Florida Bill 503 passes the House!

[camacho]

sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/sfl-0326workplaceguns,0,76218.story

Also, please vote on the poll on the link above!

Florida House passes bill allowing guns in workplace

By Josh Hafenbrack

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Without debate, the Florida House gave the powerful gun lobby a major victory today by passing a bill to allow employees to take their guns to work - as long as the employee has a concealed weapons permit and the weapon is left in the car.

The bill (HB503) passed on a nearly party-line vote, 72-42, with Republicans largely supporting the guns-at-work legislation despite a last-minute lobbying push by business interests to kill the measure, which they called an attack on business owners' ability to regulate the workplace.

The controversial legislation for years has cleaved the Legislature's Republican leaders between two core principles: the right to bear arms and private property rights.

In a sign Republican leaders are looking to move past this divisive fight in an election year, there was no debate on the matter on the floor today. A handful of Republicans voted against the bill, with Democrats nearly unified in opposition.

A similar guns-at-work bill is moving through the Senate, but has yet to get a floor vote.

The House's vote handed a major political victory to the National Rifle Association, and a rare, public defeat for the business lobby.

"Attempts to water down constitutional property rights and employer - employee contract negotiations in favor of gun owner rights can only be viewed as an attack on the business community and the jobs it creates and sustains," read a letter sent to House members before today's vote, signed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Retail Federation and the Associated Industries of Florida.

"We have seen no egregious examples of gun rights being denied. No problem currently exists in Florida worthy of the proposed big government solution mandating less freedom, less property rights and more regulation."

The business groups had urged legislators "to tell the rifle association that jobs, freedom, fewer lawsuits and less regulation are more important than their constant political threats."

Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky and Mississippi have similar guns-at-work laws - although a judge struck down Oklahoma's law after finding it conflicted with federal workplace safety rules.

The bill prohibits an employer from banning guns on their premises. That means employees can bring their guns to work as long as they have a state-issued concealed weapons permit and leave the weapon in their car. However, concealed weapons permits are not a public record, so even the bill's supporters admitted employers will have no way of knowing which employees have the permits and which don't.

Certain sensitive workplaces are exempted from the law and can still ban guns on their premises, such as nuclear power plants, schools and jails.

Copyright © 2008, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

 

[k_dawg]

Excellent. Let's hope the Senate is as wise.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I fail to see how it is excellent at all. You're forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.

Gun rights are ground into property rights. I am disappointed that some in the gun rights community support this.

 

[Czar]

Forcing business owners to allow guns on their property???

If it's left in the car how is that the business owner's business? I can see having a no guns in the workplace as a business owner’s discretion, hell, I have to cope with that at work. There is also a corporate policy against having firearms on the property which includes cars. While I disagree with the irrational fears that molded these policies, I still choose to work here, and thus go unarmed to and from work - and I have a CCW.

I fail to see how this infringes a business owner's property rights. This seems like a logical threshold, especially in jurisdictions where a private motor vehicle is considered an extension of one’s home. I don't know if FL is such a jurisdiction, but I think this is a common sense deal and would love for Colorado to have such a statute if it meant my employer couldn’t punish someone from keeping firearms in their car while at work.

 

[mewachee]

turned the tide.

When my car is on their property, the contents of the car is my property. They do not have to let me park on their property, but if they do, everything legally in my car is in my property.

I personally believe that what is legally in my pocket or on my person, is my property on my property.

I would think they would rather you carry, rather than store in the car anyway.

 

[Lighteye67]

My employer expressly forbids firearms on the premises. Not that I have ever obeyed it, mind you, but the policy is in place.

This law helps level the playing field as my employer does NOT have a need to regulate what is in my private secured vehicle. If he made the payments for me, I might see it differently, but until then...

 

[Standing Wolf]

You're forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.

Not only is my car my private property, so is my life.

 

[Packman]

I don't know if FL is such a jurisdiction, but I think this is a common sense deal and would love for Colorado to have such a statute if it meant my employer couldn’t punish someone from keeping firearms in their car while at work.

