"Gun Lobby Has Property Rights in its Sights":Pro-gun Business Leader Doesn't Get It

[Winchester 73]

LEGISLATURE

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/474694.html

Gun lobby has property rights in its sights

Posted on Sat, Mar. 29, 2008
BY RICK McALLISTER
www.FRF.org
In Tallahassee, you sometimes hear outlandish statements, and we all have our favorite examples. This, year I haven't yet heard of anything as odd as the retail industry's gun sellers being labeled ''anti-gun.'' The paradox might be amusing if it weren't so troubling. The U.S. Supreme Court's deliberation on Washington D.C.'s gun ban now promises to add another layer of irony for our consideration.

As the president of the Florida Retail Federation, I have been one of the visible opponents to the Florida gun lobby's three-year push to erode property rights and management rights. For the past three years the gun lobby has been pushing a bill in Florida to prevent property owners and business managers from restricting guns in the workplace. Despite the absence of any evidence that such policies have caused a problem, the gun lobby's mission has been to persuade legislators that the business community is out to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Cleverly, they have couched this argument as an assault on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, rather than an assault on property and management rights. Any legislator who opposes the gun lobby's bill will be labeled as an opponent of the Second Amendment.

Nice sleight of hand, but a fairly typical tactic in the legislative arena.

Part of the gun lobby's strategy is to label those of us who object to their legislation as ''anti-gun.'' They complain to legislators that ``big business is trying to take away our guns.''

What is strange is that all this is hurled my way despite the fact that my organization is the trade group that represents those who sell the majority of guns being purchased.

Of course, our primary interest in all of this is to provide a safe environment for our employees to work and our customers to shop, no matter what we are selling. Contrary to all that the gun lobby has accused us of, this argument is about our defense of the rights of private property as granted in the Constitution. It is also about our rights to manage our businesses -- rights that the AFL-CIO is also attacking in regular testimony during legislative hearings on the gun lobby's bill.

It might be a surprise to Florida's gun lobby to hear that I have very strong feelings about the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court heard oral arguments recently on a case that promises to answer a longstanding question: Did the framers of the Bill of Rights intend to give the right to gun ownership to individuals, or just to militias?

The Court chose to hear this case involving the District of Columbia's ban of handguns within the District. The D.C. government took this Draconian step after years of being the murder capital of the world and having tried all other known methods of reducing gun-related violence. As far as the Supreme Court's deliberation on the D.C. gun ban, I trust that they will find in favor of individual rights of gun ownership. The Second Amendment was created to ensure that citizens could defend their property rights by arms if necessary. Terrific irony, don't you think?

Rick McAllister is president and CEO of the Florida Retail Federation, a trade association with more than 11,000 members representing the retail industry in Florida.

 

[ghschirtz]

When I had a shop in TX, there was a double murder about half a mile away in another industrial building over a long weekend. We were working long hours and weekends, sometimes just a few people.

I met with employees and we agreed to the following.
+anybody with a TX permit could bring their weapon and leave it in the car. Pepper spray or other such stuff could be brought into the offices in purses or otherwise "controlled" cases.
+at dusk we locked the doors, and anyone going out to their car after then would go with another person.
+nobody worked alone except during the weekdays. I violated that rule quite a bit but I also had a TX permit and firearms always readily available, a fact I didn't share with anyone.

The property rights of owners are an important consideration, but gun-free zones are not a good thing. The hyperbole about "big business" taking our guns away is irresponsible and emotional, but any business should assess safety of employees and others carefully, not emotionally.

The debate could be made much more useful with a reasoned approach by permit holders to educate non-shooter owners that they don't represent the threat claimed by the Brady Bunch, and good policy can add to workplace safety.

 

[dave_pro2a]

The liberals ban smoking in public places calling it a 'public health' issue: while ignoring the private property aspect.

So they shouldn't cry foul when the gun lobby does the same thing. Hypocrites.

 

[ronaldbeal]

I think the real problem is that the "owners" aren't who they think they are.
Most of these business properties are owned by corporations, not individuals. The problem I have is that the corporate "person" has many of the "rights" of a real person, but much fewer liabilities and responsibilities. Until a corporation can be arrested and thrown in jail, I believe it is the responsibility of the government (who granted the creation of the corporation,) to rein in some of these absurd company policies. Ultimately, I would say the line should be drawn between corporations and partnerships/proprietorships. If a business doesn't enjoy the special protections of incorporating, then they should be able to do whatever they please, but as soon as a business incorporates, big boy rules should apply.
Just my $0.02
RB

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Workplaces and public accommodations are not (legally) the same types of private property as a private home or a place not open to the public.

