Disney revises guns at work policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dalepress, if you read the back story to this thread, The guy in question was not fired for having a weapon in the car, he was fired for not allowing them to search the car. Which is perfectly legal.

My point exactly. Why should they have the right to search is car? Was he suspected of stealing company property? He might have all kinds of personal objects in his car that have no relationship to his job. Do they get to go through his underwear in his laundry bag? Political pamphlets or books? Personal papers? It doesn't matter if they say in advance they're only looking for weapons, when they search my car they see everything in my car. You can't unsee what you've already seen. Searching my car gives them access to my personal life in ways that they have no justification or right to access.
 
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't... thats not the point. I'm sure they had a valid reason...

What you seem to miss, is that this was not the goverment, it was his employer, he was there by choice. he did not have to let him search his car and they did not have to keep him as an employee.

like it or not, the second this guy opened his mouth to the news media, he signed his own pink slip. If it was me, I would have had his check waiting for him at the gate.
 
Disney themselves said why they wanted to search the car:

Disney says he refused to cooperate with investigators who wanted to know if he brought a gun to work with him

The 36-year-old had told local media he planned to challenge Disney's claim of an exemption by having a gun locked in his car when he reported to work at Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Making statements like that, it would be hard to now claim otherwise.

like it or not, the second this guy opened his mouth to the news media, he signed his own pink slip. If it was me, I would have had his check waiting for him at the gate.

It is people like him that fight for our rights. Perhaps Heller should have been punished as well? Disney announced that they believed that they were exempt from the law and that their zero tolerance policy would stand. His attorney (who happens to be one of the best- if not THE best- gun rights attorneys in the state) disagreed, so they set Disney up to be sued.
 
1st heller, you got it backwards...

A group of legal egale developed the case, then went looking for some one( they found more then one)

Until the courts say other wise diseny is exempt form the law.( like it or not its how it works) Infact there is a very good chance that they will win the case for most of thier propertys.

I don't see it as gun rights, I see it as some one created a law to get votes and said the hell with every one elses rights.
 
Until the courts say other wise diseny is exempt form the law.( like it or not its how it works) Infact there is a very good chance that they will win the case for most of thier propertys.

Actually, it goes the other way. A law gets passed. The law stands and Disney is not exempt until the law is either changed or some court upholds Disney's challenge of the law. Just like Washington D.C.'s handgun ban, the law stood until the court threw it out. That's how the rule of law works. You, or Disney, have no obligation to follow an unconstitutional or imoral law. Courts have upheld that before. You just have to suffer the consequences that come between standing up to the law and the overturning of the law.
 
In this case they are claiming that a part of the the law makes them excempt... so they are until ruled on.
 
So you're saying that the default is that if someone claims the law doesn't apply to them they have no obligation to follow the law until it is adjucated?

I'm exempt from the NFA. So until it is ruled on...
 
its there a cluase in the law that you could claim you fall under?
 
Three pages of posts arguing private property rights vs. civil rights.

My thoughts...
The former Disney security guard has a right to free speech. If he stood up in the middle of the Magic Kingdom and shouted, "Mickey is fake. There some twit college student in that big stupid costume."

He's got every right to say that.
Disney has every right to fire him for it, wouldn't you agree?

Based on the arguments listed if they fire him for bad mouthing Mickey, they'd be "trambling his God given 1st amendment right to free speech."


Has anyone really stopped long enough to figure that if this bozo had just kept his mouth shut he would...

A) Still be employed
B) Still have his weapon in his car
C) Disney would be none the wiser.

The problem here isn't private property and it's not the 2nd Amendment.

The problem here is some nitwits inability to keep his big mouth shut.

Rob
 
If that loud trouble maker Rosa Parks would have just kept her mouth shut, she wouldn't have been arrested, either.

Disney is seriously misreading the law. That is all I can say for now.
 
My thoughts...
The former Disney security guard has a right to free speech. If he stood up in the middle of the Magic Kingdom and shouted, "Mickey is fake. There some twit college student in that big stupid costume."

He's got every right to say that.
Disney has every right to fire him for it, wouldn't you agree?

Based on the arguments listed if they fire him for bad mouthing Mickey, they'd be "trambling his God given 1st amendment right to free speech."

Of course you created a nice totally unrelated strawman to knock down but that doesn't change the facts of the case.

It would be more like he has a book INSIDE his car. The book is "Mickey is a fraud". He steps out of car and locks it. Disney asks to search the car.

Now if Disney was smart they would simply have a policy to search the car for no reason. They could tell me "we are searching your car as a condition of your employment. If you refuse you will be fired".

However Disney wasn't smart enough to do that. They told him EXACTLY why they were searching. In this case it would be like Disney says "we are searching your car to see if you have any media we find offensive".

The point is they guy:
1) didn't bring the gun into the park.
2) didn't even take the gun out of the car.
3) didn't handle the gun inside the car in such a manner that would be considered brandishing.

He knew what he was doing and he knew he might get fired. He also knew he had a lawsuit.

Does anyone here think if he hadn't "pulled this stunt" that Disney would be changing their policy today?
 
