets arrested, me or my employer. It's "his" property after all.

My car and what is in it are my property and my business, not my employers.

Blackbeard
April 22, 2008, 08:35 PM
Kinda funny how something not alive and breathing can have "rights" just as an individual

The shareholders are living and breathing individuals, and they have rights. They own the building. Their property rights are just as valid as a sole proprietor's.

.cheese.
April 22, 2008, 08:44 PM
I think this is moronic. This new law doesn't even really do much anyways.

It just makes it illegal to fire somebody for legally having a gun in their car. It doesn't make leaving a gun in the car any more or less legal, it just affects the ability of a business to fire an employee over it. In addition, it doesn't cover people carrying guns into the workplace either. It's in their freakin cars for crying out loud. Unless there is a bomb or something seriously illegal like drugs in somebody's car, the contents of that vehicle are nobody's business IMO.

Businesses shouldn't be wanting to fire people for taking their own safety seriously in the first place.

I mean, what are they thinking?

"Uh... yeah, Bob. Listen... um. All of us in the office are feeling a little uneasy about you taking the whole 'life' thing so seriously. In fact, I'd say that your regarding your own life as so precious is creating a hostile work environment. Unless you can mellow out and come to the conclusion that if somebody wants to kill you, they should be able to without any struggle on your part - we're going to have to let you go. Sorry."

??

RoadkingLarry
April 22, 2008, 08:49 PM
Oklahoma's law of a similar bent was overturned based on OSHA safe workplace requirements it is currently under appeal at the dist. court level
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071006_1_A1_hHeis85083

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."

ConstitutionCowboy
April 22, 2008, 08:57 PM
Corporations are a construct allowed/created by state and some federal law. Corporations(all companies) do not have rights. Corporations only have those powers that are granted to them by the law. A state legislature or Congress itself cannot grant rights to a company, not even property rights the company might own or lease. State governments and Congress only have those powers granted to them by their respective constitutions. Even We the People can't grant rights to our governments, therefore, our governments cannot grant any rights those governments do not themselves have.

Corporations exist at the whim and by the graces of government. I know. I own a chapter "S" corporation now and have owned a chapter "C" corp and two sole proprietorships in the past.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

sacp81170a
April 22, 2008, 09:02 PM
What if you own stock in the company? Are you not then one of the property owners?

.cheese.
April 22, 2008, 09:03 PM
depends on the type of stock. You can own equity and not legally own property.

mekender
April 22, 2008, 09:10 PM
While I understand that people want to carry to work and leave their guns in the car, I am having difficulty accepting that the State of Florida can over rule private property rights. I know that happens in many other areas, particularly environmentally related but I have issues with that as well.

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights. You certainly don't have full 1A rights at work, at least not without the employer excercising his right to give someone else the job you are working at. In most cases I think the employee can park off the premises and leave his gun in the car if the employer won't allow it.

What do y'all think? I'm still trying to logically settle this contradiction.

the state of FL considers your car an extension of your home for the purposes of self defense inside it... under that logic, the car is off limits to such a prohibition... the car remains an extension of your house in all cases even if it is parked on someone else's property... therefore, the contents of your car are private just as your home would be

sacp81170a
April 22, 2008, 09:13 PM
depends on the type of stock. You can own equity and not legally own property.

I understand that, but the question remains, what if you own the type that conveys ownership? The corporate management isn't the property owner any more than you are, correct?

lacoochee
April 22, 2008, 09:36 PM
Actually, nice thought, if I own company stock (an equity instrument), then am I not an "owner" of that same company? How is it then that Disney, Busch Gardens, etc. think they can prohibit from carrying on my property? What about property rights? Lol. :neener:

divemedic
April 22, 2008, 11:02 PM
As a stockholder, you are not the "owner" you are an investor that loans money to the corp in exchange for a vested interest in the company. The difference? You are not held personally accountable for what the corp does. If the corp loses a lawsuit, the most you lose is your investment.

A corporation is a legal invention that creates an entity that exists only on paper, and thus under the "natural rights" theory that our entire constitution is based on, it has no natural rights.

This law does not interfere with property rights, it strikes a balance between the rights of two property owners: The owner of the parking lot, and the owner of the car.

The owner of the car keeps his gun on his property, and the owner of the lot keeps the gun of of his property. Just because I park my property on your land does not make you the owner or controlling entity over my car. You cannot set it on fire, damage it, or even sell it. You can't give consent to the police for a search of MY car, just because it is on your land. It remains my property.

Don't like it? You don't have to have a parking lot. Problem solved.

ConstitutionCowboy
April 22, 2008, 11:12 PM
Owning interest in a company does not make you the owner or even part owner of the property. The company owns the property. That is one of the joys of companies. Companies form a barrier between you and liability.

What good would a company be if you could be sued every time someone slipped on the ice in the company lot? What good would a company be if every creditor could come after you every time a company you held interest in went belly up? You are not the company. The only loss you can suffer is that sum of money you have invested in the company - unless you are an officer or agent of the company and you do something illegal, at which time you can be held accountable for your misdeeds.

For the protection a company offers, the company must operate within very specific guidelines - subject to audit, rules and regulations(laws) that would make a prison seem like a country club, and generally may not infringe upon the rights or powers of any stock holder, officer, or employee.

A company does not own the space above the surface of the parking lot. The parking lot is an area set aside by the company for the convenience of its employees. The company does not assume any liability if you get in a wreck in the lot. The company does not own your personal car. Your homeowners policy will generally cover anything stolen from your car while in a company lot, not the company or its insurance.

While the company may restrict who uses that lot, the company has no jurisdiction over what is within any vehicle, may not seize your vehicle, and may not search or authorize anyone else to search your vehicle. A warrant is required to authorize a search of your vehicle.

Some companies usurp power at least as bad as Congress, the Court, and the Executive. While the IRS sometimes treats companies the same as individual tax payers, it doesn't change any of the laws companies must operate under, does not(can't) grant any of the rights an individual has to a company, or grant any powers to a company beyond those granted to a company by the law that allows for the creation of said companies.

A good way to keep all this straight in your mind is to remember the nature of the law vis-a-vis people verses companies: Laws prohibit people to do certain things, while laws specify what a company may or must do within certain limits. People are free up to the point they might break the law, companies may only to do what is specified within the law.

Another way to see it is to remember that people have rights, companies only have the powers granted to them in the law.

Woody

Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
April 22, 2008, 11:16 PM
divemedic

Great minds think alike!

Woody

Coyote Blue
April 23, 2008, 12:21 AM
"Uh... yeah, Bob. Listen... um. All of us in the office are feeling a little uneasy about you taking the whole 'life' thing so seriously. In fact, I'd say that your regarding your own life as so precious is creating a hostile work environment. Unless you can mellow out and come to the conclusion that if somebody wants to kill you, they should be able to without any struggle on your part - we're going to have to let you go. Sorry."

That is very good .cheese.Very good.

sacp81170a
April 23, 2008, 12:37 AM
divemedic:

A corporation is a legal invention that creates an entity that exists only on paper, and thus under the "natural rights" theory that our entire constitution is based on, it has no natural rights.

Exactly, which is what my "innocent" question was leading to.

ConstitutionCowboy:

While the company may restrict who uses that lot, the company has no jurisdiction over what is within any vehicle, may not seize your vehicle, and may not search or authorize anyone else to search your vehicle. A warrant is required to authorize a search of your vehicle.

Agree completely. Additionally, if an agent of the company attempts to enter your vehicle without your consent to search it, he or she is committing burglary of a motor vehicle, a criminal offense. You may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a felony and damage to your personal property. I can't see any scenario where the state should even have to pass a law on the subject. The only reason a law needs to be passed is that apparently the courts have been far too lenient on corporate criminality. THAT'S what the "business owners" are upset about, loss of their special status and the inability to exercise petty tyranny over citizens. "Property rights" my Aunt Rosie's knickers... :banghead:

frogomatic
April 23, 2008, 12:43 AM
Make everyone face consequences for their ill-advised actions.


fixed

Robert Hairless
April 23, 2008, 02:26 AM
If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

However, it appears to state that you cannot be deprived of property without due process. Is trespass ony covered under state law? Another question for the legal types.

Dick, it's laughable for a business that provides parking for its customers and employees to accuse them of trespass for using that parking lot.

