Federal judge to hear challenge to Florida's guns-at-work law
- Thread starter camacho
- Start date
- Status
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
As do a thousand other state laws.
What law? Cite it.
As will the state Attorney General, whose job it is to defend the state's law against legal attack.
The law doesn't apply generally to all private property, only to employers (who are heavily regulated by state laws). What "workplace safety law"? There was no law saying employees could not keep firearms in locked cars while at work; it was company policies. Moreover, there was no evidence that the policies had any positive effect on workplace safety.
Telumehtar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 58
I don't know, but I may have to side with the businesses on this one. If it is in fact THEIR property they should be allowed to set rules as to what is permissible on their property even if it is more restrictive than the law and so long as visitors to their property have the option to leave.
For instance, it has been defended in court that various styles of dress are protected by Free Speech rights. However employers can enforce a dress code on their employees, and if the employees do not like it, they have the choice to leave and seek employment elsewhere.
Likewise if a company does not wish firearms on their property, that should be their right, however it is just as much the right of the employees to seek employment where firearms are acceptable. As an employee you agree to take compensation for doing what the company asks of you, and that can include the suspension of your rights. The Army is a prime example of this, in which soldiers agree to be paid, in exchange for following orders, including limitations on their speech, suspension of the 2nd Amendment rights while living on base housing, and even suspension of their freedom to move about without restriction (you go where ordered).
If you are getting compensated for it, then you are willfully trading your rights during employment in exchange for cash.
Sorry but additionally I do think property rights trump 1st, 2nd and certain other Amendment rights, else things like the mods locking threads here shouldn't be allowed either.
For instance, it has been defended in court that various styles of dress are protected by Free Speech rights. However employers can enforce a dress code on their employees, and if the employees do not like it, they have the choice to leave and seek employment elsewhere.
Likewise if a company does not wish firearms on their property, that should be their right, however it is just as much the right of the employees to seek employment where firearms are acceptable. As an employee you agree to take compensation for doing what the company asks of you, and that can include the suspension of your rights. The Army is a prime example of this, in which soldiers agree to be paid, in exchange for following orders, including limitations on their speech, suspension of the 2nd Amendment rights while living on base housing, and even suspension of their freedom to move about without restriction (you go where ordered).
If you are getting compensated for it, then you are willfully trading your rights during employment in exchange for cash.
Sorry but additionally I do think property rights trump 1st, 2nd and certain other Amendment rights, else things like the mods locking threads here shouldn't be allowed either.
I have to agree with this. When I was younger, I didn't have as much respect for property rights as I do now. I thought I should able to tell everybody what to do, whether they were on my property or not.
Now I am more willing to let people do what they want to on their property, even when I disagree with them, unless they are really hurting me.
Mike
fireflyfather
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 807
The problem with this last statement is that you then have a society where those with money (landlords, employers, businesses) exert an undue amount of influence over the rights of those without money. All it takes is for landlords to clue into this, and nearly EVERY commercial landlord is going to prevent renters from owning firearms (for example). The other issue here is that those landlords are de facto depriving people of their rights OUTSIDE OF COMPANY PROPERTY/TIME (they say you can't keep it in your car, but that means that people can't carry to or from work, unless they park on the street, which is sometimes not an option at all). This is like employers telling people that they cannot smoke on their own time at home.
Property rights are among our most important rights, but they do not automatically trump all other rights. As for your analogy about the mods locking threads, it isn't synonymous. It's more akin to the mods here locking a thread for something you say to your friend (using your voice) as you type a message here. The employers are regulating what people do that is tangental to their work/workplace.
Also, bear in mind that those vehicles are also property. What about the property of the employees that they carry on their person? Can an employer make a daily strip search or car search a condition of employment in an unrelated (non-government/security) field? Whose property rights trump the others'? It's too complicated for us to simply say "property rights trump those other rights".
This sounds oddly leftist. In general on THR, the anti's are (incorrectly) accused of being socialist/communist. The first real socialist arguments I run into on THR is pro-gun!
Why not? I know that there are tech companies that don't let you take media recording devices, etc. to work.
