Disney revises guns at work policy

[divemedic]

Link here

Aug 15, 6:38 PM EDT

Disney revises guns-to-work policy


ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) -- Walt Disney World is revising its employee gun ban policy.

That's according to a company memo obtained Friday.

With the change, some Disney employees will be allowed to keep a gun locked in a car as long as the employee has a concealed-weapons permit, the gun isn't visible, and the weapon isn't taken out of the car.

The memo says the change only applies to employees who work at facilities outside the Walt Disney World Resort area.

A spokeswoman for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum says Disney's new policy complies with the law.

The company had previously claimed to be exempt from a new state law that allows Florida residents to keep firearms in their vehicles while at work.

Having spoken with people involved with the pending lawsuit, I think Disney is going to lose this case.

 

[Dave P]

Excellent News! Walt would be proud.


But, I still don't plan on going there again.

 

[Duke Junior]

Excellent News! Walt would be proud.


But, I still don't plan on going there again.

Ditto.But I too will never visit again.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Walt would be proud

Was he pro-gun? just wondering.

 

[Crunker1337]

This seems like one of those too-little-too-late things.
And rightly so.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The company had previously claimed to be exempt from a new state law that allows Florida residents to keep firearms in their vehicles while at work.

People and companies who claim to be above the law are beneath contempt.

 

[Duke Junior]

Was he pro-gun? just wondering.

No.Just watch Bambi.Gun rights groups in 1944 appealed to Disney that " hunters in the Spring would not be legal hunters but poachers."
Disney refused to change the Bambi diologue.
So we get what we get.An untruth passed down for generations in a iconic film.

Walt was a dark and devious personality.See this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney:_Hollywood's_Dark_Prince

 

[Defensory]

Walt Disney an anti-semite?!

That's an absolute hoot, especially considering that a substantial number of his artists and film production staff were Jewish.

Not to mention that Walt Disney Studios produced anti-Hitler/anti-Nazi propaganda films for the U.S. government during WWII, which cast Hitler and Naziism in a VERY negative light.

"Der Fuehrer's Face is a 1943 animated cartoon by the Walt Disney Studios, starring Donald Duck. It was directed by Jack Kinney and released on January 1, 1943 as an anti-Nazi propaganda piece for the American war effort. The film won the 1943 Academy Award for Animated Short Film and was voted #22 of the 50 Greatest Cartoons of all time by members of the animation field."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuehrer's_Face

 

[Autolycus]

Either way a blow to freedom has been struck. Sadly property rights are now going out the window in order to appease some voters.

 

[Ergosphere]

Either way a blow to freedom has been struck. Sadly property rights are now going out the window in order to appease some voters.

That's ridiculous. We're talking about the contents of one's private car, in a parking lot.

I like New Mexico's law, which treats the interior of your car in the same manner as the interior of your home. If only more states were so reasonable.

 

[TAB]

That's ridiculous. We're talking about the contents of one's private car, in a parking lot.

I like New Mexico's law, which treats the interior of your car in the same manner as the interior of your home. If only more states were so reasonable.

fine, park on the street then. I must agree with Oldskoolfan, this is one group rights, trampling another group.

And just to stop the whole, its a civil right thing... you can change be armed, you can't change race.

 

[Autolycus]

While it is a private car, it is not necessarily a public lot.

 

[Prince Yamato]

With the change, some Disney employees will be allowed to keep a gun locked in a car as long as the employee has a concealed-weapons permit, the gun isn't visible, and the weapon isn't taken out of the car.

Better than being barred from the parking lot all together. We're winning.

 

[DrewH]

Either way a blow to freedom has been struck. Sadly property rights are now going out the window in order to appease some voters.

I disagree. Property rights are restricted in many ways, this is an excellent one.

Good news

 

[divemedic]

fine, park on the street then.

Not possible. There is nowhere else to park for Disney employees.

 

[dmazur]

One more step toward full recognition of bearing arms as a civil right. Go team!

 

[Prince Yamato]

Any legal victory against the House of Mouse is monumental. Disney rarely loses in court.

 

[Evil_Ed]

For those mourning the loss of property rights...

Rememebr that rights are not absolute, they end where they begin infringing upon another individuals rights. By denying the right to bear arms on company property and not providing a means to check your firearm they are interfering with an individuals right to defend themselves and their family from the time they leave home until they return at night. That is an unreasonable infringement upon the rights of an individual over their own person.

A second argument could be made that corporations in their present form being a fictional entity and not an individual have no rights in this case, property or otherwise. If the "owners" give up the protection of their personal finances and protection from individual liability that are gained by incorporating then the case might be different.