It's equally laughable for businesses to accuse government of violating due process in taking its property for public use simply because the government asserts that people who use those business parking lots--at the invitation of the businesses--retain their Constitutional rights.

There's no rational connection between a business's right to place reasonable limits on an employee's First Amendment right to free speech while he is on company property and its desire to abolish the employee's other rights. It's obvious that no restaurant employee should have a First Amendment right to tell customers that the food being served them is awful and that there's a much better place to eat down the road. In such a situation the employee's speech directly impacts his employer's business and is not protected.

But where an employee's exercise of his Constitutional rights--or rights granted under state law--do not impact the employer's business, the employer needs to mind his own business and not interfere in the lives of his employees. It's difficult to see how an employee affects his employer's business by keeping a legally permitted firearm locked in his own vehicle and concealed from public view. And yet employers have had gun sniffing dogs identify such employee vehicles and have had guards search them. Do you really want to defend such actions? I don't see that they are defensible.

This situation is much simpler than some people assert.

divemedic
April 23, 2008, 08:17 AM
There's no rational connection between a business's right to place reasonable limits on an employee's First Amendment right to free speech while he is on company property and its desire to abolish the employee's other rights.

That is because we are not comparing apples to apples. To make a fair comparison, a business prohibiting possession of books in your car would be closer to what we are talking about when applying 1A to this discussion.

If a business were campaigning to be able to fire employees for having a Bible in their car, we would be having a different argument.

Dick1911
April 23, 2008, 09:28 AM
Dick, it's laughable for a business that provides parking for its customers and employees to accuse them of trespass for using that parking lot. ...This situation is much simpler than some people assert..

It may be laughable but a business can request that a customer or employee leave their property and not return and have legal recourse if you do not comply. If you are dismissed they can control your access to return and get your personal posessions as well.

the state of FL considers your car an extension of your home for the purposes of self defense inside it... under that logic, the car is off limits to such a prohibition... This makes sense to me. If it's gone through the process for some other case and has come to this I would agree.

This law would be more analogous to the parking lot law, you can leave your "gayness" or your religion behind when you come to work. After all if you don't tell anyone how would they know? In many states and municipalities, these are protected groups.

Concealed carry permit holders are a special group and as such also may be in need of special protection under the law. I like this idea as well. While I usually think of protected groups being a group for some reason they have no control over, such as race or gender.

Actually I'd like for us to be a protected class. That would cover CCW as well as let me explain to my wife why I purchased another gun. "Honey, I couldn't help it, I'm genetically driven to purchase firearm..." :evil: I don't think she would buy it, but it would be enough of an excuse for me!

P.S. - I'm really enjoying this thread, lot's of good thinkers on this forum (although I am not usually accused of that) :)

RoadkingLarry
April 23, 2008, 10:59 AM
It isn't going to be overturned on property rights. It is going to be overturned on OSHA regulations just like they did here in Oklahoma.

divemedic
April 23, 2008, 12:32 PM
I still don't think that the decision in OK will stand.

ETA:

The reason that this will not stand is that the decision states that under the OSH general duty clause, employers are required to provide a safe workplace. Since a significant number of people are injured and killed by firearms while at work, all employers that are subject to the OSH act MUST have a no firearms policy. This would have the effect of prohibiting all guns in all workplaces, and the employer has no choice in the matter. This has the effect of placing a nationwide federal firearms ban. The decision will not stand. Those of you that think this is a property rights issue, notice how the anti's are taking away the property owner's right to allow weapons.

The decision is based in large part upon an anti gun article "ARTICLE: THIS GUN FOR HIRE: CONCEALED WEAPONS LEGISLATION IN THE WORKPLACE AND BEYOND" which advocates the SCOTUS making a ruling that all CCW laws be struck down as violations of the OSH act.


Read the relevant portion of the decision below:

Even in light of the broad obligations imposed by the general duty clause, the Court initially had concerns as to whether an employer's obligations under the general duty clause extend to the prevention of workplace violence and, in particular, workplace violence committed with firearms. After review of various published materials discussing the OSH Act and workplace violence, the Court is convinced the OSH Act's general duty clause extends to potential dangers posed by unauthorized firearms on company property and, specifically, the danger of workplace violence committed against employees.

[...]

Second, on the OSHA website, there is a specific page devoted to the topic of "workplace violence." This page provides:

Violence in the workplace is a serious safety and health issue. Its most [**140] extreme form, homicide, is the fourth-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 551 workplace homicides in 2004 in the United States, out of a total of 5,703 fatal work injuries. 57 Environmental conditions associated with workplace assaults have been identified and control strategies implemented in a number of work settings. OSHA has developed guidelines and recommendations to reduce worker exposures to this hazard but is not initiating rulemaking at this time.

Third, OSHA has enacted voluntary guidelines dealing with workplace violence in night retail establishments and the health care and social service fields. See OSHA Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence Among Health Care and Social Service Workers, 25 O.S.H. Rep. (BNA) 1439, 1440 (March 13, 1996); OSHA Guidelines for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs for Night Retail Establishments, 25 O.S.H. Rep. (BNA) 1591, 1591 (Apr. 15, 1996). The guidelines related to health care and social service [**142] workers expressly mention "[t]he prevalence of handguns and other weapons among patients, their families or friends" as a "risk factor" leading to an increased risk of work-related assaults. See OSHA Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence Among Health Care and Social Service Workers, 25 O.S.H. Rep. (BNA) 1439, 1440 (March 13, 1996). While these voluntary guidelines are not considered OSH Act "standards," they evidence that workplace violence is within the scope of the OSH Act and that OSHA has offered specific suggestions for reducing workplace violence at certain establishments.

[...]

Fifth, in addressing the effect of concealed weapons legislation on the workplace, commentators have opined that employers must be able to enact "no firearm" policies such as those enacted by Plaintiffs in order to comply with the OSH Act. See A. Nicole Hartley, Comment, Business Owner Liability and Concealed Weapons Legislation: A Call for Legislative Guidance for Pennsylvania Business Owners, 108 PENN ST. L. REV. 637, 646 (2003) [hereinafter Business Owner Liability] (concluding that "[i]f OSHA recognizes workplace violence, then employers [**145] who prohibit weapons could be eliminating foreseeable hazards"); Gun For Hire, supra (arguing that employers' policies prohibiting weapons are reasonable and permissible even when they are contrary to rights given to citizens by concealed weapons legislation due, in part, to an employer's obligations under the OSH Act). One commentator concluded:

Given the current workplace violence statistics, it does not require a great leap of imagination to conclude that allowing employees to bring weapons into the workplace, even lawfully, would increase the potential hazard of workplace violence. Moreover, a cogent argument could be made that such hazards are now objectively "recognizable," and therefrom, employers are on notice of the hazard of workplace violence in light of the recent publication of various statistics as well as the promulgation of OSHA guidelines. . . . Therefore, employers can reasonably adopt policies of prohibiting concealed weapons in the workplace predicated upon the employer's [*1333] legal duty to provide a safe workplace for employees.

XDKingslayer
April 23, 2008, 12:58 PM
Florida isn't exactly known for it's wonderful property rights. I think everyone here from Florida has seen that with what Florida has been doing with eminent domain.

I sit squarely on the fence on this issue. I have a right to carry my weapon, but my employer also has his rights on his private property. My rights don't come before his, nor his mine.

There is no fair way to settle this.

divemedic
April 23, 2008, 01:18 PM
The law isn't about carrying your weapon. It is about leaving it in your car.

GEM
April 23, 2008, 01:21 PM
Businesses don't give a crap about constitutional property rights - all they care about is their perceived liability. They use the Constitution as a ploy to deceive some conservatives who think they still live in a castle.

Dick1911
April 23, 2008, 01:38 PM
I sit squarely on the fence on this issue. I have a right to carry my weapon, but my employer also has his rights on his private property. My rights don't come before his, nor his mine.

There is no fair way to settle this.

I think you hit the nail on the head, or maybe I should say hit the bullseye. Ultimately any decision will be unfair to someone. :(

XDKingslayer
April 23, 2008, 02:29 PM
Businesses don't give a crap about constitutional property rights - all they care about is their perceived liability. They use the Constitution as a ploy to deceive some conservatives who think they still live in a castle.