Why not?
Mike
About an hour, mainly because it isn't their property. Once you leave the store the parking lot is almost never owned by the stores that "rent" space. We had a guy picket my gym once, and although it was pretty funny, the sherriff couldn't do diddelly, other than move him down a couple lanes. "for his saftey". All of these strip centers and the national ones rent the space to the stores have no right to dictate policy unless they own the property. Also if you have a ccw, you can cary in the store, so the whole thing is stupid. They could care less who has a gun in their car. Wynn Dixie tried to stop permit holders from carrying in their stores about 10 or 12 years ago, guess what, they had to take down the sign.
bdickens
Member
Business owners already have to put up with a whole host of restrictions that conflict with their "property rights," so I don't see how this is much different. The ADA comes most immediately to mind.
There is a difference between completely private property (like a person's house) and private property that has been opened up as a public accomodation. This is why, for example, a person can refuse to serve blacks in their home kitchen but they cannot refuse to serve blacks in their restaurant, even though both are private property. One is open to the public, and hence civil rights laws apply. Many people believe that Constitutional rights should be protected to the greatest extent possible, and hence if I cannot be distriminated against because of my skin color, why should I be discriminated against because I choose to exercise my right to hear arms? Would anyone argue that it would be ok for employers to say that no black people can park in their parking lot?
As a business owner, you only have the right to make policy within the constraints of your business., and that is only if it dosen't conflict with the state or federal laws. But you can't tell a licensed pistol holder that you decided that he or she can't come in to your store. The simple way to look at it is this, my business partner, didn't want any guns in the club, including mine. So he put up a sign. Since half the members were sherrifs deputies, Federal marshals Dea, and so on, that could not be enforced, but it couldn't be enforced anyhow even if they were budist monks, because you have a right to carry, and that trumps the individuals right to disagree. I'm sure Winn Dixie didn't like taking down that sign, but it wasn't their decision to make. Besides, all you need is for someone to get killed during a robery and that's the end of your business.
One of Many
Member
Business companies, corporations and partnerships are all creations of law; they have no natural rights like people who are created by a natural process. Natural rights supersede civil rights (and that includes property rights), that are created by law. Property rights are not natural rights.
When the law is the mechanism that allows a business to exist, and defines the rights and the privileges, and the authority that can be exercised along with the corresponding responsibilities that that accrue to the business under the license to operate in the issuing state, then the state has every right to say what the limits of that business are defined to be. Businesses all operate under a state charter, and are bound by state laws, without any natural rights because they are not natural beings. The state has every right to limit the "property rights" of a business, because the state determines what property they can purchase, how they can utilize that property, and what the taxes on that property will be which the business must pay to the state.
The state can confiscate property for failure to pay tax, even when the property is owned by a natural being (human). The state can determine actions that a natural being is not permitted to do on their property, such as murder, rape, armed robbery of trespassers, etc. The state can punish natural beings for violating the laws that apply to them while on and utilizing their own property. If states can do all of those things to natural beings that have natural rights, then they can do similarly to unnatural creations of man made laws. No business has any right to deny a natural right to a natural being. A natural being may voluntarily give up that right by signing a contract, but contract law is a creation of state government, and the state may pass laws that modify contracts between businesses and employees or clients.
When the law is the mechanism that allows a business to exist, and defines the rights and the privileges, and the authority that can be exercised along with the corresponding responsibilities that that accrue to the business under the license to operate in the issuing state, then the state has every right to say what the limits of that business are defined to be. Businesses all operate under a state charter, and are bound by state laws, without any natural rights because they are not natural beings. The state has every right to limit the "property rights" of a business, because the state determines what property they can purchase, how they can utilize that property, and what the taxes on that property will be which the business must pay to the state.
The state can confiscate property for failure to pay tax, even when the property is owned by a natural being (human). The state can determine actions that a natural being is not permitted to do on their property, such as murder, rape, armed robbery of trespassers, etc. The state can punish natural beings for violating the laws that apply to them while on and utilizing their own property. If states can do all of those things to natural beings that have natural rights, then they can do similarly to unnatural creations of man made laws. No business has any right to deny a natural right to a natural being. A natural being may voluntarily give up that right by signing a contract, but contract law is a creation of state government, and the state may pass laws that modify contracts between businesses and employees or clients.
