Fla. legislators shoot down right of people to keep a gun in their car at work

[Dr. Dickie]

I don't have to visit you, and you have the right to kick me out or outright not invite me in. But where I WORK, well, i sort of HAVE to be there to be able to feed my familly, don't I? Yes yes, I can always find another job, I know. But that's not the point here.

Don't get me wrong Eric (I respect you authoritie!! ), it isn't that I don't think it is a load of , it is just that I have seen in my life too many good intention laws be used for what they were not intended to be used for. Having the government tell people what they do with their business (whether home or commercial) is a slippery slope that leads to...well, it leads to the mess we are in today.
The part about keeping it in your car, that is a tweener area for me. I think a business has a right to keep anyone out for whatever reason they want (yeah even that means the business is racists, bigoted, jerks, or whatever), they only hurt themselves by dening themselves part of the market, and the market forces will correct that over time.
But my car is my property, and they do not have a right to search or tell me what I can or can't keep in my car (the business that is), so that is a tough one.
One thing I do know, once you get the government involved, everybody loses,. EVERYBODY.

 

[eric.cartman]

Dr. D,
Read post #50,

AND RESPECT MY AUTHORITEEEEEEE!!!!!

 

[#shooter]

scurtis_34471-My car is my property. Are you claiming I have no property rights regarding my car?

No, your car is your property, as is everything in it, but you are parking it on their property. They have given you permission to park it there. If employers want to play hardball they could state that no one can park on their property, problem solved.

The argument that if your car is your property then you can keep or do whatever you want in it where ever you park it is illogical. Your car is not your home or land. That like saying my lunchbox is my property and if I keep a gun in my lunchbox then it is not subject to the policy of having no guns in the workplace because it is my private property. If people believe that cars should be given the same property rights as the home or land, then that will open an ugly can of worms.

 

[scbair]

How about a law that simply prohibits (with strong attendant penalties, for both individual/manager/security staff and company/employer) the real property (parking area) owner from violating my personal property (vehicle) owner's rights by searching??

You say, "You can't have xyz on our property."

I say, "Fine, but you can't search my property to verify!"

You reply, "Lemme look, or I'll fire you!"

Mr. Judge says, "That'll be $$$$$, thanks!"

It's all about the rights of the property owners, eh?

 

[Florida_Cracker]

I wrote my House Representative about the bill. He responded "it's a good bill." In fact, he sponsored the bill last year.

Then he turns around and votes against it this year! He will never get my vote again, and I told him so.

These same clowns had no problem in telling businesses that they could not allow smoking on their premises. My God-given right to self-defense trumps the preference of some carpetbagging or scalawag business.

We are talking basic God-given human rights here. Yes, it goes beyond the Second Amendment. Bottom line, I don't need no stinking Second Amendment. It gives me no rights that I don't already have . . . it was simply intended to prevent the government from attempting to stomp upon those rights.

All the excuses of these spineless politicians are just that . . . excuses. Plain and simple they sold their souls to the Chamber of Commerce.

If you get me wound up I might tell you how I really feel.

 

[#shooter]

Cartman

Fine!
Say I'm a Muslim, and I want to pray on my lunch break. To do that, I need to bring a little carpet thing with me (no offense to Muslims THR members, my knowledge of Islam is limited).

Can you imagine an employer firing me for that? Posession of religious object? How about if I'm a Christian, and I would like to hang a little tiny cross on the wall of my cubicle? Can they fire me for that? And if so, how long do you think it would take for ACLU to get involved? Or much less fire me for having it in my car!!! OUT OF SIGHT!!!

All I'm saying is that we, as humans, have certain inalienable rights! Rignts NO ONE can take away.

Yes, I can imagine an employer not hiring for that. The Boy Scouts can ban employment and membership based on faith and creed (atheists and homosexuals), golf clubs and gyms can ban based on gender, and the Salvation Army can refuse employment to non-Christians. I don’t know all the ins and outs of discrimination laws, but these were recent SCOTUS rulings in favor of employer rights.

We (USA) do recognize inalienable rights but gun ownership is not one them, that is a different argument altogether. It is my understanding that gun ownership and property rights are societal/legal rights and not considered natural or inalienable rights.

 

[obxned]

It's part of OSHA's attempt to make a safer workplace for thieves, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and terrorists.