They do when they are being trampled and they ARE being trampled in this bill.

A business should have the right to say what I can and can not bring on their property. I can tell you not to bring something on my private property, why can't they?

Like I said, this is going to be unfair to one side or the other.

At tad bit more of me is starting to side with the businesses. If I was a business owner, I should have the right to say what can and can't happen on that property just like my home. If you don't like that, go work somewhere else.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "vehicle is an extension of your home". If my vehicle was an extension of my home, then tint laws are unconstitutional. If my car is an extension of my home and I can have blinds on my home's windows, then I should be able to tint my cars windows as dark as I please. Florida law says otherwise. The only time a vehicle is an extension of your home is when it applies to self defense and that has nothing to do with this. This is about keeping your weapon in your car while you are inside at work. You are hardly defending yourself when your carry weapon is locked in your car. So self defense and your car being an extension of your home have nothing to do with this.

As a gun owner, I'm not having my rights taken away. If I don't like that businesses rules, I can go elsewhere. Just like if I don't like what a radio station is transmitting I can move the dial, or change the channel on a TV.

My right of choice is still there.

If I can't find a job that will let me keep my weapon in my car, that is my problem, not the government's or the business' problem.

XD_fan
April 23, 2008, 02:30 PM
I really don't see the issue. If someone is going to commit a violent act in the workplace no law is going to stop them. However for an entity with no rights to prohibit a person from protecting themselves, well, that entity just assumed the responsibility for your safety and well-being. I think its only a matter of time before someone sues on this basis.

You can't have it both ways. Either I can exercise my guaranteed rights or you assume the responsibilty for safety by prohibiting me from doing so.

ETA: I know what I just posted should be common sense but when has that mattered in the last 50 years!

XDKingslayer
April 23, 2008, 02:42 PM
Business are already liable for your safety and well being.

But how to you expect to protect yourself when the criminal is standing between you and your gun that's locked up in your car?

You wanted common sense, well there it is...What good is your weapon outside in your car?

Let's take your common sense one step further shall we?

You're at work, an attacker enters the building. You run outside and get your weapon from your car. You run back inside? You run back inside and confront the situation when you had the oppertunity to simply drive away? How is a jury going to view that? You had a means of escape yet you chose to escalate your situation. That's how it will play out in a court you can pretty much bet on that. How will the jury full of sheep look at that? Heroism or stupidity? Bravery or bloodlust?

The fact of the matter is that the gun isn't doing you a damn bit of good locked up in your car. So why have this law anyways? What we should have been attacking is stopping employers from saying you can't carry on their property, the hell with leaving it in the car.

TexasFats
April 23, 2008, 03:32 PM
First of all, let me assure you that equity shareholders ARE legal owners of the corporation. They do not just "loan" money to the company. The folks who loan money are bondholders. However, in order to to avail themselves of the limited liability protections that go with incorporation, the equity owners give up direct control of the business, and elect a board of directors who hire the upper-level management team, who hire the next level of managers, who hire. . . You get the picture.

The question of property rights versus self-defense rights is a thorny one. On the whole, I think that this is one area where we need to limit a business' right to ban guns from cars in a parking lot. The thing to remember is that, to most corporate management, the only thing that they care about in this whole issue is their legal liability. I think that the solution is to give business' some limited immunity from lawsuits arising from employees keeping guns in their cars, and make businesses that ban guns from employee cars liable for any injury to the employee that results from third-party criminal actions either on the employer's premises or while the employee is directly in route to or from work. If the law did that, I suspect that this whole argument would go away.

MakAttak
April 23, 2008, 03:45 PM
You wanted common sense, well there it is...What good is your weapon outside in your car?

Let's take your common sense one step further shall we?

You're at work, an attacker enters the building. You run outside and get your weapon from your car. You run back inside? You run back inside and confront the situation when you had the oppertunity to simply drive away? How is a jury going to view that? You had a means of escape yet you chose to escalate your situation. That's how it will play out in a court you can pretty much bet on that. How will the jury full of sheep look at that? Heroism or stupidity? Bravery or bloodlust?

The fact of the matter is that the gun isn't doing you a damn bit of good locked up in your car. So why have this law anyways? What we should have been attacking is stopping employers from saying you can't carry on their property, the hell with leaving it in the car.

How about the reason for this law:

You leave your gun at home. You go to work. Nothing happens. You come home to find your abusive ex-husband already in your house waiting for you. Unfortunately you cannot get to your gun because you left it in the safe. So, you take the beating and hope he doesn't choose to kill you this time.

Oh? The company? What do they care, its not their problem. Except when they fire you because you can't come to work while you are in the hospital.


To those that say a business owner should have the right to say what goes on in his property, I will agree.

If the full, liable owner of a business wants to make rules for his property, go ahead.

If a manager is making these rules, that's not property rights.

Corporations are not people. Corporations do not have rights.

k_dawg
April 23, 2008, 05:16 PM
Oklahoma's law of a similar bent was overturned based on OSHA safe workplace requirements it is currently under appeal at the dist. court level
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic..._A1_hHeis85083

Quote:
U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."


What I do not understand is: What basis did Kern have, to rule that it *IS* an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries .

It seems completely caprecious and unrelated to the facts heard in the case.

brighamr
April 23, 2008, 05:34 PM
Private Property Rights vs Individual Human Rights... how many times will this be hashed? Probably more than 9mm vs .45

Winchester 73
April 23, 2008, 05:37 PM
Private Property Rights vs Individual Human Rights... how many times will this be hashed? Probably more than 9mm vs .45

Hopefully.:neener:

Dick1911
April 23, 2008, 05:46 PM
Private Property Rights vs Individual Human Rights...
Private Property Rights are Individual Human Rights - the propery itself has no right, only the person that owns it. One of the tests of ownership is being able to control the property. If you can't do what you wish with your property you do not fully own it. If you do not fully own it then it's easier for some one else (government?) to take control and claim ownership. That's why I fear the erosion of property rights as government from local to federal is already playing too loose with imminent domain. The 2A is not the only right that is being threatened.
how many times will this be hashed? Probably more than 9mm vs .45

Probably, it's more important :D

CZ-100
April 23, 2008, 06:54 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "vehicle is an extension of your home". If my vehicle was an extension of my home, then tint laws are unconstitutional. If my car is an extension of my home and I can have blinds on my home's windows, then I should be able to tint my cars windows as dark as I please. Florida law says otherwise. The only time a vehicle is an extension of your home is when it applies to self defense and that has nothing to do with this. This is about keeping your weapon in your car while you are inside at work. You are hardly defending yourself when your carry weapon is locked in your car. So self defense and your car being an extension of your home have nothing to do with this.

It has everything to do with Self defense, It is providing me a way to defend myself too and from work.

The weapon is being kept in MY locked vehicle, out of site and is NOT in the WOKPLACE it is in MY vehicle.

JerryM
April 23, 2008, 07:02 PM
While I am for individual property rights, I have to wonder when it comes to a business. For example a business cannot discriminate against race as far as I know. But I could if I desired to do so on my property.

WalMart for example is bound by regulations/laws that individual property owners (not a business) are not. On my property I have the right to exclude anyone for the way they dress or wear their hair, but businesses often run afoul of 1st Amendment considerations.

So where does the individual property owner's rights vs a business' property rights part company?

When one starts a business has not he given up some of his normal property rights? I don't know much about this, but pose the question.

Regards,
Jerry

XDKingslayer
April 23, 2008, 09:17 PM
How about the reason for this law:

You leave your gun at home. You go to work. Nothing happens. You come home to find your abusive ex-husband already in your house waiting for you. Unfortunately you cannot get to your gun because you left it in the safe. So, you take the beating and hope he doesn't choose to kill you this time.

This is the only example of why this law is needed that makes any amount of sense.

Geno
April 23, 2008, 09:32 PM
I really like Michigan's CCW interpretation. My car; my "business", even if it is on your business' property.

mekender
April 23, 2008, 09:44 PM
This is the only example of why this law is needed that makes any amount of sense.

how about you are on your way home from work and you stop at a gas station, while pumping gas, you are mugged... you cannot defend yourself because your gun was left at home due to your workplace's policy....

i still challenge anyone to tell me under what legal doctrine is my car and the contents inside no longer my property when i park it on someone else's property... the only thing i could imagine would be if the car were seized by either LEO's or by the bank that holds the title... other than that, i dont see how it could be...