Exactly.
If one really believes that private property gives someone the right to do whatever he wants, particularly to an employee, this is a truly arbitrary place to draw a line in the sand.
If you don't think so, try paying someone $6.50/hour in 30 days, or making a show of staring at a coworker's hot ass.
divemedic
Member
I believe the OSH angle will also fail, as the argument made in support of the OSH point of view is a stretch. (Not even considering that the OSH is a larger invasion of property rights that this law will ever be)
This law is intended to balance the rights of two property owners, where their rights intersect. There is no black and white answer here. The law in question is a reasonable compromise that respects the rights of both without unduly placing a burden upon either.
This law allows the owner of a car to control what is on his property. It allows the owner of the business to control what is on his property. (The car owner's property starts/stops at the door to the car)
There is case law on the private property angle. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.
The "paradigmatic" taking is a direct government appropriation of private property. In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as regulatory taking. see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, (2005).
In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.
This law does not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but does result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto Plaintiffs' property is unwelcome because Plaintiffs have corporate policies preventing this. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419(1982)
The Supreme Court first carved out the category of per se physical takings. In Loretto, the Court distinguished temporary physical "invasions" from permanent physical "occupations." The Court made clear that not every limitation on the right to exclude is deserving of per se treatment, notwithstanding the importance of the right to exclude in the bundle of property rights. The court ruled that an invasion is temporary, while an occupation is permanent.
A physical occupation, as defined by the Court, is a permanent and exclusive occupation by the government that destroys the owner's right to possession, use, and disposal of the property. see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
The laws we are talking about here do not force any permanent "physical structure" on an owner's property. Instead, they force an unwanted physical invasion by third parties engaging in an unwanted activity. The invasion itself is not "permanent" because the individuals engaging in the unwanted activity (guns in cars) do not remain on the property at all times, as would an actual physical structure. Nor does this law cause a "permanent" invasion by the government vis a vis a particular parcel of property, such as the public bike paths at issue in public easement cases. In those cases, even if no person ever chose to ride his bike across a public path, there is nevertheless governmental intrusion because that particular parcel of land is stripped of its right to exclude.
If no individuals choose to engage in the activity of transporting firearms in vehicles, landowners will not suffer unwanted invasions. It is therefore hard to classify the invasion caused by this law as "permanent" for purposes of a takings analysis.
See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 1980) (analyzing California constitutional provision permitting individuals to exercise free speech rights on private property against the wishes of the private property owner under a balancing test); Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1337-38 (applying Penn Central test to regulation that forced landlords to allow a "physical invasion" of their buildings by certain unwanted tenants); Boise Cascade, 296 F.3d at 1357 (holding that government official's periodic intrusion onto private property for purpose of conducting owl surveys over a period of five months was not a per se taking and must be analyzed under Penn Central test).
This law is intended to balance the rights of two property owners, where their rights intersect. There is no black and white answer here. The law in question is a reasonable compromise that respects the rights of both without unduly placing a burden upon either.
This law allows the owner of a car to control what is on his property. It allows the owner of the business to control what is on his property. (The car owner's property starts/stops at the door to the car)
There is case law on the private property angle. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.
The "paradigmatic" taking is a direct government appropriation of private property. In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as regulatory taking. see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, (2005).
In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.
This law does not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but does result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto Plaintiffs' property is unwelcome because Plaintiffs have corporate policies preventing this. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419(1982)
The Supreme Court first carved out the category of per se physical takings. In Loretto, the Court distinguished temporary physical "invasions" from permanent physical "occupations." The Court made clear that not every limitation on the right to exclude is deserving of per se treatment, notwithstanding the importance of the right to exclude in the bundle of property rights. The court ruled that an invasion is temporary, while an occupation is permanent.
