Disney Thumbing Nose At The New Gun Law [FL]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you kidding me!!!!

FYI...Disney has to comply with the law too just like every other business.

Out of sight... out of mind!:neener:
 
(7) EXCEPTIONS.--The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

<snip>

(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.

Interesting. However, that is not their PRIMARY business, so it would not hold up IMO.

It would hold up IMO to Disney's Orlando Airport based magazine and distribution center.
 
I refuse to give any of my money into the hands of any company owned or formerly owned by Nazi sympathizers.

Realistically, they are a private company and can do as they wish. Dont like it? Shop/visit somewhere else or work elsewhere.
 
Boy, they are going to be so screwed when and if someone does get involved in a deadly force encounter on their property and either dies or is maimed as a result of corporate policy.

One of the great things about Heller is no one had to get hurt to make it happen.

This may not be the same.
 
Is it reasonable to believe that Disney make an exception for handguns in .380 caliber and other mouse guns?
 
If they made an exception for mouseguns, they'd probably require that iron filings be included in the powder charge for all cartridges.

Hopefully another pyromaniac here will get that joke. :D
 
Since Disney uses fireworks and other explosive special effects, they MAY be trying to use this:

Quote:
(7) EXCEPTIONS.--The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

<snip>

(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.
Disney's primary business is not the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials nor is it engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials.

But I agree, I wouldn't put it past them to try to use some BS exception like that.

I wonder... if guns are verboten in places that deal with explosives, I wonder if there's a statute prohibiting the possession of lighters, matches, and flints in such places.
 
I wonder if they still sell those flint lock pistols toys outside the Pirates of the Caribbean ride?

I refuse to give any of my money into the hands of any company owned or formerly owned by Nazi sympathizers.

+1
 
Shop/visit somewhere else or work elsewhere.

Great! This is the type of thinking that will get us to a situation where there will be no place to shop or place to work that respects your rights about anything. But hey, the world is full of private enterprises (soon there will be very few big ones) and nothing we can do but obey:fire:

Sad, truly sad!
 
That is great- Disney fires a person for LEGALLY carrying a CCW in accordance with the law, but they refuse to fire pedophiles until they are convicted.
 
legally you can't fire people until they are convicted...

innocent until proven guilty.

having worked for The mouse breifly, I can tell you they are very restirctive as an employer, even getting into thier employee parking lots is a PITA.
 
(c) Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity
generation facility is located.

Well i guess we know how they make their own power now..
 
Great! This is the type of thinking that will get us to a situation where there will be no place to shop or place to work that respects your rights about anything. But hey, the world is full of private enterprises (soon there will be very few big ones) and nothing we can do but obey

Boycotts are a time-tested, non-coercive way for citizens to solve problems, without turning to the big-govt. solution which you are defending. Do you also get outraged by people on this board who boycott other anti-gun companies?

A company which is legally allowed to prohibit firearms on its premises, or refrain from hiring gun-owners, is simply enjoying the same rights which you and I possess as individuals. You and I may choose not to allow guns on our property (not that we would want to), just as we can refrain from associating with gunnies or with anti-gunners. It would be unfortunate if Disney got special treatment, but the fact remains that property rights and rights of association are just as important as the RKBA.

Camacho, you propose a false dichotomy between individual rights and property rights. There is no individual right to trespass by bringing your gun onto private property where the property owner has forbidden it.

In a free country, anti-gunners have rights, too. Sorry.
 
without turning to the big-govt. solution which you are defending.

Huh?! Let's see, the Florida legislators elected by the citizens in state of FL have passed a law, and the governor of Florida elected by the people in Florida have signed it. Who did exactly elected Disney's managing Board, or share holders? Who are these people anyways? Whom they are accountable to? "We, the People", I do not think so. So every time the will of the people is enacted into a law that is a big govt. solution, but when a corporation (an created entity, not individual) violates the rights of the people, that's OK. Wow, the founding fathers must be turning in their graves.
 