ConstitutionCowboy
April 23, 2008, 09:44 PM
For those who think companies have rights, re-read comments #22 and #29.

To those that say a business owner should have the right to say what goes on in his property, I will agree. If a person who owns a company also personally owns the the property, yes. If the business owns the property, the business may only use the property and "call the shots" on the property as controlled by the law creating such business.

Woody

dalepres
April 23, 2008, 11:47 PM
While I understand that people want to carry to work and leave their guns in the car, I am having difficulty accepting that the State of Florida can over rule private property rights. I know that happens in many other areas, particularly environmentally related but I have issues with that as well.

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights. You certainly don't have full 1A rights at work, at least not without the employer excercising his right to give someone else the job you are working at. In most cases I think the employee can park off the premises and leave his gun in the car if the employer won't allow it.

What do y'all think? I'm still trying to logically settle this contradiction.

So do private property rights overrule equal opportunity? Can I ban blacks from my business? Or refuse to hire or promote women?

The constitution does not stop at your fence.

dalepres
April 23, 2008, 11:49 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "vehicle is an extension of your home". If my vehicle was an extension of my home, then tint laws are unconstitutional. If my car is an extension of my home and I can have blinds on my home's windows, then I should be able to tint my cars windows as dark as I please. Florida law says otherwise. The only time a vehicle is an extension of your home is when it applies to self defense and that has nothing to do with this. This is about keeping your weapon in your car while you are inside at work. You are hardly defending yourself when your carry weapon is locked in your car. So self defense and your car being an extension of your home have nothing to do with this.

I must have missed something. Can someone clear up this for me? Where are windows blinds and window tint protected by the Constitution?

dalepres
April 23, 2008, 11:57 PM
While the company may restrict who uses that lot, the company has no jurisdiction over what is within any vehicle, may not seize your vehicle, and may not search or authorize anyone else to search your vehicle. A warrant is required to authorize a search of your vehicle.

ConstitutionCowboy, you forget what happened in our own state where Wayerhaeuser searched the vehicles of employees who were parked in a private lot, only partly rented to Wayerhaeuser arranged with the local county sherrif to do dog searches for which 3 or 4 employees were fired based on legally carried rifles in their vehicles. And this was held up in the courts here. That is a case of the sherrif providing private law-enforcement services to a civilian company, illegal search by the company and the sherrif, and still the courts upheld the search. This led to the right to carry in the car law in Oklahoma which was then quickly overthrown by the federal courts.

I think you're right about what is legal, constitutional, and just, but this is the United States of America not Russia. We don't enjoy those kind of freedoms here.

ConstitutionCowboy
April 24, 2008, 12:56 AM
dalepres

The court action in this case is no over yet. The Governor, Brad Henry, and AG, Drew Edmondson, have appealed the case.

Weyerhauser was way out of line with their actions, and the team of lawyers who brought the case against Weyerhauser didn't use OS 18 -1013.B in the case, which prohibits corporations to adopt any bylaw that would be inconsistent with the rights of any employee.

Woody

18-1013. Bylaws.
BYLAWS
A. The original or other bylaws of a corporation may be adopted, amended or repealed by the incorporators, by the initial directors if they were named in the certificate of incorporation, or, before a corporation has received any payment for any of its stock, by its board of directors. After a corporation has received any payment for any of its stock, except as otherwise provided in its certificate of incorporation, the power to adopt, amend or repeal bylaws shall be in the board of directors, or, in the case of a nonstock corporation, in its governing body.
B. The bylaws may contain any provision, not inconsistent with law or with the certificate of incorporation, relating to the business of the corporation, the conduct of its affairs, and its rights or powers or the rights or powers of its shareholders, directors, officers or employees.
Added by Laws 1986, c. 292, 13, eff. Nov. 1, 1986. Amended by Laws 2001, c. 405, 5, eff. Nov. 1, 2001; Laws 2004, c. 255, 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2004.

KyJim
April 24, 2008, 02:47 AM
The Oklahoma decision will never stand for several reasons. It is based on a flawed theory of federal preemption; i.e., the idea that federal law trumps state law. There is no federal law or regulation which bans guns from the cars of employees so there is no direct conflict. The court in Oklahoma apparently used the legal principle that there is federal preemption if federal law so occupies a particular field, that it leaves no room for state law. That's very curious because, in many states, federal agencies do not even regulate or enforce workplace standards. It is the state that enforces workplace safety laws. The state makes regulations in furtherance of that authority. I'm sure that there are certain standards the states have to follow, but the idea that there is no room for the state law is ludicrous. States, and sometimes municipalities, have laws which prescribe minimum ages and maximum hours for young people.

The law allowing employees to keep a gun in their cars is not aimed at keeping the workplace safe in the traditional sense; i.e., in regulating the conditions of work. The law is an enabling act to allow citizens to exercise their right to bear arms in aid of self-protection; a right soon to be explicitly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Both state and federal laws bar employers from discrimination based upon race, sex, religion, or national origin. Why should a state law protecting another individual right not also be enforceable?

The idea that employers face extensive legal liability is a red herring. If sued, they can simply point to state law and validly claim they had no legal authority to ban employees from having guns in cars. As some have pointed out, they may actually increase their exposure by banning guns in cars. A woman raped and mugged because she did not store her pistol in the car paints a very sympathetic picture. There is, of course, a line that should not be crossed, where the wishes of the employer should prevail. That line is at the car door.

What CCW holders and gun rights groups should do is to specifically target those businesses for boycott that are supporting these court challenges. I'm sure that is one reason the Chamber of Commerce is a party in the Florida case -- to make it more difficult to identify those businesses. Gun owners should go to every business in the Chamber of Commerce and ask them to sign a petition to the Chamber to drop the case. Those who refuse to sign could be targeted for boycotting.

jrfoxx
April 24, 2008, 04:56 AM
A business should have the right to say what I can and can not bring on their property. I can tell you not to bring something on my private property, why can't they?


Becasue the 2 are not even remotely close to the same thing. Go buy a building in your town in the business district, dont get a business licesne or perform any business, and just live in it as your new home, and let me know what the govt says about it. Same with your current home. Open an assembly line with employess in your basement, or open your front door ans start selling keychains or something, and again, let me know what the govt does.In both cases, when you get you fine, eviction notice, court date, whatever, tell the judge about you property rights and see if you win. A business, even one owned by a single individual, is not the same as his home in MANY ways, so the rules on what you, or others, can and cant do in each are different, and in the case of a business, the rules are set by the govt, since they are ALLOWING you to have/be a business. I havent seen anything in the bill of rights about a right to be a corporation, or even to run a business. those are manufactured constructs/entities created by the govt., not natural/God given/constitutional individual rights. A business vs. a home is just 2 very diffewrent things, and thus, so are the rules for them.

Also, as has been brought up, the real issue isnt about being able to get into your car to acces your gun for SD while at work, it's more about having it available every second you chooses to do so on your way TO and FROM work, and wherever you may go/stop during that time, when you are off company property and off company time. Being able to get to and use it in the event of a workplace shooting in the building you are in is VERY slim to none. It's all the rest of the time this is about.

I fully support EVERONE'S right to set whatever rules they want as a condition of entering or being on/in your privately owned, non-business licensed home or land. You want to put up a sign that says "No women or Jews", or "Everyone must be nude-no clothing allowed" and enforce it, have a ball, it's disgusting, but it's your right on your private, non-business property. Do the same at the 7-11 or Kinko's, or whatever busines you own, and you're outta luck, prepare to get succeesfully, and very rightfully, sued and screwed, in the least.

My .02 cents, and as always, YMMV.:D

Dick1911
April 24, 2008, 08:26 AM
So do private property rights overrule equal opportunity? Can I ban blacks from my business? Or refuse to hire or promote women?

The constitution does not stop at your fence.

To my knowledge gun owners are not covered by the EEO. It would make things a lot simpler if we were. In addition you can't leave your race or gender in the car when you go to work so the comparison isn't valid.

Wayerhaeuser searched the vehicles of employees who were parked in a private lot...
:( Wow - I've not heard that one. Anyone want to buy my Wayerhaeuser stock?

tntwatt
April 24, 2008, 08:44 AM
without 2A there would be no private property rights.