FL is indeed such a jurisdiction. That said, while the company has the legal right to allow or disallow whatever they please on their property, violation of that term, if I understand correctly, is a violation of company policy, not the law. First time an employer attempts to search my vehicle, I consider that a termination of employment. I will walk away and not return. No warrant, no Search.

That said, it's absolute crap to force anyone to allow anything on their property. Property rights are being eroded just as fast as Gun Rights. Think you actually own land? try not paying taxes on it, see what happens.

 

[k_dawg]

Keep in mind, this law ALSO prevents them from firing you simply because you OWN a firearm, even if it never is within a thousand miles of the business property.

In florida, it has been well established that the interior of your vehicle is an extension of your own house. That does not change simply where it is parked.

But hey, if you would rather women workers be disarmed during their commute to work.. only to be unable to defend themselves and be raped or murdered....

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Not only is my car my private property, so is my life.

And whos parking lot is it parked on?

Guys - I am on your side, but I think those who support this are overstepping their bounds a bit.
Was it criminal to take it on business property before? I would oppose that. When it is made a crime, it also tramps property rights - forcing business, bars, churches, etc to NOT allow guns on their property even if they choose.

 

[Packman]

Keep in mind, this law ALSO prevents them from firing you simply because you OWN a firearm, even if it never is within a thousand miles of the business property.

That may be, but from a property owner standpoint, how dare they dictate what you can allow on your property? If they're willing to fire me for the mere act of owning a firearm, then I made a mistake in accepting employment there. As I said, violating a company policy is very, very different from violating a law.

 

[camacho]

And whos parking lot is it parked on?

A-ha. There you go. Fast forward 50-100 years where 2-3 corporations (with headquarters somewhere in China) own everything and every parking lot in the country. In this crazy era of globalization, this will be a Trojan horse for controlling people and nations. Let's not fall for it.

Also, we always preach that this is God given right, and we have this sacred 2 Amendment which guarantees the first, etc. Then this issue comes and all of a sudden the Second Amendment does not matter anymore. Unless I stay locked up in my house, everywhere I go I have to give up my rights either because a corporation has some idiotic rules, or because a government has regulated us to death with similar idiotic rules, or both.

Somehow it is OK for the private businesses to respect the rights of free speech, ADA regulations, minimum pay, but it is perfectly OK to discriminate against a right that predates the Constituion, and it is a part of the Constituion. I found this extremely bizarre, and I am very surprised that gun owners can rationalize that.

 

[GHF]

Who Has The Permit?

However, concealed weapons permits are not a public record, so even the bill's supporters admitted employers will have no way of knowing which employees have the permits and which don't.

If you are carrying concealed in Florida, you must have the permit with you. Assuming the property owner could get a warrant to have the car searched, having the permit resolves the issue for the owner of the car.

 

[lacoochee]

And whos parking lot is it parked on?

Guys - I am on your side, but I think those who support this are overstepping their bounds a bit.
Was it criminal to take it on business property before? I would oppose that. When it is made a crime, it also tramps property rights - forcing business, bars, churches, etc to NOT allow guns on their property even if they choose.

Thanks for being on our side... In Florida as it currently stands, it is perfectly legal to ignore "No Gun" signs on businesses, if as a customer you are carrying legally. As an employee, it is also perfectly legal to carry at work, known or unknown to your employer, this is actually true whether or not you have a concealed carry license or not.

The state of Florida also regulates business at many different levels: There are requirements concerning access, egress, and layout depending on the size of the business etc. There are requirements concerning who you hire, who you fire and for what reason. There are requirements concerning the physical safety of your employees and customers. There are requirements for the safety of the public such as sprinkler system requirements, lit exit signs, etc..