A physical occupation, as defined by the Court, is a permanent and exclusive occupation by the government that destroys the owner's right to possession, use, and disposal of the property. see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
The laws we are talking about here do not force any permanent "physical structure" on an owner's property. Instead, they force an unwanted physical invasion by third parties engaging in an unwanted activity. The invasion itself is not "permanent" because the individuals engaging in the unwanted activity (guns in cars) do not remain on the property at all times, as would an actual physical structure. Nor does this law cause a "permanent" invasion by the government vis a vis a particular parcel of property, such as the public bike paths at issue in public easement cases. In those cases, even if no person ever chose to ride his bike across a public path, there is nevertheless governmental intrusion because that particular parcel of land is stripped of its right to exclude.
If no individuals choose to engage in the activity of transporting firearms in vehicles, landowners will not suffer unwanted invasions. It is therefore hard to classify the invasion caused by this law as "permanent" for purposes of a takings analysis.
See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 1980) (analyzing California constitutional provision permitting individuals to exercise free speech rights on private property against the wishes of the private property owner under a balancing test); Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1337-38 (applying Penn Central test to regulation that forced landlords to allow a "physical invasion" of their buildings by certain unwanted tenants); Boise Cascade, 296 F.3d at 1357 (holding that government official's periodic intrusion onto private property for purpose of conducting owl surveys over a period of five months was not a per se taking and must be analyzed under Penn Central test).
arthurcw
Member
TALLAHASSEE
A federal judge in Tallahassee will hear arguments in a case challenging a new Florida law that allows Books to be kept locked in cars parked in lots owned by businesses.
The hearing is set to begin Wednesday afternoon, just six days before the new law's July 1 effective date. The law prohibits businesses from banning employees and customers from having Books in their cars.
The Florida Chamber of Commerce and Florida Retail Federation contend the law violates the rights of businesses to control what happens on their property. They also say it conflicts with a federal occupational safety law.
Lawyers for the state and National Rifle Association will defend the law. They say the right to Free Speech, as recognized by the constitution, trumps property rights and the workplace safety law.
A federal judge in Tallahassee will hear arguments in a case challenging a new Florida law that allows Books to be kept locked in cars parked in lots owned by businesses.
The hearing is set to begin Wednesday afternoon, just six days before the new law's July 1 effective date. The law prohibits businesses from banning employees and customers from having Books in their cars.
The Florida Chamber of Commerce and Florida Retail Federation contend the law violates the rights of businesses to control what happens on their property. They also say it conflicts with a federal occupational safety law.
Lawyers for the state and National Rifle Association will defend the law. They say the right to Free Speech, as recognized by the constitution, trumps property rights and the workplace safety law.
It could take some time. From what I understand the hearing today was just for a preliminary injuction so that the law can not become effective on July 1st. There is no info at this time (checked the news sources) as to how the hearing went and whether an injuction was granted.
Good, because I spend my time at work cussing out customers, and my boss thinks he can limit my free speech rights and fire me. Where the heck does he get off? He can't make "not cussing at customers" a condition of employment! Just 'cause he owns the shop, he thinks he can regulate my speech while I'm in shop.
Mike
divemedic
Member
If you read my post, you will see that the "private property rights" argument has already been addressed by SCOTUS.
machinisttx
Member
Any property owner, regardless of whether it is a commercial business, or a private home in question has the right to say "You can't come here with that".
Guess what folks, I work at a DOD contractor. I can't bring in thumbdrives, cameras, voice recording devices, or a radio with a functional tape recorder. I also can't have firearms on the property. If I violate any of those conditions of employment, I will at the very least, be fired. I agreed to those conditions when I went to work there--just like those whiny twits in Florida agreed not to have firearms on company property when they accepted employment. IMO, the companies involved should have had them charged with criminal trespass and whatever else they could find.
You agree to X terms of employment, which are stated up front. If, at any time, those conditions of employment become unsatisfactory, you're free to vote with your feet and find another job.
As far as the BS about businesses MUST serve everyone... Sorry, but if a business decides they don't wish to serve people in blue shoes on Friday, the law shouldn't force them to do so.