RobXD9
April 24, 2008, 10:35 AM
There is perhaps a perfect question out their to contemplate. It fits the exact meaning of the law, but with a different protected Constitutional right inviolate.

Consider this - replace the word "gun" or "firearm" with the word, "Torah," "Bible," or "religious texts."

If a private company's policy prohibited the Bible from being on their property (including your locked car) - would that violate the 1st Amendment?

I'm betting the very people suing to stop this issue as it relates to guns, would also file suit if it was their freedom of religion was compromised.

I agree with the others - don't ask, don't tell.

Robert

GEM
April 24, 2008, 11:35 AM
You wanted common sense, well there it is...What good is your weapon outside in your car?


In a Georgia school shooting and the Applachian Law School incident, IIRC, right thinking folks ran out to retrieve their weapons and had a positive outcome.

The folks braying about the property rights of businesses that are open to the public and expect tax payer dollars to pay for the law and fire to come to their place of business just disgust me. If you are so private pay for your own fire and police.

Once you open a business, it ain't your castle.

XDKingslayer
April 24, 2008, 11:54 AM
I must have missed something. Can someone clear up this for me? Where are windows blinds and window tint protected by the Constitution?

The relation is that I'm allowed to have blinds on my windows and a right of privacy in my home.

I can't however, put extremely dark tint on my vehicle for the same privacy I have in my home.

Therefore, the vehicle being an extension of the home is crap. It's only an extension of the home when defense is involved.

Once you open a business, it ain't your castle.

Why isn't it? What makes my (theoretical) business any different than my home? Do I not have the right to tell my employees what they can and can not do?

I'm starting to change my mind on this law because someone mentioned something I didn't think of and that's defending myself to and from work. But you guys saying that I don't have a right to tell my employees what they can and can not do on my property is a load of bull. Business or not, my property is still my property.

Again, I'm right back on the middle of the fence. Telling me I can't have my gun is just as much of a trample on my rights as making my employer allow me to do it is to his.

A business being open to the public has nothing to do with this. This is also effecting businesses that aren't open to the public. This also has nothign to do with fire and police and who pays what taxes.

It's about whether the right of a person to defend themselves out-weighs the right of a business to tell it's employees what they can and can not do on business property.

I can't make that decision. Just because I'm a gun owner doesn't make me rights more important than the business owner.

MechAg94
April 24, 2008, 11:57 AM
I think those vehicle searches in OK could have been legal if the employee had talked about having guns and the wrong person heard about it. They had reason to believe there were guns in the car. In addition, it may been a violation of OK law to have them there. I don't know. I have CHL in TX so it shouldn't matter for me legally speaking.

For me, I work at a chemical plant. All of the positions I have held save one have been at plants in my career. There are no chemical plants in this area that I am aware of that don't have weapon's policies. Some have parking outside the fence, most of the big plants don't. I know Dow does search vehicles at the guard shack from time to time. Even at our corporate office, parking is in a 3rd party lot, yet the company still maintains a no weapons policy. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, it is grounds for termination per policy. They acknowledge it may not be illegal, but it is still against policy.

Most any chemical plant out there could easily fence off a parking area(s) and have people check in or enter though a personnel entry gate. Then they could restrict anything brought beyond that point. Personally, I think they don't want guns because management does not want to have any employees getting upset and having a gun anywhere nearby.

I also think businesses could require guns to be stored in locked case and such. There any number of ways to make it work.

romma
April 24, 2008, 12:25 PM
As I have already stated, it is completely legal for these companies to lock the gate on their parking lots, and keeping employees out forcing the employees to park elsewhere.

Their rights are still intact if you look at it this way. No more guns on the property.

lacoochee
April 24, 2008, 12:43 PM
Even at our corporate office, parking is in a 3rd party lot, yet the company still maintains a no weapons policy. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, it is grounds for termination per policy. They acknowledge it may not be illegal, but it is still against policy.

And you find it acceptable? :scrutiny:

It would not be a very large stretch for your company to terminate you for owning any firearms at home or otherwise. After all I am sure they don't want you owning any firearms anywhere if you should become upset at management.

Dick1911
April 24, 2008, 12:58 PM
I'm starting to change my mind on this law because someone mentioned something I didn't think of and that's defending myself to and from work. But you guys saying that I don't have a right to tell my employees what they can and can not do on my property is a load of bull. Business or not, my property is still my property.

Again, I'm right back on the middle of the fence. Telling me I can't have my gun is just as much of a trample on my rights as making my employer allow me to do it is to his.

XDKingslayer, I keep coming back to the fence like you do. It is without a doubt a Catch 22 situation and any outcome forcing one or the other will be a trampling of someones rights. Much of this thread refers to corporate business, but most businesses are run by private individuals who owns that business. That makes it an individual's property, not corporate property. I don't think there's a good way to settle this as long as there are those with a phobia about handguns. :(

divemedic
April 24, 2008, 12:59 PM
But you guys saying that I don't have a right to tell my employees what they can and can not do on my property is a load of bull. Business or not, my property is still my property.


Actually, you are mistaken. Property owners/employers have NEVER had the unrestricted ability to dictate their employees/invitees behavior. For example:

I must maintain handicapped parking places.
I must follow fire codes. I cannot lock my fire exits, I must maintain certain fire protection systems, etc.
I cannot require all female employees to perform sexual acts upon me in order to keep their job.
I cannot prohibit employees from wearing or even possessing clothes on my property.
I cannot require my employees to let me punch them when they pick up their paychecks.
I cannot discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, or national origin.
I cannot refuse to sell my property to a person on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, or national origin.
I cannot prohibit a handicapped invitee or employee from bringing a wheelchair or seeing eye dog on my property.

and on, and on. I am sure you get the picture. Property rights are not now, nor have they ever been, absolute.

You have many abilities and rights in your home that you do not have in your business. For example, you can prohibit persons of a certain race from entering, if you so choose. You do not have that right as a business owner. You cede certain rights when you open to the public. That is just the way it is, and always has been. The law is what it is, and all of the wishing in the world will not change hundreds of years of legal precedent.

Dick1911
April 24, 2008, 01:03 PM
It would not be a very large stretch for your company to terminate you for owning any firearms at home or otherwise.

lacoochee, that may be a stretch but I know there are companies considering firing and not hiring people who smoke - even if they only smoke at home. All this in the name of health care costs. I'm not a smoker, myself, but I find such an idea pretty bad. Gravitationally challenged people (like me) are next.... :cuss:

usmarine0352_2005
April 24, 2008, 01:24 PM
Here's a perfect examply of why you should be able to have a weapon in your car:

I was a home improvement salesman. I went to many rural areas and also many inner-city areas that were quite dangerous. I have a concealed carry permit and kept my weapon in my car.

When I drive to work for my morning meeting before going out to my opponents, should I have to leave my weapon at home?

Obviously the answer is no.

Office places do NOT protect their employees, employees have to protect themselves.

MakAttak
April 24, 2008, 02:05 PM
Much of this thread refers to corporate business, but most businesses are run by private individuals who owns that business. That makes it an individual's property, not corporate property. I don't think there's a good way to settle this as long as there are those with a phobia about handguns.

Actually, you are wrong. Even if it is owned by an individual most businesses are corporations. People do this to protect their assets.

As such, he has created a legal entitiy to own the property where business is conducted.

It is then argued that since he is using the law to shield himself from liability, he does not have free range to do whatever he desires with his legally created fiction.

I will be the first to say that in a sole proprietorship where the individual is taking all the risks, it is his property.

Most businesses, however, have limited liability.

XDKingslayer
April 24, 2008, 02:37 PM
Actually, you are mistaken. Property owners/employers have NEVER had the unrestricted ability to dictate their employees/invitees behavior. For example:

I must maintain handicapped parking places.
I must follow fire codes. I cannot lock my fire exits, I must maintain certain fire protection systems, etc.
I cannot require all female employees to perform sexual acts upon me in order to keep their job.
I cannot prohibit employees from wearing or even possessing clothes on my property.
I cannot require my employees to let me punch them when they pick up their paychecks.
I cannot discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, or national origin.
I cannot refuse to sell my property to a person on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, or national origin.
I cannot prohibit a handicapped invitee or employee from bringing a wheelchair or seeing eye dog on my property.

and on, and on. I am sure you get the picture. Property rights are not now, nor have they ever been, absolute.

