Federal judge to hear challenge to Florida's guns-at-work law

[lacoochee]

LWGN, what about times when CCW would be dangerous to the employee and/or property. For example working from a harness in construction, or working in a power plant where ferrous metals can do alot of damage. Do those people still have a right to CCW?

Currently they do have the right in Florida, this law is not about the legality of a concealed weapon in a workplace, it's only about whether you can be fired for having a firearm in your car.

you can't say: its ok for one group to have a weapon, but not ok for others.

Umm, we already do, I can carry a firearm because have I concealed weapons license if you don't too bad.

 

[TAB]

Currently they do have the right in Florida, this law is not about the legality of a concealed weapon in a workplace, it's only about whether you can be fired for having a firearm in your car.

Do you have a prob with that?

Do you think its fair for an employer to pay for damage cuased by thier employee becuase thier employee had a weapon? ( ever seen what happends when a ferrous metal gets too close to a strong magnetic field?)

Also do you think its fair for an employer to pay for an injury that was cuased by an employee having a weapon?

Hopeful comon sense would prevent those things from happening, but we all know common sense is not very common.

I've seen way too many bad things happen to people on the job that could have been avoided.

 

[lacoochee]

Do you have a prob with that?

No, what if it was a wrench in their pocket, lol, in this instance it's not about a gun it's about a piece of metal in your pocket. FWIW I was an Electrician's Mate at one time in my life and know a little something about strong magnetic fields.

Why are you so married to the idea that it should be illegal to carry a firearm at work or keep one in your car for that matter?

Stop fighting us and help us defend ourselves and stop trying to roll back the privileges we have gained in Florida.

Let me repeat this one more time, this bill is about keeping a firearm in your locked car in a parking lot (not even necessarily a private parking lot) stop trying to make it something else.

 

[ProguninTN]

Robert Hairless

I never thought I'd see a time when Americans proclaimed a right of businesses to exploit them and dominate their lives.

Well said, Mr. Hairless.

 

[LWGN]

LWGN, what about times when CCW would be dangerous to the employee and/or property. For example working from a harness in construction, or working in a power plant where ferrous metals can do alot of damage. Do those people still have a right to CCW?

Have you read the bill in question?

I find it hard to believe that the presence of a firearm in a car is going to intensify the car's magnetic footprint to the point where it will suddenly interfere with sensitive equipment from all the way out in the parking lot. I find it equally unlikely that a construction worker is going to try to take his car up in a harness with him.

The bill is not about people who carry their weapons in the workplace. It is about people who hold CCW permits and do not carry their weapons into the workplace, but rather leave their firearms locked in their personal vehicles. The bill says that, except where explicitly provided otherwise in Federal and/or Florida law, employers may not fire employees for simply having a gun locked up in their parked private car.

 

[TAB]

Why are you so married to the idea that it should be illegal to carry a firearm at work or keep one in your car for that matter?

I don't think it should be illegal, I think it should be the employers choice.

 

[TAB]

having a weapon in your car on company property is carrying a weapon at work.

 

[LWGN]

TAB,

The examples you gave had firearms on the person of the employee while performing work duties. To equate the so-called danger posed by a gun locked away in a parked vehicle with that of a weapon carried on a person while performing inherently dangerous work is not reasonable or rational.

Florida law (not just this particular section) makes an explicit distinction between "carrying a firearm" and having it locked in a vehicle. A person driving with a gun in the trunk, glovebox, or console is NOT considered to be "carrying" a weapon, regardless of whether these areas are locked. So I think you would have a hard time convincing the courts that a person with a CCW (who is allowed to "carry" on his or her person) should not be allowed to "carry" a weapon in his or her car.

 

[dmazur]

IMO, there should be no penalty for possession of a firearm, provided the person is lawfully allowed to do so.

So, until someone commits harm to the employer (or one of his employees), possession should be OK. It doesn't infringe on the person's right to protect himself during the transit to/from work. (Which would be completely negated if he was forced to leave the firearm at home.)

The free speech analogy is a bit strained, as it isn't your voice that causes harm, but the words you choose. So, answering customer service questions can be part of your job, involving speech, but cussing at customers or making lewd remarks about co-workers will get you fired (properly).

While it might seem like a universal solution to prevent firearms in a parking lot, it doesn't prevent access to firearms in a more remote location. So the disgruntled employee comes in tomorrow and shoots up the place, rather than that same afternoon...any real difference?

Nope. The crime isn't prevented by limiting access to firearms. The solution is complex, but will probably be found in providing counseling, stiff punishments and similar approaches rather than trying to control the device.

Legal possession of firearms shouldn't be restricted by someone's fears of what might occur. That's a punishment before the act.

 

[TAB]

From a liabilty stand point there is diffrence between some one going to thier car and getting a gun vs coming in the next day.

Now here is the really big question... what does harm to his employer mean?