You are almost spot on. The only thing is that having a "search" policy is not enough. You must also show that you routinely enforce the policy, and do not abuse it in a thinly veiled attempt to look for guns.

As far as the actions of Mr Sotomayor, you are correct. This was a well thought out and planned attack against those who would deprive us our freedom. Too many people want to whine on the internet instead of standing up for what they believe in. At least this man is standing up for what he believes is right, and not just sniveling to people on the internet.

Even if he fails, he has brought a lot of attention and press to the subject. This is but one battle in a larger war for our freedom.
 
While it is a private car, it is not necessarily a public lot.
Then don't leave your gun lying on their parking lot. Keep it locked up inside your property instead.

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.
While I am sitting INSIDE MY OWN CAR with the doors locked, yes. I can listen to whatever I want inside my car; I can say whatever I want inside my car; I can pray inside my car; and as long as it stays inside my car, out of public view, they have no legal standing to tell me what I can say or what I can do.

Now, if I LEAVE my car and walk into my place of work, and clock in, then they can restrict what I say until I am back in my car. But the car is not their domain, it is mine.
 
The part I don't understand is how would they know if you kept a gun in your car in the first place? In UT, employers have no legal backing for enforcing "no guns" policies... all they can do is fire you if they discover you violating their rule. So, a lot of us carry to work despite "no guns" rules.

How would they ever know you had a gun in your car if you decide to ignore their half-arsed "employee protection" policies in the first place?
 
KB, a lot of companies make new employees sign paperwork stating that they must consent to a search or be fired. This is something VOLUNTARILY signed and a condition of employment which, if violated, can result in whatever the consequences are in the paperwork.

So, in UT, they may never know you have a gun in the car, but, if for whatever reason, they want to search your car and you refuse? Probably termination at that point.

While I never signed anything to that effect, the company I work for has numerous defense contracts and the parking areas are posted "no firearms" and that by entering this area your vehicle is subject to search. Just like what you'd see prior to entering a military base. So, I just carry it and shut up. :cool:
 
How would they ever know you had a gun in your car if you decide to ignore their half-arsed "employee protection" policies in the first place?

Some employers use law enforcement with dogs to illegally to search employee vehicles for drugs and guns. That's how they know if you have a gun.
 
The part I don't understand is how would they know if you kept a gun in your car in the first place? In UT, employers have no legal backing for enforcing "no guns" policies... all they can do is fire you if they discover you violating their rule. So, a lot of us carry to work despite "no guns" rules.

How would they ever know you had a gun in your car if you decide to ignore their half-arsed "employee protection" policies in the first place?
Weyerhauser demanded all employees submit to a dog sweep and manual search of cars the dogs alerted on, IIRC. On the first day of hunting season. Anyone found with a gun locked in the car, and anyone who refused consent to search, was fired on the spot.
 
Weyerhauser demanded all employees submit to a dog sweep

That was one of, but not the only one of, the employers I was referring to. It happened in Oklahoma and was the root cause of the Oklahoma legislature passing the right to carry in your car in the parking lot at work law (I know, that should all be hyphenated but it's just too many hyphens :)). That law was quickly challenged by other large employers who also illegally use local law enforcement to search employees' cars without a warrant or probable cause.

Weyerhaeuser (the correct spelling) illegally used the local county sherrif's office to assist with the search. Other large employers in the state also illegally use local law enforcement agencies to perform searches of empolyees' vehicles. Let me add, though, that Judge Anderson of the U.S. 10th District Court of Appeals disagrees with me. The rest of the court hasn't weighed in yet.

Weyerhaeuser brought the dogs into a parking lot used by both employees and the local community. The local county sherrif's office participated in the search by illegally providing the name of the owner of any vehicle upon which the dogs alerted - whether or not the vehicle was owned by an employee or contractor of Weyerhaeuser. Vehicle They illegally searched many vehicles! Once a connection could be made between a vehicle and an employee or contractor, that's when they coerced the employee or contractor to submit to a search of their private vehicle, exposing more of their private life or property than simply any drug, alcohol, or weapon.

I wonder what would have happened if a spouse owned a vehicle? And the sherrif's office now has a list of vehicles that weren't hand searched but had the dogs hit on them.

These actions continue throughout Oklahoma and, very likely, the rest of the United States.

Here, by the way, is Oklahoma's form to request information about the registered owner of a vehicle. While a security company can request the information, it still has to be for one of the reasons listed. None of the reasons include an employers desire to search the vehicle of an employee or citizen of the community at large.

http://www.tax.ok.gov/mvforms/769.pdf
 
But hey, this isn't about the government subverting our rights by using business to do what they cannot- this is about private property, don'tcha know.
 
If anyone had a heads-up on this, they could have a lot of fun by salting a few executive parking spaces with a little Red Dot. It wouldn't take much. (I don't care who you are, that there is funny)

And maybe the dog (that the sheriff paid *lots* of money for and is now using illegally) would be discredited. That would be a nice deterrent against this sort of thing happening again.
 
quote" As for the first part of your argument then I would have the right to hold religions sermons in their lot?" quote. Sure inside your car. We are talking about the inside of a vehicle, not free reign of the whole parking lot
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top