You have many abilities and rights in your home that you do not have in your business. For example, you can prohibit persons of a certain race from entering, if you so choose. You do not have that right as a business owner. You cede certain rights when you open to the public. That is just the way it is, and always has been. The law is what it is, and all of the wishing in the world will not change hundreds of years of legal precedent.

All true, but none of this says they can't tell their employees that weapons are not allowed on the premises.

All the things you mentioned fall inside either safety laws or discrimination/harrassment laws. Weapons in the car do not. Big difference.

Office places do NOT protect their employees, employees have to protect themselves.

Again, true, but your right to protect yourself IS NOT greater than an employers right to tell you that you can't have your gun on his property.

Alot of people think their right to defend themselves is greater simply because they're gun owners.

What makes you feel your right to self defence is greater than an employers right to tell you that you can't have a weapon on HIS property? More than likely because you don't own a business, this doesn't impact you negatively so you could care less. That's not right.

That's what this all boils down to. As much as I would love to be able to leave my weapon in my vehicle, my employer still owns the property and the parking lot. My rights as an employee are neither greater or less than his.

Like I said, this law is unfair and borderline unconstitutional no matter how it plays out.

divemedic
April 24, 2008, 02:56 PM
The point was that a business/property owner has plenipotentiary power over all who enter his employees/property. Obviously that is not the case, and there are laws which restrict or even usurp the power of the owner. The constitutionality of this law from a property rights point of view is a non-issue.

I believe the OSH angle will also fail, as the argument made in support of the OSH point of view is a stretch. (Not even considering that the OSH is a larger invasion of property rights that this law will ever be)

This law is intended to balance the rights of two property owners, where their rights intersect. There is no black and white answer here. The law in question is a reasonable compromise that respects the rights of both without unduly placing a burden upon either.

This law allows the owner of a car to control what is on his property. It allows the owner of the business to control what is on his property. (The car owner's property starts/stops at the door to the car)

ETA:


All the things you mentioned fall inside either safety laws or discrimination/harrassment laws. Weapons in the car do not. Big difference.

How does a discrimination or harassment law have any more constitutional basis than this law?

XD_fan
April 24, 2008, 03:07 PM
Your all dancing around the real issue here. When a company prohibits weapons, in my mind at least, they automatically and immediately assume all responsibility from attack or violence in the work place. Should you come to harm in one of the these "restricted" areas then the entity doing the restriction has not done due diligence and is liable.

I left AT&T a few months ago and since I had nothing to lose I had this very conversation with the HR manager doing my exit interview. She was very nervous about the whole subject. She was adamant that this was all "legal and ethical" (interesting she felt it necessary to include ethics as a justification) and that these policies save lifes. When I asked the question about liability she said that it was a possibility but that a corporations deep pockets would ever keep someone from ultimately winning a case like this. The direct question of "is a company liable for your safety while at work?", drew a response of absolutely. Then she qualified it by saying someone bringing in a weapon was a different story, "since we have no way to prevent someone from doing something like that."

So to me this is all a house of cards that is starting to come apart. Hence my previous comments about how this will continue until some sues the crap out of company after they get hurt in a "restricted" area. These companies can't have it both ways. Either they can't restrict your right to life or they are responsible when they do exactly that.

blackcash88
April 24, 2008, 03:11 PM
I have free speech on my own land, but I can't tell my housekeeper she looks mighty sexy today.

Why not? It's not like it's a workplace sexual harassment thing. What recourse would she have other than to just leave? Same thing if I referred to someone of color with a racial slur. It's not illegal.

But, remember, if you employer finds out you have a gun in your car, they can always just find another reason to fire you. Downsizing, eliminate the position, etc.

MechAg94
April 24, 2008, 03:17 PM
Quote:
Even at our corporate office, parking is in a 3rd party lot, yet the company still maintains a no weapons policy. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, it is grounds for termination per policy. They acknowledge it may not be illegal, but it is still against policy.
And you find it acceptable?

It would not be a very large stretch for your company to terminate you for owning any firearms at home or otherwise. After all I am sure they don't want you owning any firearms anywhere if you should become upset at management.
Never said I liked it. It is just the way it is. As I said, I know of no other place to work that has a different policy unless it would be some small business engineering outfit. Texas is a right-to-work-state. They can terminate me for no reason at all. I can also quit anytime I want. I have no idea if this type of thing has been tested in court. I doubt anyone has tried.

thorn726
April 24, 2008, 04:23 PM
given the number of auto break ins where i live

this is a bogus law. CCW people should be allowed to carry outright. making you put the gun in the car doesn't seem like that much help to me, although i understand it is an improvemnt of the current situation, it is not a real solution.

by the end of a year, if 20 guns are stolen out of cars, it will open a whole other can of legal worms

GEM
April 24, 2008, 04:33 PM
All the things you mentioned fall inside either safety laws or discrimination/harrassment laws. Weapons in the car do not. Big difference.


Most of the antidiscrimination/harrassment laws are the direct descendants of using the BOR to shut down racist or sexist buttwipes. A law preventing an employer from banning you having a gun in your private vehicle is clearly based on a similar reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Some businesses have tried to ban folks wearing large crosses as disruptive to business. They may or may not have a point about that.

However, banning a large cross in your glove compartment that you could put on later would not pass muster.

The same rationale applies to firearms in your vehicle.

Like I said before - if your property is so private that you think you are King Poop of the Castle - why should tax payer money be spent on putting out a fire? Let the Castle of King Poop burn. The fire department should only prevent the sparks from the manse of King Poop from spreading to the houses and businesses of the common folk. If you are King - don't have a business open to the public or only hire your family.

blackcash88
April 24, 2008, 04:45 PM
I wonder if SCOTUS recognizes the 2A as an individual right if military members would be allowed to have firearms in their car at work if they lived off base. A LOT of military bases, especially Naval ones, are located in less that desirable areas.

Wonder how it would pan out for that azzhole General in Alaska that prohibited Army members under his command from carrying at all. :fire:

XDKingslayer
April 24, 2008, 05:05 PM
How does a discrimination or harassment law have any more constitutional basis than this law?

Good point.

I would say simply because of existing case law. It's already been established harrassing someone or not hiring because of their skin color, etc. is bad. There is no case law to support that my right to self defense is greater than a businesses right to tell it's employees what they can't do on it's property.

Most of the antidiscrimination/harrassment laws are the direct descendants of using the BOR to shut down racist or sexist buttwipes. A law preventing an employer from banning you having a gun in your private vehicle is clearly based on a similar reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Some businesses have tried to ban folks wearing large crosses as disruptive to business. They may or may not have a point about that.

However, banning a large cross in your glove compartment that you could put on later would not pass muster.

The same rationale applies to firearms in your vehicle.

Does the same rationale apply? Then explain the smoking ban? My company can legally tell me that I can't smoke in their building...what's the difference between that and guns other than a smoker can keep their smokes out in their car?

blackcash88
April 24, 2008, 05:09 PM
Because ciggies aren't dangerous and cannot be directly used to kill people other than the idiot smoker over time.

divemedic
April 24, 2008, 06:00 PM
But there is case law on this. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.

The "paradigmatic" taking is a direct government appropriation of private property. In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as regulatory taking. see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 536, 125 S. Ct. 2074, 161 L. Ed. 2d 876 (2005).

In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

This law does not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but does result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto Plaintiffs' property is unwelcome because Plaintiffs have corporate policies preventing this. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419, 434-35, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868 (1982)

The Supreme Court first carved out the category of per se physical takings. In Loretto, the Court distinguished temporary physical "invasions" from permanent physical "occupations." The Court made clear that not every limitation on the right to exclude is deserving of per se treatment, notwithstanding the importance of the right to exclude in the bundle of property rights. The court ruled that an invasion is temporary, while an occupation is permanent.