 

[blackcash88]

How can Disney require a concealed carry permit when the state of Florida doesn't require one for car carry?

"It is lawful to possess a concealed firearm for self-defense or other lawful purposes within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use."

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm

 

[blackcash88]

Even if it's parked on private property, the interior is the secure domain of the vehicle owner. That's been upheld in Federal courts.

All that means is you can't be criminally charged. In Florida, employers can fire you for anything as long as it's not race, age, sex etc discrimination. If they find out you have a gun in your car, they'll just find something ELSE to fire you over, if they see fit.

 

[mcosman]

Interesting question

OK so another angle to the private property rights. IF Disney is Infringing on someone's person liberties by forbidding the carrying of a firearm legally, then does that mean Disney gets sued if something goes wrong on their property?

I think we can agree that Disney would indeed get sued if an incident took place in their parking structure.

So if Disney allows the carry of concealed weapons to allow more people to take their safety into their own hands, then does that mean Disney does not get sued in the aforementioned case??

Is it possible that Disney's position is not from the standpoint of choosing sides in a political debate but rather limiting liability to them and their shareholders? (a legal requirement of theirs as a publicly traded co.)

If you cannot tell I am a Business owner. If I do not have a clear no weapons policy in place does that mean that I am liable if someone brings a weapon to work and injures someone. Concealed carry laws aside, where does that leave my Insurance. As a businessmen I can tell you that the Company that Underwrites my Liability Policy will be looking for a way to not payup, so what's really going on??

I am not taking Disneys side, I am a concealed carry holder. Just posing the catch 22 since that is the situation I am in.

 

[divemedic]

Many incidents have happened in Disney's parking area. A few stabbings, a couple was carjacked, stuffed in their trunk, and driven to another town. A rape or two. The defense there is called "third party intervention."

If Disney follows the state law preventing Disney from disciplining employees for having a weapon in the car, there is an immunity provision in the law.

Disney's position on the state law, taking into account that they are immune under that law, is purely anti-gun, and designed to control employees. Disney fires employees LEGALLY allowed to have weapons and in possession of a CCW, but doesn't fire employees arrested for pedophilia. Which do you think is more of a legal liability in a child's theme park?

 

[scurtis_34471]

My car is my private property. The law treats the interior of my car as an extension of my home in many cases. I fail to see why parking my car in someone's parking lot changes that. The inside of my car does not become their property just because I drive onto their property. They have the right to control what goes on on their property, but that does not extend to the interior of my private vehicle. I think the Florida law should have been drafted to reflect that simple fact and the gun issue could have been left out entirely.

 

[Autolycus]

Evil Ed said: or those mourning the loss of property rights...

Rememebr that rights are not absolute, they end where they begin infringing upon another individuals rights. By denying the right to bear arms on company property and not providing a means to check your firearm they are interfering with an individuals right to defend themselves and their family from the time they leave home until they return at night. That is an unreasonable infringement upon the rights of an individual over their own person.

A second argument could be made that corporations in their present form being a fictional entity and not an individual have no rights in this case, property or otherwise. If the "owners" give up the protection of their personal finances and protection from individual liability that are gained by incorporating then the case might be different.

As for the first part of your argument then I would have the right to hold religions sermons in their lot? Should the law force them to give me time to observe my religious beliefs during the hours of my employment? You still have the right to defend yourself, that is their. However I (as a property owner) am not denying you this right. I am just denying you the ability to carry weapons on my property. There is a difference.

As for your second argument, I am going to have to tip my hat. It is a valid point. I hate corporate America and corporations very much. However the argument is that in this litigous society they will be sued if some idiot breaks into an employees car and finds a gun. Then said idiot uses the gun on the guests of the park. They will be sued for not providing enough security. However the argument, often argued by many on these forums, is that CCWers can provide their own security. So does Disney get to hold gun owners and their employees responsible if someone does misuse a weapon that an employee owned? Perhaps the gun owner did not take enough precaution when storing the gun in their car?

Either way this is an interesting argument.

 

[Autolycus]

Said by scurtis_34471: My car is my private property. The law treats the interior of my car as an extension of my home in many cases. I fail to see why parking my car in someone's parking lot changes that. The inside of my car does not become their property just because I drive onto their property. They have the right to control what goes on on their property, but that does not extend to the interior of my private vehicle. I think the Florida law should have been drafted to reflect that simple fact and the gun issue could have been left out entirely.

They could just deny you the ability to park on their property.