So the owners of such places should stop trying to cloak themselves under the "private property" umbrella.

Furthermore, it is exhaustively documented by the shared experiences of 40 states that people with licenses to carry guns do not pose any threat to public safety whatsoever. So the whole argument of restricting or banning gun possession by these people in various places (like workplaces or public accommodations) is a red herring with no factual basis of support.

And note that I am not talking about "secure areas" here - meaning places with controlled access through security checkpoints with metal detectors, guards, etc. If places like that want or need to ban people with guns from entering I have no problem with that.

But just posting a "no guns" sign or having a no guns allowed policy in an unsecured workplace or public accommodation is patently idiotic (like a murderous criminal, crazy person, or robber is going to obey the sign) and without rational basis.

And we repeatedly see the results of this idiotic thinking at places like Virginia Tech, various shopping malls, etc.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Exactly, frankie

"Private Property" is a canard. My home or my apartment is "private property". The local shopping mall is not.

There's plenty of business licensing involved in opening a mall. Business, corporate entities, and so on, is made to shield the liability of the actions of a corporation against potential lawsuits by persons against someone personally who's acting in a management capacity (though it still sometimes doesn't work). If the state licenses your business' existence, it can pull back and set conditions on your continued licensure and therefor the existence of the business.

 

[The Freeholder]

That's fine. If a private property owner wants to ban firearms, they should be able to. However, if that's the case, then the way the world "should" work is that the property owner has also just assumed the burden of defense for all visitors, and if they fail to provide "proper security", then they can be sued.

Have a couple of malls get sued out of business, and there'd be some serious rethinking of this POV.

 

[Standing Wolf]

My life is my property; so is my car.

If property is open to the public, it should be open to all the public.

 

[qdemn7]

This attitude by business is just another reason why we need a Constitutional Amendment to Repeal Corporate Personhood.

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[jrfoxx]

Workplaces and public accommodations are not (legally) the same types of private property as a private home or a place not open to the public.

So the owners of such places should stop trying to cloak themselves under the "private property" umbrella.

Exactly.The law says, and I support it 100%, that you can bar anyone, and aything you want, for any reason, from your home, car, land, etc.The same should not apply to business open to the public, as they are FAR from the same as the above listed places, and AFAIK, the law supports my distinction tone could bar blacks, jews, homosexuals, christians, women etc from thier home/car/land anytime they want and legally, there is (and shouldnt be, IMHO) nothing that can be done about it.The same is certainly and obviously not true of privately owned businesses and thier property.To me, the logical extension of that means you shouldnt be allowed to bar me from leaglly exercsing one of me constitutioally protected rights on a business' property, any more tan you could bar or fire me or being a muslim, jew, black, women, etc.

 

[Poper]

The ignorant fool!

Despite the absence of any evidence that such policies have caused a problem,

Anybody else familiar with the term "going Postal" and the origination thereof?

Poper

 

[Clipper]

I violated that rule quite a bit but I also had a TX permit and firearms always readily available, a fact I didn't share with anyone.

So, ghshirtz, your employees couldn't arm themselves at work, but it was OK for you to break the rules... Makes me sick. Of course if one of them were caught doing what you were doing, you'd have fired 'em, right?

 

[GEM]

It's not property rights - that's a ruse to enrage antebellum social conservatives to start to wave the Constitution.

It is soley about liability whore and their pack of lawyers.

All businessmen care about is what will cost them a buck. They have read that CCW booboo on their property will cost them more than the suit for not allowing carry - which hasn't happen yet to my knowledge.

Property rights - my tushy. Hypocrites, all!

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Despite the absence of any evidence that such policies have caused a problem...

Of course, our primary interest in all of this is to provide a safe environment for our employees to work and our customers to shop...

Yeah, despite the absence of any evidence that such policies have had any effect on workplace violence.

 

[gc70]

Of course, our primary interest in all of this is to provide a safe environment for our employees to work and our customers to shop...

Show me the armed guards at a business and I might believe the above. Otherwise, the "no guns" signs and policies are nothing more than liability avoidance.

 

[misANTHrope]

Their property, their rules. That's my take.

 

[divemedic]

I don't think saying "Their property, their rules" is quite so easy. To deprive a person of the right to defend themselves is to deny them a basic human right. The rights and powers of a property owner have always had limits, doubly so when you open to the public.

For example, it is illegal for a business owner to prohibit entry based on race or religion.

It is not within the property owner's power to punch his employees, nor can he prohibit females on his property from posession of clothing, or require his employees to have sex with him.