A physical occupation, as defined by the Court, is a permanent and exclusive occupation by the government that destroys the owner's right to possession, use, and disposal of the property. see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

The laws we are talking about here do not force any permanent "physical structure" on an owner's property. Instead, they force an unwanted physical invasion by third parties engaging in an unwanted activity. The invasion itself is not "permanent" because the individuals engaging in the unwanted activity (guns in cars) do not remain on the property at all times, as would an actual physical structure. Nor does this law cause a "permanent" invasion by the government vis a vis a particular parcel of property, such as the public bike paths at issue in public easement cases. In those cases, even if no person ever chose to ride his bike across a public path, there is nevertheless governmental intrusion because that particular parcel of land is stripped of its right to exclude.

If no individuals choose to engage in the activity of transporting firearms in vehicles, landowners will not suffer unwanted invasions. It is therefore hard to classify the invasion caused by this law as "permanent" for purposes of a takings analysis.

See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 82, 100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1980) (analyzing California constitutional provision permitting individuals to exercise free speech rights on private property against the wishes of the private property owner under a balancing test); Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1337-38 (applying Penn Central test to regulation that forced landlords to allow a "physical invasion" of their buildings by certain unwanted tenants); Boise Cascade, 296 F.3d at 1357 (holding that government official's periodic intrusion onto private property for purpose of conducting owl surveys over a period of five months was not a per se taking and must be analyzed under Penn Central test).

sojournerhome
April 24, 2008, 06:04 PM
Sigh. If someone comes in spraying it's probably too late to get to my car...
But, then I don't keep anything in my car;)

Hkmp5sd
April 24, 2008, 06:10 PM
My company can legally tell me that I can't smoke in their building...what's the difference between that and guns other than a smoker can keep their smokes out in their car?

No. Your company can fire you for smoking in their building. It is not illegal to smoke in their building (excluding those banned by law, which is then the state, not your company doing the banning). It is also legal for you to keep smokes in your car. Does your employer have the right to fire you if you have smokes in your car on their property?

If you believe a property owner can prohibit you from having guns in your vehicle while parked on his property, then you believe that property owner has the ability to prohibit ANYTHING he wants from being inside your vehicle. His property. His rules.

My employer cannot legally prevent me from having a firearm in my car. He cannot prevent the general public from having a firearm in their car in the same parking lot. What he can do is fire me. Something the general public is not subject to.

blackcash88
April 24, 2008, 06:13 PM
Actually, some companies can fire you for smoking at home if they find out about it. Some companies now refuse to employ smokers at all and a new employee has to sign the policy. Scott's Lawn Care is such a company.

Hkmp5sd
April 24, 2008, 06:18 PM
The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.


So states that ban smoking in restaurants, bars and other locations are compensating those businesses for this intrusion into their private property?


Feds/States requiring businesses to have disabled parking, disabled access, disabled restrooms, etc are compensating those businesses for this intrusion into their private property?

A couple of weeks ago, the Florida Senate was debating a law on the amount of toilet paper a restaurant should be required to have in a restroom stall, including the appropriate penalty for violations. Another intrusion?

F4GIB
April 24, 2008, 07:47 PM
No one's "property rights" are absolute. Not mine, not yours. Get over it!

In law school they referred to "property" as a bundle of rights and relationships. The State gets to decide what is in the bundle. They always have (even in 1791) and the State always will.

blackcash88
April 24, 2008, 07:57 PM
No one's "property rights" are absolute.

Yup. Just try to claim your "property rights" by not paying property taxes. A never ending expense even if your mortgage is paid off. :rolleyes:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the government can come in and farking steal your property for pennies on the dollar via EMINENT DOMAIN. It's happened in my state. Where's your "property rights" now? :fire:

ConstitutionCowboy
April 24, 2008, 09:18 PM
All true, but none of this says they can't tell their employees that weapons are not allowed on the premises.

All the things you mentioned fall inside either safety laws or discrimination/harrassment laws. Weapons in the car do not. Big difference.

All that is notwithstanding unless the law employed to create the company allows the company to limit what a person may keep within their vehicle. If, however, you are willing to accept the liability for what ever may occur on the property your company is situated on, you can keep personal possession of the property and simply rent space on it to your company. (Don't lease your property to your company because that places the property squarely under the control of the company and you lose control.) Now, when you say "premises", you include all buildings and etcetera, not just parking lots.

A business is considered a separate entity from those/whomever owns the business. Even if you are the sole owner, you may only do with your business as the law specifies. That is the price you pay for the protection a business provides. Even a sole proprietorship is not as free as you might think. Even though there is much less protection in the sole proprietorship, you still do not have free reign as to how you conduct business.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
April 24, 2008, 09:21 PM
Brainstorm: If a company is concerned about the liability of having arms stored in employee vehicles in their employee parking lots, the company can lease spaces to their employees. One Dollar a year ought to cover it.

Woody

mekender
April 24, 2008, 09:27 PM
how about we just start a push to get gun owners declared a protected class just like race, sex and religion... then we wouldnt have to have this debate

divemedic
April 24, 2008, 11:10 PM
So states that ban smoking in restaurants, bars and other locations are compensating those businesses for this intrusion into their private property?

No. Read the entire post:

In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

none of the situations you mention do that.

dalepres
April 24, 2008, 11:25 PM
The Oklahoma decision will never stand for several reasons. It is based on a flawed theory of federal preemption; i.e., the idea that federal law trumps state law. There is no federal law or regulation which bans guns from the cars of employees so there is no direct conflict. The court in Oklahoma apparently used the legal principle that there is federal preemption if federal law so occupies a particular field, that it leaves no room for state law.

Actually, the federal court in Tulsa invoked OSHA regulations to toss out the law based on guns being unsafe in the workplace. So they didn't claim a preemption that didn't exist, they claim that the preemption did exist.

Even at our corporate office, parking is in a 3rd party lot, yet the company still maintains a no weapons policy. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, it is grounds for termination per policy. They acknowledge it may not be illegal, but it is still against policy.

In the Oklahoma case, the Weyerhaeuser employees were not given the opportunity to agree to a search or not. The search was carried out by local sherrif's deputies with dogs in a private (non-Weyerhaeuser) lot. The rifles were in rifle racks in pickups for hunting after work. The rifles were perfectly legal and not on Weyerhaeuser property.

I work for a company like that and if I had any choice I wouldn't. What I do, though, is to rent a parking spot away from their facility and walk in to work. As long as my employer doesn't pull an illegal Weyerhaeuser-like search, I'm ok. And just in case I do get such a search, even when there are no guns in my vehicles, I keep lots of rags with burned powder on them just for the hell of it.

romma
April 24, 2008, 11:35 PM
Sigh. If someone comes in spraying it's probably too late to get to my car...
But, then I don't keep anything in my car

Maybe, maybe not. However, if you want to stop at the store on your way home from work to pick up baby formula, or even a lottery ticket, you ar good to go!

JerryM
April 25, 2008, 12:31 AM
I am not aware of any Amendment that is without limitation, including 2A.
At any time the Constitution means what the USSC rules that it means. All the screaming and denying will not change that.

Property rights are not without limits, and neither are gun rights.

Regards,
Jerry

jeepmor
April 25, 2008, 02:09 AM
Sounds to me like some upper management types that are real a-holes are concerned their poor treatment of the working folk might get them shot at.

However, shooting people in all regards, besides self defense, is already illegal.

Too bad our government works for corporations instead of the people, I don't see this one ending well for gunowners.

XDKingslayer
April 25, 2008, 10:15 AM
But there is case law on this. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

I'm sorry divemedic, I'm not good with legal mumbo-jumbo. What does all the mean in English and how does it apply to this?

Sounds to me like some upper management types that are real a-holes are concerned their poor treatment of the working folk might get them shot at.


I'm sure that's an issue. As is legal responcibility if someone does have to shoot someone on company property. That would be my biggest concern as Florida law will protect me if I have to shoot someone at work from being sued, there are no provisions for protecting my employer. Throw on top of that responcibility for ADs or NDs or collateral damage from self defense and I can see why a company is hesitant to allow this.

Heck, the place I work at has to block off our private employee parking lot because someone who shouldn't have been there tried to sue us because they damaged their car in our parking lot.

I am not aware of any Amendment that is without limitation, including 2A.

Shall not be infringed? I would say that is a modifier for no limitation if you ask me.

divemedic
April 25, 2008, 10:26 AM
That is one of the provisions of the Florida law. There is a liability shield there for employers who are in compliance with the law

Aguila Blanca
April 25, 2008, 11:07 AM
If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights.
In order for one right to "trump" another, there must first be two rights in direct competition.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution specifically enumerates the right to keep and bear arms.