 

[eric.cartman]

We (USA) do recognize inalienable rights but gun ownership is not one them

WHAT ???

You missed that Bill Of Rights thing? The inalienable rights? RIGHT?

 

[roo_ster]

#shooter must be one of those new-style New Labor Brits. Old-school Brits such as John Locke had different ideas...

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Excuuuuuuuuse me?

We (USA) do recognize inalienable rights but gun ownership is not one them

gun ownership and property rights are societal/legal rights and not considered natural or inalienable rights

I'm sorry . . .

. . . problem with my glasses . . .

. . . nope, still there . . .

. . . still no luck; I guess that's what he really wrote.

So . . . we're allowed to "keep and bear arms" as long as we don't own them?

Error . . . error . . . logic failure . . . aborting program . . .

Medic!!!!

 

[lacoochee]

It is already legal to carry a concealed firearm at work in Florida!!!!

The proposed law does not make it legal for ccw holder to carry at work they can already with or without the permission of the owner or management of the business. All the law does is make it illegal for your employer Acme Widget Makers LLC to require that you submit to a search of your car in order to remain employed by them. I would say that this law just protects the privacy of an employee.

In so far as actually carrying at work, on your person while engaged in whatever activity you are employed to do. That should remain at the discretion of the owner of the business, of course you can still legally carry, but if you get caught and if they want, they can let you go.

The new proposed laws are not any different than any other civil rights legislation or rules affecting businesses, that the courts have already found to be constitutional. If this law were to be struck down, if passed, it would be in direct contravention of other rulings regarding the right of the state pass such laws. Specific examples of such laws would include various "whistle blower" laws, laws protecting ethnic minorities mode of dress, laws requiring that private businesses to accommodate the handicapped and so on. Florida regulates business with many laws, OSHA, ADA, EOA, etc. those are not infringements on the privacy of the employer, are they?

The argument that I see being posted here is that a business should be treated in the same manner as a private home. Businesses are treated differently in the law in that they are also public spaces. In fact, most businesses are not privately owned they are largely incorporated as legal entities and held by the public. Arguably even a the "owner" of an s-corp is simply the manager of that legal entity.

Florida already recognizes your vehicle as being an extension of your home and has extended the castle doctrine to a POV so it is perfectly valid to declare a car of limits to snooping by an employer.

I submit if the legislature made the searching of privately owned cars illegal without permission of an employee in general, to protect (this is tongue in cheek but valid nonetheless), their private porn collection, their crack pipe, you name the vice, the ACLU would be pushing like crazy to get it passed and no newspaper would be against it.

 

[gezzer]

No individual or business that believes in American property rights would ever want a Government to be able to require under law that someone could bring anything they want on your property against your will.

Another who agrees. Don't like your employer’s rules, quit find another employer. Why ask the Nanny.gov to help when you will not help yourself.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Florida employers can now ban their employees from having firearms in their own cars while parked on the employer's property.

But Florida employers cannot yet prohibit their employees from having firearms in their own cars while driving to and from the parking lots.

This situation is not necessarily a way for individual property owners to preempt Florida's laws enabling its citizens to defend themselves. It only looks that way.

But any reasonable person would understand that all an employee need do is put his legally permitted self-defense firearm in a stout paper bag, deposit it on the public curb before entering the employer's parking lot, and pick it up on the way home.

My guess is that Florida's legislators had that solution in mind when they took this action. They are wise people, no doubt.

 

[lacoochee]

Robert Hairless, +1, snort.

 

[Chad]

I think we've put more thought and effort into this issue than it deserves, when there are other much more important 2A issues that need our attention.

I was always on the fence about it...personal privacy and 2A rights vs. the property rights of landowners. I believe in and support both, so it's a tough call when they conflict.

It has been mentioned that there are numerous laws, both federal and state, that regulate how employers treat their employees, and that this bill should have been considered in the same way.
I don't think this is in the same category as age, race, gender or sexual orientation discrimination or health or on the job safety issues.

It comes down to how much of our lives do we want .gov to control.
I'm in agreement with those who have said that this is not an issue that requires .gov intervention.
Unlike RKBA, employment is not a natural right. It's not defined and/or protected in the Constitution.

As has been said, if you don't like the policy, quit.
Don't run to nanny.gov and demand more regulations.

It's been years since I've had to look for a job, but a policy I didn't agree with would keep me from applying as surely as inadequate pay or benefits.