Since it is established that a property owner cannot violate the rights of others simply because he allowed them on his property, one must then ask where the limits of that authority are. It is my feeling that unless a property owner takes reasonable steps to defend the safety of those he has disarmed, then he should civilly liable for any damages where his policy was a contributing factor.

The problem is that these businesses prohibit weapons, thus providing a safe environment for homicidal killers and thugs, but when they are sued, the same owners claim immunity because they claim third party intervention.

When balancing the rights of one person (property owner) against the rights of another (gun carrier) the question becomes "Which is the greater infringement?" Obviously the person whose life is at stake has a larger potential loss than the property owner.

Of course, this mostly applies to a business. As a homeowner, you have more rights. You can refuse someone entry to your home, but even that right is limited- you cannot, for example, refuse to sell your home to someone simply because you do not want to sell to a person of a certain race.

 

[TwitchALot]

I don't think saying "Their property, their rules" is quite so easy. To deprive a person of the right to defend themselves is to deny them a basic human right.

It is actually, that simple. You have no right to be on someone else's private property. If the owner gives you permission, he may attach conditions to allowing you on his property. If you accept those conditions, then that was your choice, wasn't it? So who can you blame but yourself- you decided you wanted to go on the property, and you choose to accept certain conditions. If you don't like them, don't accept them and don't go on his property.

If you don't accept the conditions, then you don't have a right to be on his property in the first place, and there's no problem.

The rights and powers of a property owner have always had limits, doubly so when you open to the public.

For example, it is illegal for a business owner to prohibit entry based on race or religion.

Whether something is legal or not is not relevant. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right. Whether you "open" your property to the "public" or not is irrelevant. How you choose to use your own property should not have any bearing on the matter. Should we slap restrictions on someone because they reload ammo in their house? Maybe slap restrictions on someone because they make their house a "mess"? If it's your private property, it's your private property, and you should have complete control over it so long as you aren't coercing or using force on anyone else. If you choose to open it to the public under certain conditions, that's your business, and no one has a right to tell you how you can do it, when you can do it, or if you can do it. The public can either accept your conditions or not go on your property. You shouldn't face more regulations or lose rights simply because you choose to use your property in a certain way.

It is not within the property owner's power to punch his employees, nor can he prohibit females on his property from posession of clothing, or require his employees to have sex with him.

If your employee agreed to be punched every time to go on your property, it is within the property owner's power to punch the employee. If he says no clothes for females on his property, he can deny them clothes on his property or they can not go on it. If the employees agree to have sex with him, he can have sex with them.

The solution is quite simple. Don't be stupid. If you don't want to give up your right to carry a gun, don't go to a private establishment that prohibits them, and make sure they know why they lost your business or your fresh baked cookies. It's your choice to go there, and it's your choice to forfeit certain rights to be on that private property. Since you have no right to be on someone else's private property, either comply, or don't go on it.

Since it is established that a property owner cannot violate the rights of others simply because he allowed them on his property, one must then ask where the limits of that authority are.

The property owner can set any rules he wants. The guests can either comply, or they can leave. They have no right to be there in the first place, and the only reason they are is because the owner gave them permission. If that permission is rescinded, then you are no longer allowed on that property. If conditions are set, then you can comply, or you can leave. Again, you don’t have a right to be on someone else’s private property.

It is my feeling that unless a property owner takes reasonable steps to defend the safety of those he has disarmed, then he should civilly liable for any damages where his policy was a contributing factor.

You chose to disarm yourself by accepting the conditions of being on that property. That’s your fault, not his. No one forced you to be on that private property, and you have no right to be there in the first place. Don’t like being disarmed? Don’t go on private property where arms are prohibited.

The problem is that these businesses prohibit weapons, thus providing a safe environment for homicidal killers and thugs, but when they are sued, the same owners claim immunity because they claim third party intervention.

Well, I’d claim immunity because you’re the one who decided it was worth it to disarm yourself to be on my private property. That’s your fault, not mine. Sky diving might be a dangerous sport, but if I choose to do it I choose to accept the risk of possible injury or death. Disarming yourself to be on private property might be a dangerous proposition, but if you choose to be on that property, you choose to accept the risk of being disarmed. If you don’t think it’s worth it, don’t go on that private property.

When balancing the rights of one person (property owner) against the rights of another (gun carrier) the question becomes "Which is the greater infringement?" Obviously the person whose life is at stake has a larger potential loss than the property owner.

The only person infringing upon rights is the person trying to override the rules of the private property owner. The private property owner isn’t forcing anything upon you. You have no right to be there. So you can either accept his terms, or you can leave. He’s not harming you in any way. Any risk you do face is risk YOU accepted to be on that private property. That’s no ones fault but your own. If you think it’s too risky to disarm yourself to be on a given piece of private property, don’t go on that private property. It’s that simple.