"Private" businesses that allow public access (customers or employees) are treated differently than "private" residences and the property they are located on. It is perfectly legitimate and far less intrusive than many of the aforementioned laws for the citizens of Florida via our legislature to allow the citizens of our state who have acquired concealed weapons permits to keep their firearms in their private vehicles. Many people who acquire concealed weapons permits do not have them because they thought gee, it would be neat to carry a gun. Many of them are abused spouses, former police officers, and so on, who need to be able to access an effective means of self-defense so this law above all else is addressing a public safety concern just as we have other laws that impose restrictions and requirements on private businesses for the safety of the public .

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

A-ha. There you go. Fast forward 50-100 years where 2-3 corporations (with headquarters somewhere in China) own everything and every parking lot in the country. In this crazy era of globalization, this will be a Trojan horse for controlling people and nations. Let's not fall for it.

Wow yeah those evil corporations .... I wonder where a good portions of the jobs in this country come from.

Somehow it is OK for the private businesses to respect the rights of free speech, ADA regulations, minimum pay,

Are you kidding me? I dont agree with a bit of any of that. There is no right to free speech on someone else's property and the supreme court has confirmed that.

Thanks for being on our side...

You bet.

In Florida as it currently stands, it is perfectly legal to ignore "No Gun" signs on businesses, if as a customer you are carrying legally. As an employee, it is also perfectly legal to carry at work, known or unknown to your employer, this is actually true whether or not you have a concealed carry license or not.

I agree with you on the first part. They can post those signs, but it shouldnt be against the law. IE if they find out youre carrying they can just ask you to leave. Thats how it should be. The law shouldnt decide for businesses if they want to have CC holders or not.

I draw the line at forcing them to allow you to carry. If you carry, keep it your car and keep mum about it.

"Private" businesses that allow public access (customers or employees) are treated differently than "private" residences and the property they are located on.

Yeah you make a good point here - in the ever growing socialism in this country, Im not surpised that the state now treats businesses as if they own them.

EDIT: Having re-read the bill there are some good parts of it I agree with.

 

[brighamr]

Excellent News!

This is the best thing I've heard in a long time. Businesses have no right to make me a victim.

 

[camacho]

Wow yeah those evil corporations

Well, whether they are evil or not, it is up for interpretation. However, that they are not accountable to anyone is not.

Im not surpised that the state now treats businesses as if they own them.

While this is not a good thing, how's it any better when businesses treat people (and in some cases governments) as if they own them. What's different here? It is actually worst since in government at least you can vote them out.

Anyways, I can rant on this subject forever, but the bottom line is that this is a good bill that will have no negative impact on the business community even though some of them presented it as the end of the world.

 

[daehawc]

Would we be having this same argument if businesses said no bibles are allowed in private cars? Rights end when the infringe on those of others. By me having a firearm in my vehicle it affects no one. By saying I can't forbids me from self protection not only when I am at work but along my entire commute and any stops I make along the way. This is not violating property rights, its reaffirming the individual's right within his own vehicle and no further.

 

[jenrob]

Your car your property. The employer has no reason other than possible theft to know what is in my car.

If my car gets broke into on thier property it comes out of my pocket not thiers. course they might let me use thier phone to call the cops.

Are they going to insure me a safe passage to and from work. If I get mugged on my way to or from work and could have defended myself, but they said no should they have to pay for everything taken and the damages.

If they don't want them on thier propety close the parking lot. you can't have them in the building.

You say they can't do that well sure they can people in NY, alot of big city downtown jobs don't have parking lots. Make them park somewheres else.

But then again see how many employees you have left at the end of the week.

 

[wuchak]

We have this in KS. These are an outgrowth of the case a few years ago, I forget exactly where it took place, where a group of workers were fired for having their hunting rifles in their cars just like 1/2 of the employees did every year.

If you are going to extend an employer's property rights to the contents of my car where do you draw the line? Do you think it would be reasonable to have an employer say you cannot have any CD in your car that contains offensive language? How about you cannot have a Bible in your car on company property? You cannot have any religious or political toned bumper stickers. Hell, you cannot have a radio or floor mats. If you think the employer can dictated the contents of the car then that ability would extend beyond guns.