Where in the US Constitution are the competing "private property rights" to which you refer enumerated? By what logic to you deduce that these so-called "private property rights" trump the clear and unambiguous language of the 2nd Amendment?

divemedic
April 25, 2008, 11:14 AM
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. While I do support this law, people should at least understand the legalities involved.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

lacoochee
April 25, 2008, 11:48 AM
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I am confused as to why this keeps coming up... it has already been addressed...

In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

How does allowing protecting concealed weapons holders from termination if they keep their self-defense weapon in their car cause property owners to be deprived of "all economic beneficial uses" of property?

And...

That would be my biggest concern as Florida law will protect me if I have to shoot someone at work from being sued, there are no provisions for protecting my employer.

You would be protected by the The Stand Your Ground Law (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM) as you would anywhere else in Florida and interestingly enough in your car which is also treated as your domicile.

BeJaRa
April 25, 2008, 12:12 PM
the point is, your car is your property no matter where it is parked. A property owner does not have the right to violate another property owners rights. As far as I understand it your car is an extension of your home.

XDKingslayer
April 25, 2008, 12:44 PM
You would be protected by the The Stand Your Ground Law as you would anywhere else in Florida and interestingly enough in your car which is also treated as your domicile.

I would be protected as the shooter, yes, but would my employer be protected if this happened on his property?

If I shoot someone in the parking lot because that's where my gun is, I can't be sued by the familiy of the dirtbag, but what's to stop them from suing my employer? The Stand Your Ground Law doesn't mention anything specific about businesses being protected, only the shooter IIRC.

XDKingslayer
April 25, 2008, 12:45 PM
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Isn't that eminent domain? I don't see how that applies to this either.

Hkmp5sd
April 25, 2008, 12:54 PM
but what's to stop them from suing my employer?

Let's be real. If you legally shoot someone in the Walmart parking lot, you think the bad guy's family can sue Walmart?

The only cases where the property owner are sued are those where they fail to protect the victim of a crime, not the perpetrator.

Not to mention, how does a law that prevents employers from firing employees for having firearms in their vehicle, something they can already legally do, cause the employer/property owner to be any more liable for a shooting than they currently are?

Dick1911
April 25, 2008, 01:01 PM
If you legally shoot someone in the Walmart parking lot, you think the bad guy's family can sue Walmart?
Anyone can sue anyone in this country (ain't it great?), it just doesn't mean that there will be a judgement against them. But with WalMart and the right jury and trial lawyer WalMart could have to shell out some bucks.

ConstitutionCowboy
April 25, 2008, 01:23 PM
Anyone can sue anyone in this country (ain't it great?), it just doesn't mean that there will be a judgement against them. But with WalMart and the right jury and trial lawyer WalMart could have to shell out some bucks.

This can happen no matter who shoots or kills whomever, whether Wal-Mart prohibits arms on its property or not - unless law prohibits such suits.

Woody

XDKingslayer
April 25, 2008, 01:26 PM
Let's be real. If you legally shoot someone in the Walmart parking lot, you think the bad guy's family can sue Walmart?

If I'm an employee of Wal-Mart, why couldn't the family sue?

If you want to be real, who is the better person to sue? Me, the one making minimum wage at Wal-Mart, or Wal-Mart the multi-billion dollar company that hired me to be an employee and direct representitive of?

divemedic
April 25, 2008, 03:25 PM
How does allowing protecting concealed weapons holders from termination if they keep their self-defense weapon in their car cause property owners to be deprived of "all economic beneficial uses" of property?


It doesn't. notice, I am the one who posted that. I was answering the question: "Where in the US Constitution are the competing "private property rights" to which you refer enumerated?"

Isn't that eminent domain? I don't see how that applies to this either.

Eminent domain is covered under the takings clause, but it gets more complicated than that.

The SCOTUS has ruled that regulations can have the effect of taking property by depriving the owner of the benefit of that property by being so onerous as to deny the owner the rights to use his property as he so desires. The court cases that I posted in my previous post (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4437842&postcount=84) sum up the opinion of the courts rather well, if I do say so myself. The courts have held in case after case that a temporary or minor taking without compensation, such as a government requirement that requires handicapped parking, utility easements, and other such requirements, do not violate the takings clause.

XDKingslayer
April 25, 2008, 04:09 PM
Gotcha.

I don't think this law has a dog in that fight anyways. This obviously isn't depriving the owner of any property.

But something else you mentioned is starting to edge me towards being supportive of this law. It's been ruled that businesses must have handicap spaces in their parking lot, even "employee only" parking lots.

Not much difference between forcing them to have handicap spots and forcing them to allow guns in vehicles if you get down to the nitty gritty.

Hkmp5sd
April 25, 2008, 05:08 PM
Me, the one making minimum wage at Wal-Mart, or Wal-Mart the multi-billion dollar company that hired me to be an employee and direct representitive of?

In the State of Florida you cannot be sued for a legal self defense shooting. It is hard to believe that if the actual shooter is free of liability by law, anyone else can be inserted in their place in a lawsuit.

Hkmp5sd
April 25, 2008, 05:36 PM
This whole argument of finding the property owner liable for the gun owners actions under this law is pretty much mute. Gotta find some other reason to hate it.

The law reads:
(b) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section.

divemedic
April 25, 2008, 05:55 PM
XDKingslayer-

I don't think this law can be fought along the 'property rights' line under the takings clause, either. The fact that a person can bring a weapon into a parking lot in his car against the owner's wishes is only a temporary invasion that causes the owner no economic harm. I don't see that going anywhere.

The OSH attack only flew in OK because they got a Clinton appointee as a district judge. That will be overturned on appeal, IMO.

And you are correct, in as far as government has restricted the rights of property owners in many cases, and it has always been upheld. I believe it will here, as well. Since there are (to my knowledge) at least 9 states that have already enacted, or are debating, a similar statute, this is something that is gaining ground, just like CCW did in the late 80's and the 90's.

divemedic
March 26, 2009, 10:55 PM
I thought this would happen.

Looks like the law was upheld. (http://www.fox23.com/mostpopular/story/Workplace-Gun-Law-Upheld/7qtb4UcEM0mdPQIy2BYvCw.cspx)

TCB in TN
March 27, 2009, 10:08 PM
While I understand that people want to carry to work and leave their guns in the car, I am having difficulty accepting that the State of Florida can over rule private property rights. I know that happens in many other areas, particularly environmentally related but I have issues with that as well.

The only thing is that the CAR is not the property of the company. As long as the actions of one individual do not infringe upon the rights of another, there should be no issue. Exactly how does an employee having a gun left in the car (the employee's property), impact the company? On the other hand, forbidding the employee from keeping the gun in their car (the employee's property) keeps the employee from exercising their rights either before or after work.

winston smith
March 27, 2009, 11:24 PM
People who believe that some corporation's "property rights" are more important than citizens' right to life and the protection of it, should consider their own property rights: Do you live near a drainage ditch?

One of my employeers owns 4-6 acres with an old house on it she lived in. She and her plumber husband wanted to build their dream house, a log cabin. They checked with the building inspector; no problem. Checked the town maps; no problem. Began building next to a stream that started as runoff from the orchard uphill, ran under the road, into another drainage ditch and another orchard. The State Conservation office stoped them; its a "protected stream".

Court settlement: they replant 3,000 plants along the stream. They build the house.

The Army Corps of Engineers shows up; they have authority to grab any wetlands in the country. They hand it over to the EPA; another settlement: rip out all the plantings, plant different plants. Effective difference: Zero. Validity of a court decision: Zero.

As a parting shot, the EPA officials say "don't blame us, its all Bush's fault" for not giving them enough funding.

So You think You own your land?

Now they can ask me to leave their property if they don't like that I am carrying, and I can choose to stay away from them if I want to carry.

But if most available employment is from corporations where I am a sitting duck for any crazy or crook, then my employment opportunities are limited and that marginalizes me and all gun owners.

We become second-class citizens in economic terms, along with with the rest of our rights.

It makes our right to life impossible to protect on a daily basis, and eventually allows bad people to make what was common sense and common in the culture into a crime.

I think the corporation's "rights" will just have to take second place to the second ammendment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop New Guns in Parking Lot Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!