I wonder how many people who support this crap are union haters? You're using the goobermint like leeches use unions.
From what I understand, Florida is a right to work state. The good thing about that is, the employer can fire whoever he/she wants with basically no reason. All employers there need to do is find some other reason to fire people who decide to violate the conditions they agreed to when they accepted employment. That, or they can pack up and leave Florida jobless(which is what I would suggest).
Guess what folks, I work at a DOD contractor. I can't bring in thumbdrives, cameras, voice recording devices, or a radio with a functional tape recorder. I also can't have firearms on the property. If I violate any of those conditions of employment, I will at the very least, be fired. I agreed to those conditions when I went to work there--just like those whiny twits in Florida agreed not to have firearms on company property when they accepted employment. IMO, the companies involved should have had them charged with criminal trespass and whatever else they could find.
You agree to X terms of employment, which are stated up front. If, at any time, those conditions of employment become unsatisfactory, you're free to vote with your feet and find another job.
As far as the BS about businesses MUST serve everyone... Sorry, but if a business decides they don't wish to serve people in blue shoes on Friday, the law shouldn't force them to do so.
I wonder how many people who support this crap are union haters? You're using the goobermint like leeches use unions.
From what I understand, Florida is a right to work state. The good thing about that is, the employer can fire whoever he/she wants with basically no reason. All employers there need to do is find some other reason to fire people who decide to violate the conditions they agreed to when they accepted employment. That, or they can pack up and leave Florida jobless(which is what I would suggest).
The law, as written, is unconstitutional. And unfair. It forces employers to unwillingly allow guns on their property and does absolutely nothing to inhibit legal liability for an illegal act of an employee with a gun in the car.
The Atlantis Plastics employee shoot-up in Henderson, KY will be a highly relevant example of why businesses absolutely cannot live with a law such as Florida's.
If a business concern cannot ban guns from its property (by specific contract or by right) and must accept liability for malfeasance of gun users, why, that doesn't seem to business friendly to me.
If I were a business owner or manager and it didn't make sense in my business model to have guns on my property, I'd easily figure out a way to make that happen. There are so many ways...
The Atlantis Plastics employee shoot-up in Henderson, KY will be a highly relevant example of why businesses absolutely cannot live with a law such as Florida's.
If a business concern cannot ban guns from its property (by specific contract or by right) and must accept liability for malfeasance of gun users, why, that doesn't seem to business friendly to me.
If I were a business owner or manager and it didn't make sense in my business model to have guns on my property, I'd easily figure out a way to make that happen. There are so many ways...
That’s all this is about. It’s not about property rights.
Right now if I have my gun in my car at work and my car is searched – which my employer has the right to do – I’m out of a job.
With the law I may have my gun in my car and if searched I still have a job.
I shouldn’t have to look for another job or be fearful I’ll get fired just because I want to stop by the range on the way home after work.
This is much ado about nothing and the business groups are ridiculous for opposing it.
the problem is, a gun in my car means that the gun remains in MY property until i remove it from the car... my car remains my property no matter where i park it unless it is sold, given away or seized by court order...
if they want to control what is in my car, they need to have a secure parking lot with guards and barricades... AND they need to accept all liability for any damages to my car while it is parked there... if they do not do that, then my car and the contents inside are still my property...
if they want to control what is in my car, they need to have a secure parking lot with guards and barricades... AND they need to accept all liability for any damages to my car while it is parked there... if they do not do that, then my car and the contents inside are still my property...
P5 Guy
Member
What about my right to safely travel back and forth to work?
Will I be able to have the employer that prohibits my carrying my personal protection devise held responsible if I'm attacked and unable to defend myself?
Only CCW holders can have a firearm locked in their car on this private property. And how many out there disregard the wishes of their employer that do not have CCW now?
Will I be able to have the employer that prohibits my carrying my personal protection devise held responsible if I'm attacked and unable to defend myself?
Only CCW holders can have a firearm locked in their car on this private property. And how many out there disregard the wishes of their employer that do not have CCW now?
- Status