What's in my car is my property and my business.

 

[Sav .250]

Car jackers beware.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Ratzinger, I don't think it's a good idea to view every owner of commercial property as the ruler of an independent country able to make his own laws for anyone who passes through its borders.

I've emphasized the word commercial to distinguish it from residential and other property in which the owners have--and should have--greater liberty to set their own rules. The difference is that each person's home is his castle. It's the one place where he is able to keep the public out. Even so, there are laws that extend into people's homes so that the public can be protected.

The owner of commercial property invites the public onto it. That public can be limited to employees but they still are members of the public and should retain as many of their rights as possible. Even if their rights conflict with the owner's business interests we recognize that it's important to weigh the relative benefits. It might be to the property owner's great benefit to expose his employees to radiation, poisons, or deranged chefs, for example, but laws intervene.

Of course a commercial property owner should have the right to operate his business according to his own tastes and preferences, but many years ago society decided that there should be limits on even that. So even if the owner really hates black people, Jews, gays, or people from an earlier time, there are laws that restrict discrimination of those kinds. You might feel that those laws restrict the property owner's rights. They do. But we recognize that it's better for society if businesses that invite the public are required to invite all of them or none.

To turn your position around 180 degrees, the property owner who doesn't like that situation can always close his doors and stop inviting the public.

In the case of an employee's desire for the means to protect himself, the state of Florida has provisions for qualified people to satisfy that desire. The owner of the Dollar a Minute Short Term Motel probably should be able to prohibit his employees from carrying in that establishment if he can demonstrate that it would adversely affect his business. But if he also can prohibit his employees from leaving their self-defense firearms in their own locked cars while on his property, he is effectively preventing them from having the means to self-defense from the time they leave for work until the time they return from work. So he is controlling them well beyond the time they spend in his employ.

When I look at this situation and try to balance an employer's rights to run his business as he sees fit with an employee's right to defend his own life, I don't have any trouble deciding for the employee every time. I don't have any problem with an employer who thinks he owns an independent country within the state of Florida--and can rescind the CWPs granted to his employees by the state--but I'd feel more comfortable if he would start by printing his own money and postage stamps, establish his own prisons, and sign treaties with France, Germany, and Iran. Let him formally declare his company's independence from Florida and the U.S. Doesn't bother me at all. I'll enjoy watching it on television. But to tyrannize a chambermaid, a hamburger flipper, or a guy trying to make ends meet by cleaning toilets rubs me the wrong way.

I'm well aware that I've simplified, condensed, and compressed many complexities into this short space. Doesn't bother me and I'm not intrerested in arguing details. I think it's about time that the State of Florida did the right thing. I'm happy to see that it might. Employees are people too, and they should have basic human rights even if they must work for a living. I like the idea of people working and living. I don't care if some large paper corporation or gasoline refiner doesn't agree. If they don't like it let them go somewhere else.

 

[IllHunter]

I just gleaned this little nugget..

"Attempts to water down constitutional property rights and employer - employee contract negotiations in favor of gun owner rights can only be viewed as an attack on the

2nd Ammendment. Gun rights trump comercial property rights. If compaines weren't escaping liabilities behind corporate veils, this would not be an issue. Ask any corporation to be responsible for damage that occurrs in their parking lot and see how responsible they really are for that property. It is really all about responsibility and has always been.

 

[hso]

We have an inevitable conflict between the "property rights" of the car owner and the property rights of the employer.

If the employer does not own the parking lot then the employer has not property rights issue.

If the employer does not own the vehicle (or pay for it in any capacity) then they should have no say so over what is in that employee's private property.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The bill prohibits an employer from banning guns on their premises.

Great news! Florida has too damn many employers anyway. Who the heck needs jobs?

When an employer has to pay higher insurance in Florida because of this law, the pesky employer will move to some other state! Or better yet - out of the whole country.

Hooray for the NRA! Great job.

Mike