Is it costing that employer money? is it damage to property? is it damage to a person? All of the above?

what if there is a accident envoling the firearm, who should pay? Currently its the employer.

 

[LWGN]

TAB,

The law as written exempts the employer from any liability that arises from the employer complying with the provisions of the law. The liability argument doesn't fly here.

 

[TAB]

really so your workmesn comp would not have to cover the guy standing next to the guy that just had a ND?

If not then who covers that? who covers the loss of any employee?

 

[fireflyfather]

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!

I'm not a leftist/socialist in the sense you mean. Please note the word "undue". Business and capitalism have their place. I just don't like ANY concentration of power in the hands of a few that allows for autocratic behavior against large masses of ***individuals*** for the benefit of the autocrats, and at the expense of the individuals. It's all about balance of power. I don't care if they're commisars, robber barons, or a theocracy. I want those folks to mind their business, and stay out of mine. What I keep inside my vehicle is my business, so long as I keep it there, and it doesn't present an imminent threat to others.

As for the "I want to cuss out the customers!" line, it isn't an analagous situation. That would be roughly equivalent to a gun owner shooting the customers. Of course they would get fired. This is more like the employer firing you for something unfavorable you wrote about a customer in your diary kept in your glove box. They shouldn't be in your glove box to begin with.

As for DOD contractors having limitations to their work environment, that is a matter of national defense/state secrets/security clearances, is it not? It is NOT AT ALL a matter of *PRIVATE* property rights...since it is GOVERNMENT (hence public...though secret) work.

 

[fireflyfather]

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!

I'm not a leftist/socialist in the sense you mean. Please note the word "undue". Business and capitalism have their place. I just don't like ANY concentration of power in the hands of a few that allows for autocratic behavior against large masses of ***individuals*** for the benefit of the autocrats, and at the expense of the individuals. It's all about balance of power. I don't care if they're commisars, robber barons, or a theocracy. I want those folks to mind their business, and stay out of mine. What I keep inside my vehicle is my business, so long as I keep it there, and it doesn't present an imminent threat to others.

As for the "I want to cuss out the customers!" line, it isn't an analagous situation. That would be roughly equivalent to a gun owner shooting the customers. Of course they would get fired. This is more like the employer firing you for something unfavorable you wrote about a customer in your diary kept in your glove box. They shouldn't be in your glove box to begin with.

As for DOD contractors having limitations to their work environment, that is a matter of national defense/state secrets/security clearances, is it not? It is NOT AT ALL a matter of *PRIVATE* property rights...since it is GOVERNMENT (hence public...though secret) work.

 

[fireflyfather]

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!

I'm not a leftist/socialist in the sense you mean. Please note the word "undue". Business and capitalism have their place. I just don't like ANY concentration of power in the hands of a few that allows for autocratic behavior against large masses of ***individuals*** for the benefit of the autocrats, and at the expense of the individuals. It's all about balance of power. I don't care if they're commisars, robber barons, or a theocracy. I want those folks to mind their business, and stay out of mine. What I keep inside my vehicle is my business, so long as I keep it there, and it doesn't present an imminent threat to others.

As for the "I want to cuss out the customers!" line, it isn't an analagous situation. That would be roughly equivalent to a gun owner shooting the customers. Of course they would get fired. This is more like the employer firing you for something unfavorable you wrote about a customer in your diary kept in your glove box. They shouldn't be in your glove box to begin with.

As for DOD contractors having limitations to their work environment, that is a matter of national defense/state secrets/security clearances, is it not? It is NOT AT ALL a matter of *PRIVATE* property rights...since it is GOVERNMENT (hence public...though secret) work.

 

[LWGN]

In Florida, most likely the car insurance company of the person transporting the weapon would be liable if there was an ND in the parking lot. The story of how I know this is too long to go into here and now. (I did NOT have an ND , BTW.)

Workers' comp is tightly regulated in Florida, and your rates are not going to go up because you comply with Florida law. The insurance commissioner will put that idea to rest jiffy-quick. But if you violate the law, and fire someone for having a legal weapon in their car, you WILL be paying their unemployment, and since it was your criminal action that resulted in the loss, your unemployment insurance rates will very likely go up. And, heaven forbid, if one of your employees is killed on the way to or from work because she couldn't carry her gun in her car at your place of business, you will almost certainly find out what liability is all about.

 

[TAB]

So would OSHA pay you a vist? If the guy was on the clock and spent more then 24 hours in the er/ hospital they are requried to do an investagation/ inspection( federal law). How much money could that cost you? Would it make a diffrence if they are both on the clock?


Has the insurance commissioner ever had to do that?

But if you violate the law, and one of your employees is killed on the way to or from work because she couldn't carry her gun in her car at your place of business, you will likely find out what liability is all about.

has anyone ever been sued over this? did they win?

 

[fireflyfather]

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!