 

[misANTHrope]

But the business owner hasn't disarmed anyone. Rather, the people who have chosen to enter his property and to abide by his rules have disarmed themselves.

I don't think there should be any legal distinction between what rules a man can make concerning his home or his place of business. Just as the customer is not obligated to give the business his money, neither should the business be obligated to do business with anyone. By the same right, I think an employer ought to be able to make employment conditional upon anything he wants within the law.

I'll freely admit that it's not necessarily a clear-cut situationl. And I definitely think that "gun free zones," no matter who they're perpetrated by, are idiotic feel-good measures at best. But I still feel that the property owner should have the right to place his chosen conditions upon permission to enter his property.

 

[divemedic]

So to summarize your position:

Anytime a person enters your property, they give up all rights merely by entering. Furthermore, if anything should happen to a person while on someone's property, whether it be injury, death, or a rape carried out by the owner of said property or any other person who commits the act with permission of the owner, the injured party has no recourse because by voluntarily entering the property of another they have agreed that they no longer posess any rights whatsoever, beyond those that the property owner sees fit to grant them.

 

[Kentak]

Here we go again.

All of you who believe it is a violation of your rights to be prohibited by a business from carrying on their premises, answer me this:

YOU are the owner of a small indoor strip mall. You're walking through your mall and notice a small group of people handing out flyers and speaking with passing customers. They are not disruptive or loud, just handing out flyers and talking to anyone who will listen. You go up to them and they hand you a flyer. You find out the folks are from the Green Socialists Committee for Justice and Peace. They are advocating shutting your mall down because it they say your shop owners underpay their employees. They are also advocate for a socialist government and an end to all private ownership of guns.

You: Hey, you can't do this here. You'll have to stop or leave.

Them: Yeah, we can do this here.

You: Who says?

Them: The Constitution, specifically, the First Amendment. You know, freedom of speech and peaceable assembly and all that.

You: Yeah, but this is my property and I want you to stop or leave.

Them: Ha ha. Nope. You can't violate our rights, even on your property.

You: Well, I guess you're right. Have a nice day. Sorry to bother you.


Comments?

 

[WayneConrad]

Be careful handing that power (to force a business to allow carry) to the government. If government may pass a law forcing someone to allow you to carry a gun onto their private property, what else may government do? When you give government power, it is rarely used in only ways that you like. More often than not, that buzz saw comes back to bite you.

However, see post #9. A sole proprietor would still be able to ban carry under this proposal, but not a corporation, LLC, etc. It's an intriguing idea.

 

[WayneConrad]

Kentak, the 1st amendment says that the Federal government (and, by incorporation, the states) may not infringe upon the right of free speech. Private citizens and entities may. The mall-owners may ask anyone to leave for passing out literature. They may even engage in censorship. No problem.

I'm not a lawyer, yada yada.

 

[gc70]

Kentak
Comments?

I think the difference is that the right to free speech can be fully exercised elsewhere but the right to self defense must be exercised where a person is located.

Yes, I said the right to self defense instead of the "right to keep and bear arms." I think the decision in Heller will not only affirm an individual right, but will approach that right as one of personal self defense rather than a nebulous right to be armed for the purpose of contributing to communal defense.

Business liability involving shootings arises from an injured party's contention that the business did not take steps to prohibit the shooter's actions (i.e. by signs or policies prohibiting the possession of weapons). To my knowledge, no court has ever found a business duty to actively protect its workers or customers.

I think that recognition of a Constitutional right to self defense could significantly change the legal landscape. I think it might be a lot easier to successfully sue for damages resulting form injuries sustained because a business prohibited the exercise of a Constitutional right to self defense. In short, a business that prevented a person from defending themself to the extent allowed under a Constitutional right would have to defend that person to the same extent or would potentially incur liability for not doing so.

 

[Kentak]

WayneConrad said: Kentak, the 1st amendment says that the Federal government (and, by incorporation, the states) may not infringe upon the right of free speech. Private citizens and entities may. The mall-owners may ask anyone to leave for passing out literature. They may even engage in censorship. No problem.

Wayne, I agree with you. I used that example because I see it as a parallel to the gun prohibition. The Second Amendment is no more a prohibition on private behavior than is the First. If someone here is against businesses prohibiting guns, they must, logically, agree that they, themselves, could not prohibit the advocacy of ideas contrary to their values on their own property.

While I, myself, wish that business, generally, wouldn't prohibit CCW, I can't deny them the right to do so, anymore than I would deny them the right to prohibit speech they object to.

K