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

[TAB]

Did I say I had a no weapons policy?

My policy on weapons is very clear, if its legal for you to do so and the property owner agrees too it, you can. My employees also know that if the skrew up I have the check book with me always.

In this case I will support any biz owner when it comes to thier policy about employees and what happends on thier property.

About 5 years ago I was like most of you, then I opened my own biz... learned real quick how wrong I was. You would be shocked what you can not do as an employer.

 

[divemedic]

Exactly- You must allow utility right of way, provide fire alarms, handicapped access, and you cannot require customers and employees to have sex with you. Why? Because they takings clause allows for these government invasions, as long as due process is followed.

The law is what it is, not what we want it to be. I find it interesting that many rail against so called "activist judges" and demand that they follow the constitution as written, but as soon as their own ox is being gored, the read things into the Constitution.

 

[FCFC]

I find it interesting that many rail against so called "activist judges" and demand that they follow the constitution as written, but as soon as their own ox is being gored, the read things into the Constitution.

I've noticed the same thing. It's pretty obvious.

More importantly, it's a weak strategy for any "pro" or "anti" advocacy effort.

 

[TAB]

Thats not what I was talking about...


BTW you can thank Good old Ronald for the ADA. Which has done more harm them good. Infact they are still in a trial period for new regs... Of which if they pass will cost billions to bring every thing up to spec.

 

[gym]

This is too long winded. truth be told I mentioned it before, if you run a business and it's open to the public, you can't just make up your own rules and think they are lawfull. If an off duty cop or a PI, or anyone else who carries a gun as part of their daily routine. You cant tell them that they can't bring it in your store, and if they work for you and have a license or are off duty, you can't tell them they can't leave it in their car. It's none of your business period. And even if you thought it was it's not. Been there on both sides. Worked for a public company for a short time, and the head of HR called me in to ask me why I had a license, "I refered to this in another post", the guy was a jerk, I told him it's none of his business and he specifically told me that he ran a security check on me and it came up,and I better not leave it in my car, at which point I told him where to go and how to get there. He told me he was going to Legal, I told him to go there and beyond, he couldn't do a thing. I told him if he searched my vechicle, I would have him arrested. and that was that. Now that was a company owned by Ross Perot, and they backed right down, if there was a way he could have done it, after my meeting with him, I am positive he would have. I was surprised how easy it was for him to "pull that info", apparentlly they do it for everyone now. But this jerk didn't even realise that he didn't own the parking lot either. Which I mentioned before means everything. I don't care what you think you can do, if you don't own the land, and you arent the state or feds, you can't do a thing. It's not your property.

 

[divemedic]

Bulletin: Judge refuses to stay the law that is due to go into effect July 1.

articles here

and here

 

[ilbob]

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

+1

 

[gym]

Dude that's a civil rights issue, you're clouding the issue. Your home in FL is your castle, I can pick who I let in. It's not a public place, by public, it means anyone can go there. If anyone can go there who are you to tell them what they can and can't bring. Other than "no flip flops" at the bar, give it up

 

[chubbmann]

Louisiana just struck down this law and I am happy they did. I keep my 9mm in my glove box and am happy knowing it is there if I needed it. This gun is what I carry as a PI and may be the instrument needed to save my life one day. The greatest mystery about guns is knowing when I will need it. I can't think of a more repulsive moment than neededing my gun and knowing I did not think it was neccisary to grab it from home that day....

 

[gym]

Here is part of that 2nd article that Bob referenced: A business might have a single employee with a weapons permit one day, but not the next, Richard argued - meaning that the customers' rights to have a gun on premises would change daily. "It's utterly irrational, and the United States Constitution protects us from legislative acts that are irrational and that impose onerous obligations on us," he said.

A Matter Of Convenience?

Attorney Jonathan Glogau, arguing for the state, said that both Richard and Hinkle were stretching the meaning of the statute.

Among those who would benefit from the law, Glogau said, are gun owners who want to drive straight from work to go hunting, as well as employees who want to keep a gun in their car to protect themselves while they drive to or from work. That form of self-defense is only feasible, Glogau and NRA attorney Chris Kise argued, if the employee has a place to store the gun during work hours.

The latter argument appeared to carry the most weight with Hinkle, who challenged Richard to prove why protecting that self-defense option was not "rational" justification for the law. Richard said that allowing guns to be stored onsite was not necessary to preserve that right.

Glogau also disputed Richard's contention that the Florida statute violates federal workplace safety law. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act does not regulate firearms at work, but Richard argued that dangers posed by guns at work violate OSHA's very purpose.

Glogau countered that OSHA leaves it up to states to regulate workplace safety issues not covered by the federal law. It is the plaintiff's assertion, he said, and not a fact that guns make the workplace more dangerous.

Kise argued that businesses don't have to restrict their employees' gun rights to protect them.

His remarks drew fire after the hearing from Mark Wilson, president and CEO of the state chamber of commerce.

"They see no problem with small businesses being required to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on metal detectors and asking every customer who comes into their store to empty their pockets," Wilson said. "It's unfair, it's irrational and it's unconstitutional."

'It's Hard To Say'

Kise responded to reporters' questions about a Kentucky man who reportedly killed five people and himself Wednesday at a Kentucky plastics plant. According to The Associated Press, the man used a .45-caliber pistol he had in his car.

Kise said he had heard the gun was not in the man's car. "I don't think anything - whether this law or any other law - would have prevented the unfortunate situation that took place in Kentucky," he said. "Except, perhaps some type of metal detector devices or employee screening, or some sort of more active human resources management on the part of the company. But it's hard to say."

 

[camacho]

Law takes effect July 1st. As far as I am concerned all the arguments and "what if" scenarios against this law are as ridiculous as the arguments Mayor Fenty had to keep the gun ban in DC.

 

[divemedic]

That will fail any rational test. Think about it in the terms of handicapped parking:

The law, thus, doesn't apply to a business that doesn't have any workers with a handicap parking permit, Hinkle said. He said that means one business may have to comply, while another next door is exempt.