I'm not a leftist/socialist in the sense you mean. Please note the word "undue". Business and capitalism have their place. I just don't like ANY concentration of power in the hands of a few that allows for autocratic behavior against large masses of ***individuals*** for the benefit of the autocrats, and at the expense of the individuals. It's all about balance of power. I don't care if they're commisars, robber barons, or a theocracy. I want those folks to mind their business, and stay out of mine. What I keep inside my vehicle is my business, so long as I keep it there, and it doesn't present an imminent threat to others.

As for the "I want to cuss out the customers!" line, it isn't an analagous situation. That would be roughly equivalent to a gun owner shooting the customers. Of course they would get fired. This is more like the employer firing you for something unfavorable you wrote about a customer in your diary kept in your glove box. They shouldn't be looking in your glove box to begin with.

As for DOD contractors having limitations to their work environment, that is a matter of national defense/state secrets/security clearances, is it not? It is NOT AT ALL a matter of *PRIVATE* property rights...since it is GOVERNMENT (hence public...though secret) work.

 

[Funderb]

quadruple tap?

 

[RPCVYemen]

As for the "I want to cuss out the customers!" line, it isn't an analagous situation. That would be roughly equivalent to a gun owner shooting the customers.

No, the analogy is pretty close.

1. The 1st Amendment protects my right to free speech.
2. The 2nd Amendment protects my RKBA (as of 10:00 this morning, I hope).
3. My employer may make speaking positively about his products a condition of my employment.
4. My employer may make not comparing his competitors' products favorably to his products a condition of employment.
5. Therefore, my employer may make restrictions on my free speech a condition of employment.
6. If this is reasonable with regard to the 1st Amendment, why not the 2nd?

People waive the exercise of all kinds of rights as a condition of employment. Most people that deal with large sums of cash agree to submit to polygraphs at the request of their employer. I think that airline pilots, railroad engineers, and lots of folks in transportation agree to random urine checks. I had a friend who worked at a casino dealing black jack, and I think that job required agreeing to body searches.

If any of those restrictions were imposed by the Federal government, then it would be (to me) an egregious violation of the BoR. I'm a member of the ACLU as well as the NRA.

But I may make an agreement with an employer to waive the exercise of any any of those rights.

As for DOD contractors having limitations to their work environment, that is a matter of national defense/state secrets/security clearances, is it not? It is NOT AT ALL a matter of *PRIVATE* property rights...since it is GOVERNMENT (hence public...though secret) work.

Try again. Though such restrictions are not yet the norm, many tech companies (game companies, telcos, etc) restrict their employees from bringing recording devices to work.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

I'm not a leftist/socialist in the sense you mean. Please note the word "undue".

The assertion that certain groups of people lose their personal property rights because they are too wealthy and powerful and hence oppress the masses is the heat of socialism - no matter how many asterisks you put next to individual.

Mike

 

[LWGN]

Rather than increasing employer exposure, this law provides an additional layer of protection for employers, particularly for small employers. If, as has been suggested, a CCW holder has an ND in the parking lot and injures a co-worker, the employer can point to the law that prohibited prohibiting the gun to mitigate or remove culpability. Without the law, if such an incident occurred, the employer could very likely be sued successfully for failing to prohibit weapons, or, if weapons were prohibited, for failing to adequately inspect every single vehicle every single time one entered the parking area, which would naturally have to be secured. As we all know, simply prohibiting something does not mean that it stops happening.

 

[FCFC]

If any of those restrictions were imposed by the Federal government, then it would be (to me) an egregious violation of the BoR. I'm a member of the ACLU as well as the NRA.

I see the distinction you are making and think it's important one. Your position gets at the real substance of the issues involved and eschews simplism. Yours is a much tougher position to take, however. You have to be kind of courageously methodical. And resolute.

Also, I think that it's laudatory to be a member of both the NRA and ACLU. It's a sign of, well, a sign of something....

 

[divemedic]

This is not a second amendment issue. At issue here is whether or not the government has the power to tell an employer that he or she must allow certain activities, regardless of their wishes. The answer is yes. This issue has been well settled in the courts.

 

[Sato Ord]

TAB if you are so against someone having a firearm on your property, why don't you just post a great big sign that states firearms will not be tolerated at this business. That way anyone who has missed your posts on THR will still be able to take their money to a business that is more in line with their way of thinking.

As for the Florida law, how the heck would you even know unless you plan on forcing your employees to submit to unreasonable searches of their vehicles? If their pistol is locked in their car, you won't see it and therefore won't know it's there.

PS

Do you think its fair for an employer to pay for damage cuased by thier employee becuase thier employee had a weapon? ( ever seen what happends when a ferrous metal gets too close to a strong magnetic field?)

This discussion pertains to having a pistol in the car. I kind of get the feeling that if a pistol contains enough ferrous metal to disrupt a piece of equipment, or a manufacturing process, that the engine block of the car will be a bigger problem than the pistol in the glove box.

I'm really getting the feeling that your arguments are more about stirring the pot than making a real point here.