A company which is legally allowed to prohibit firearms on its premises, or refrain from hiring gun-owners, is simply enjoying the same rights which you and I possess as individuals.

Mike, no offense intended but that's probably the screwiest statement I've ever read on a gun forum. It's a remarkable accomplishment given the antigravitational nature of gun forums and their ability to roll the marbles in every direction simultaneously.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt I decided to test what you said about a company having the same rights as individuals.

So after I read your message I telephoned one of those companies and asked it to marry me. I know I'm already married but my wife probably wouldn't mind sharing me with the telephone company on weekends and evenings. It took some time to get to a real telephone operator but persistence won the day. I carefully explained that I've always had a crush on the phone company and finally got up the nerve to propose.

The operator asked if I was nuts. She said: "You can't marry a company and a company can't marry you." I told her what you said about companies "enjoying the same rights which you and I possess as individuals," but she wasn't impressed. When I told her I just read that in a gun forum, she said "Big surprise" and hung up on me.

Then I called Ben & Jerry's and scaled down my expectations a little. Maybe you meant I should woo the company a little before getting serious. But when I asked the local store how long it had a drivers license and where it went to school, the kid who answered the phone hung up on me. More than once.

Mike, no matter what company I asked about how it exercised the same rights you and I possess as individuals the response was pretty nearly the same. It seems that only you and other experts believe that businesses are just individuals in legal drag.

My heart is broken and my illusions are shattered. I figured at the very least I might get a date with the phone company and shoot the breeze with Ben or Jerry over a Cherry Garcia flipflop. I'll never believe anything posted on a gun forum again.

Pity. I thought that The High Road might consider applying for social security, getting vaccinated, voting in the next election, running for President, or auditioning for So You Think You Can Dance.

All is not lost. Maybe you can get the Constitution of the U.S. revised to read "the right of the business to keep and bear arms" and substitute the word "business" for "people" throughout. It's preamble could be changed to fit your notions too. Currently it reads this way:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So it looks as if the Constitution does not give businesses the same rights that people possess as individuals. In fact among the Earthlings it looks as if people are considered special beings, distinct from businesses, and that you've got the whole thing muddled in the midst of some really creative intellectual gibberish. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Maybe next year, after President Obama imposes change we can believe in?
 
Thank you, Robert Hairless.

That was the funniest, most satyrical response to the "business rights" and "businesses are people too" trumpeters I've yet seen.
 
So, if I open a business, am I still a person, or do I become some kind of soul-less entity with no rights?


So every time the will of the people is enacted into a law that is a big govt. solution, but when a corporation (an created entity, not individual) violates the rights of the people, that's OK.

Please explain what right of the people is being violated, when a group of people (a business) decide they don't want guns on their property. Do you have a right to trespass on another's property, by bringing items they have expressly forbidden? Your right to bear arms does not include a right to do whatever you wish on someone else's land.

every time the will of the people is enacted into a law that is a big govt. solution

Please don't put words in my mouth. When the people violate human rights (no matter how benign their intention) we call it "big govt."
 
Please explain what right of the people is being violated, when a group of people (a business) decide they don't want guns on their property.

How about the right guaranteed by that pesky 2 Amendment, the one that talks about the right to keep and bear arms. The very same one that the Supreme Court just re-affirmed.

Those same businesses that you defend and equate to individuals, respect the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, rights of the citizens against discrimination, ADA, and numerous others. The RKBA, however, is different I guess. Isn't this the same argument Bloomberg and Co uses :confused:

You know I am beginning to understand why some folks just can't see the light.They just do not see the 2 Amendment as a right that "shall not be infringed". RKBA is not a hobby, not past time, not hunting, not something that you might do/or not if you get bored on the couch. It's a RIGHT that predates the Bill of Rights and the Constituion, and it's re-affirmed and further guaranteed by these. I guess we have some education to do even amongst our own.
 
um you don't have a choice in your skin color or rather your disabled or not. You can however always leave the gun at home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top