My employer, a large nation-wide contractor, would never consider searching my personal vehicle or my company provided one.
If they did we would part company.

Freedom to choose...theirs and mine.
Works pretty well.

 

[craig]

i'm lucky. not only is there no ban on firearms, my boss lets me get my mail order ammo delivered there.

he also says, and i quote "i believe everyone who's able should own at least one gun, and be able to use it."

needless to say, i enjoy working there.

 

[lacoochee]

I think your wrong Chad and this is a good debate on many levels, where do your rights end? And you are wrong about it's importance, this is about a right in the bill of rights, it actually trumps race, gender, etc. those are protected by statute, not the constitution. So hopefully we will devote more energy to it.

Personally, for me, at work I am fine, the parking garage I use belongs to the owners of the building, not the company I work for, so no problem. It's not a huge problem in Florida, the whole searching a car thing is pretty much restricted to companies like Disney and Busch Gardens, but it could be and now is the time to address it before political circumstances change in this state.

One last question for you Chad, would you like to see the no guns signs on the doors of some Florida businesses have actual legal consequence?

 

[Soybomb]

One last question for you Chad, would you like to see the no guns signs on the doors of some Florida businesses have actual legal consequence?

Thats an odd question to pose to Chad. Chad's stance is much like my own on the issue. To me it seems that if you want the government to keep their nose out of issues between me and my employer that also extends to legal penality for carrying in posted areas. If the property owner doesn't like it they can ask me to leave and call the police for tresspassing if I don't. The government intervention policy seems more in line with specific laws against carrying on posted private property.

 

[Chad]

and this is a good debate on many levels

You are so right...this does have many levels.
That's one reason that while I have made a decision as to which side of the issue I'm on, I'm still uncomfortable with it.

Understand that I am unequivocally opposed to ANY restrictions on firearms or infringement of the 2A. I realize that I have to temper my goals somewhat in order to not scare off the fence-sitters. So consider what I say in light of the fact that I became a Lifemember of GOA even though their goals do not seem as all-encompassing as mine.

The old saw about your rights stopping at the end of your nose comes to mind.

I have friends who, while not actively anti, are deathly afraid of guns and everything they represent in their media-influenced minds. I try to gradually influence them with facts, but in the mean time I would never carry in their homes, out of respect for their wishes and, more to the point, their property rights.

I see the issue this bill raised in the same way...that is, I view it as a matter of property rights as opposed to firearms rights.

Now the sticky bit...individual privacy/property rights vs. the rights of a landowner/employer.

Personally, I believe that nobody has the right to search my vehicle or my person.
In a situation where I was on private land, as in a commercial or employer's parking lot, I would refuse a search and not go there, whatever the consequences.
While some people may not have that option due to the hardships of losing their job, it is still a matter of their choice. Each of us has to make our own priorities.
To demand that the government step in and solve these kinds of problems is how we ended up so buried under regulations today.

My work often takes me to military bases and active prisons, where I am forced to allow my vehicle to be searched.
I don't agree with that policy, but I understand the security considerations so I go along with it.
I CHOOSE to abide by that policy and act accordingly because it is in my best interests to do so...for now at least.

As far as posted businesses go, every one that I've ever come across knows exactly how I feel about it and why I don't shop there. They all get a letter, both at the individual store and at corporate headquarters, that details calmly and clearly why they are being boycotted.

I don't think a Texas-type sign law could pass in Florida, especially in the current atmosphere.
If it did come about I'd fight it, of course, but it really wouldn't affect my shopping habits any.

Finally, you are also 100% right that this is a good debate, and that is so important.

My thinking on the original issue solidified during the course of this thread.

We all need to do much more of this, and THR is becoming one of the best places to do it.
All of us involved or concerned over RKBA and 2A issues have differing ideas and viewpoints.
We need to discuss, plan and come to as much agreement as possible so we can present a united front in the face of Brady-type campaigns and reluctant politicians.

Plus, I just plain enjoy a good debate!!

I'll get off the soapbox now.

 

[Chad]

To me it seems that if you want the government to keep their nose out of issues between me and my employer that also extends to legal penality for carrying in posted areas.

That's exactly it.
A bill prohibiting a landowner from this kind of policy on their property falls into the same category as a bill giving legal status to posted businesses as far as I'm concerned.

Both are unnecessary.