Disney Employee Suspended For Bringing Gun To Work

[kurtmax]

Disney is quite powerful in Florida, but short of getting the entire new law thrown out as unconstitutional or something they aren't going to beat this. The exemption is clearly for manufactures and such of explosives. If Disney is covered by this law, than they probably aren't allowed to have visitors in their parks (too dangerous!)!

IMO I think the law violates private property rights, and I hope nothing like it passes where I live. Restricting the rights of one person so others are happy is a hollow victory imo.

 

[awkx]

The new Florida state law provides exemption for employers primarily engaged in explosives,
OR on propery owned or leased by employers who have obtained a permit required under 18 USC s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Under this specific provision, the employer is not required to be primarily engaged in the business of explosives, if the employer has obtained a permit required under 18 USC to engage in that business.

If Disneyworld has that permit, then they are exempted from the new Florida law.

I believe ants is correct on this point. The Florida legislature is probably going to need to revise the statute. E.g., it can add the red text below to the statute to make Disney non-exempt:

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property if such property is used primarily for importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials. (The part in red doesn't exist in the current statute; it is what the legislature needs to add.)

 

[k_dawg]

Can he file a FOIA to find out WHY the Sheriff's officers were there?

 

[Green Lantern]

IMO I think the law violates private property rights, and I hope nothing like it passes where I live. Restricting the rights of one person so others are happy is a hollow victory imo

So you're OK with the old status quo of allowing employers to violate the property rights of the employees by deeming what they can and can't keep locked up out of sight in their car?

To say nothing of their right of self-defense on the commute to and from work?

 

[Prince Yamato]

I may be in the minority here, but I believe that the parking lot is still Disney property and as a result they reserve the right to set any policies they want. If you don't like the policy - don't work there.

What is the law in Florida concerning parking lots and cars? Is the car considered an extension of the home? Are parking lots considered "premises"?

 

[romma]

Good luck beating Disney...

It's no Mickey Mouse Operation!

 

[Green Lantern]

It's no Mickey Mouse Operation!

Wokka wokka wokka!

 

[misANTHrope]

Has the law enforcement agency that conducted the search stated what the probable-cause basis of the search was?

There was no search.

 

[ants]

Posted by awkx

The Florida legislature is probably going to need to revise the statute.

The 18USC language was probably added to specifically exempt Disneyworld. Otherwise that language is unecessary, since the first half of the paragraph covers every other bonifide explosives dealer in the state.

That's the job of Disney lobbyists, to monitor proposed legislation and make sure it includes favorable language.

 

[xjchief]

Originally Posted by ants View Post
The new Florida state law provides exemption for employers primarily engaged in explosives,
OR on propery owned or leased by employers who have obtained a permit required under 18 USC s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Under this specific provision, the employer is not required to be primarily engaged in the business of explosives, if the employer has obtained a permit required under 18 USC to engage in that business.

If Disneyworld has that permit, then they are exempted from the new Florida law.

Disneyworld is not in BUSINESS to import, manufacture, or deal in explosive materials as far as I know. Their business is tourism, not explosives. Being in business to perform those activities is quite different from getting a permit that lets you buy all those those beautiful fireworks they shoot every night. Unless Disney has some kind of fireworks sales business I don't know about they're grasping a straws.

 

[awkx]

Disneyworld is not in BUSINESS to import, manufacture, or deal in explosive materials as far as I know. Their business is tourism, not explosives. Being in business to perform those activities is quite different from getting a permit that lets you buy all those those beautiful fireworks they shoot every night.

But that's beside the point. The law says that they are exempt if either they are primarily in the explosives business or they have a permit under section 842. If they have the permit, then they're exempt, even if their primary business isn't fireworks.

 

[divemedic]

I think that depends on how the court chooses to read the statute. There are two ways that one can interpret the statute:

or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property

1 If one has a permit under 18USC 842, then you are exempt

2 If one has a permit for the purpose of engaging in importing, manufacturing, or dealing, then you are exempt. Disney has a permit, but not for the purpose of importing, manufacturing, or dealing.

I think it depends on how the court reads this one, and the legislative history will be looked at. I think the court could go either way on this one. This is a case that bears watching.

 

[k_dawg]

Simply having the license does not seem to be enough. They need to be egnaged in one of the following:

importing
manufacturing
dealing in

They do not seem to be doing any three.

 

[TAB]

Bottum line, they guy made a public threat against his employer, If thats not grounds for termanation I don't know what is.

 

[DWFan]

Disney Lore...just interesting reading:

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney.html

 

[divemedic]

Bottum line, they guy made a public threat against his employer, If thats not grounds for termanation I don't know what is.

How is a statement that you are going to exercise a right confirmed by state law even remotely considered a threat?

 

[TAB]

How is a statement that you are going to exercise a right confirmed by state law even remotely considered a threat?

its in the artical in black and white... The guy dared to be fired... the check should have been waiting for him at the gate.

 

[Green Lantern]

...and that's a "threat" is it?

 

[TAB]

saying your going to sue some one is a threat. Just becuase he didn't say that, does not mean how its taken( and trust me, any employer/ H&R/ bean counter/ lawyer is taking it that way)


There are two types of employers out there, those that are currently being sued and those that are in fear of it... I currently have 4 lawsuits on the books. 3 of which I filed as a result of the 4th.


In the end, this guy just wanted 15 mins of fame... that is all.

 

[bubba1]

It's official, he's fired

A Disney employee was fired on Monday after taking a gun to work.

Looks like he has lawyered up and ready to fight:

Suspended Disney employee Edwin Sotomayor became the main attraction at an Orlando gun show on Sunday.

 

[evan price]

"ants"
We're only reading part of the new Florida law. We need to read the whole thing.

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

The new Florida state law provides exemption for employers primarily engaged in explosives,
OR on propery owned or leased by employers who have obtained a permit required under 18 USC s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Ants, you're stopping after the USC cite. You need to read it as a complete sentance, to wit, Disney must have the license AND be in the business of importing ,manufacturing or distributing.

Just having a license isn't enough.

 

[divemedic]

The actual exemption says:

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Now looking at 18 USC 842 says:

a) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials without a license issued under this chapter;

18 USC 841 has the following definitions:

(g) "Importer" means any person engaged in the business of importing or bringing explosive materials into the United States for purposes of sale or distribution.

(h) "Manufacturer" means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use.

(i) "Dealer" means any person engaged in the business of distributing explosive materials at wholesale or retail.

Since Disney is obviously not engaged in the business of importing or dealing explosives, the only question that remains is whether or not they are manufacturing their own explosives. I am willing to bet that they don't, but even if they do, I am not sure they can make the case that they are "engaged in the business of" manufacturing explosives.

I am betting they have the license for the purpose of buying explosives wholesale, not to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on the property.

 

[FCFC]

The Big Ear Boys claim they are exempt from the law due to the explosives exception.I disagree but that's for the lawyers to figure out.My impression is those who are legitimately exempt do not need probable cause to perform a vehicle search.

Disney is quite powerful in Florida..

Good luck beating Disney...

It's no Mickey Mouse Operation!

It's pretty simple on the issue of whether an exemption to the new law applies to Disney. Disney requested, insisted and lobbied for the exemption. The actual effecting of the exemption in the explosives fireworks context is the result of specific legal strategy.

The 18USC language was probably added to specifically exempt Disneyworld. Otherwise that language is unecessary, since the first half of the paragraph covers every other bonifide explosives dealer in the state.

Ding, ding, ding.

Disney decided to go to war on this issue. I'm sure that the legal approach and the specific wording has been nit'd and pick'd by the best lawyers in Florida long ago.

I'm betting on the Big Ears Boys...

Still, even after Sotomayor loses, we have the problem of resolving the non-meshing of two very important rights--property and self-defense, or self-defense and property, if you will. There seems to be sufficient momentum building to get it resolved.It's an important legal question.

 

[divemedic]

Still, even after Sotomayor loses, we have the problem of resolving the non-meshing of two very important rights--property and self-defense, or self-defense and property, if you will. There seems to be sufficient momentum building to get it resolved.It's an important legal question.

The issue was settled a long time ago. When was the last time you saw a "whites only" lunch counter?

 

[TAB]

The issue was settled a long time ago. When was the last time you saw a "whites only" lunch counter?

that is not a valid argument... you can't change your skin color, carrying a weapon is a CHOICE.