Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop New Guns in Parking Lot Law

[Dick1911]

Private Property Rights vs Individual Human Rights...

Private Property Rights are Individual Human Rights - the propery itself has no right, only the person that owns it. One of the tests of ownership is being able to control the property. If you can't do what you wish with your property you do not fully own it. If you do not fully own it then it's easier for some one else (government?) to take control and claim ownership. That's why I fear the erosion of property rights as government from local to federal is already playing too loose with imminent domain. The 2A is not the only right that is being threatened.

how many times will this be hashed? Probably more than 9mm vs .45

Probably, it's more important

 

[CZ-100]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "vehicle is an extension of your home". If my vehicle was an extension of my home, then tint laws are unconstitutional. If my car is an extension of my home and I can have blinds on my home's windows, then I should be able to tint my cars windows as dark as I please. Florida law says otherwise. The only time a vehicle is an extension of your home is when it applies to self defense and that has nothing to do with this. This is about keeping your weapon in your car while you are inside at work. You are hardly defending yourself when your carry weapon is locked in your car. So self defense and your car being an extension of your home have nothing to do with this.

It has everything to do with Self defense, It is providing me a way to defend myself too and from work.

The weapon is being kept in MY locked vehicle, out of site and is NOT in the WOKPLACE it is in MY vehicle.

 

[JerryM]

While I am for individual property rights, I have to wonder when it comes to a business. For example a business cannot discriminate against race as far as I know. But I could if I desired to do so on my property.

WalMart for example is bound by regulations/laws that individual property owners (not a business) are not. On my property I have the right to exclude anyone for the way they dress or wear their hair, but businesses often run afoul of 1st Amendment considerations.

So where does the individual property owner's rights vs a business' property rights part company?

When one starts a business has not he given up some of his normal property rights? I don't know much about this, but pose the question.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[XDKingslayer]

How about the reason for this law:

You leave your gun at home. You go to work. Nothing happens. You come home to find your abusive ex-husband already in your house waiting for you. Unfortunately you cannot get to your gun because you left it in the safe. So, you take the beating and hope he doesn't choose to kill you this time.

This is the only example of why this law is needed that makes any amount of sense.

 

[Geno]

I really like Michigan's CCW interpretation. My car; my "business", even if it is on your business' property.

 

[mekender]

This is the only example of why this law is needed that makes any amount of sense.

how about you are on your way home from work and you stop at a gas station, while pumping gas, you are mugged... you cannot defend yourself because your gun was left at home due to your workplace's policy....

i still challenge anyone to tell me under what legal doctrine is my car and the contents inside no longer my property when i park it on someone else's property... the only thing i could imagine would be if the car were seized by either LEO's or by the bank that holds the title... other than that, i dont see how it could be...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

For those who think companies have rights, re-read comments #22 and #29.

To those that say a business owner should have the right to say what goes on in his property, I will agree.

If a person who owns a company also personally owns the the property, yes. If the business owns the property, the business may only use the property and "call the shots" on the property as controlled by the law creating such business.

Woody

 

[dalepres]

While I understand that people want to carry to work and leave their guns in the car, I am having difficulty accepting that the State of Florida can over rule private property rights. I know that happens in many other areas, particularly environmentally related but I have issues with that as well.

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights. You certainly don't have full 1A rights at work, at least not without the employer excercising his right to give someone else the job you are working at. In most cases I think the employee can park off the premises and leave his gun in the car if the employer won't allow it.

What do y'all think? I'm still trying to logically settle this contradiction.

So do private property rights overrule equal opportunity? Can I ban blacks from my business? Or refuse to hire or promote women?

The constitution does not stop at your fence.

 

[dalepres]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "vehicle is an extension of your home". If my vehicle was an extension of my home, then tint laws are unconstitutional. If my car is an extension of my home and I can have blinds on my home's windows, then I should be able to tint my cars windows as dark as I please. Florida law says otherwise. The only time a vehicle is an extension of your home is when it applies to self defense and that has nothing to do with this. This is about keeping your weapon in your car while you are inside at work. You are hardly defending yourself when your carry weapon is locked in your car. So self defense and your car being an extension of your home have nothing to do with this.

I must have missed something. Can someone clear up this for me? Where are windows blinds and window tint protected by the Constitution?

 

[dalepres]

While the company may restrict who uses that lot, the company has no jurisdiction over what is within any vehicle, may not seize your vehicle, and may not search or authorize anyone else to search your vehicle. A warrant is required to authorize a search of your vehicle.

ConstitutionCowboy, you forget what happened in our own state where Wayerhaeuser searched the vehicles of employees who were parked in a private lot, only partly rented to Wayerhaeuser arranged with the local county sherrif to do dog searches for which 3 or 4 employees were fired based on legally carried rifles in their vehicles. And this was held up in the courts here. That is a case of the sherrif providing private law-enforcement services to a civilian company, illegal search by the company and the sherrif, and still the courts upheld the search. This led to the right to carry in the car law in Oklahoma which was then quickly overthrown by the federal courts.

I think you're right about what is legal, constitutional, and just, but this is the United States of America not Russia. We don't enjoy those kind of freedoms here.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

dalepres

The court action in this case is no over yet. The Governor, Brad Henry, and AG, Drew Edmondson, have appealed the case.

Weyerhauser was way out of line with their actions, and the team of lawyers who brought the case against Weyerhauser didn't use OS 18 -1013.B in the case, which prohibits corporations to adopt any bylaw that would be inconsistent with the rights of any employee.

Woody

§18-1013. Bylaws.
BYLAWS
A. The original or other bylaws of a corporation may be adopted, amended or repealed by the incorporators, by the initial directors if they were named in the certificate of incorporation, or, before a corporation has received any payment for any of its stock, by its board of directors. After a corporation has received any payment for any of its stock, except as otherwise provided in its certificate of incorporation, the power to adopt, amend or repeal bylaws shall be in the board of directors, or, in the case of a nonstock corporation, in its governing body.
B. The bylaws may contain any provision, not inconsistent with law or with the certificate of incorporation, relating to the business of the corporation, the conduct of its affairs, and its rights or powers or the rights or powers of its shareholders, directors, officers or employees.
Added by Laws 1986, c. 292, § 13, eff. Nov. 1, 1986. Amended by Laws 2001, c. 405, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 2001; Laws 2004, c. 255, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2004.

 

[KyJim]

The Oklahoma decision will never stand for several reasons. It is based on a flawed theory of federal preemption; i.e., the idea that federal law trumps state law. There is no federal law or regulation which bans guns from the cars of employees so there is no direct conflict. The court in Oklahoma apparently used the legal principle that there is federal preemption if federal law so occupies a particular field, that it leaves no room for state law. That's very curious because, in many states, federal agencies do not even regulate or enforce workplace standards. It is the state that enforces workplace safety laws. The state makes regulations in furtherance of that authority. I'm sure that there are certain standards the states have to follow, but the idea that there is no room for the state law is ludicrous. States, and sometimes municipalities, have laws which prescribe minimum ages and maximum hours for young people.

The law allowing employees to keep a gun in their cars is not aimed at keeping the workplace safe in the traditional sense; i.e., in regulating the conditions of work. The law is an enabling act to allow citizens to exercise their right to bear arms in aid of self-protection; a right soon to be explicitly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Both state and federal laws bar employers from discrimination based upon race, sex, religion, or national origin. Why should a state law protecting another individual right not also be enforceable?

The idea that employers face extensive legal liability is a red herring. If sued, they can simply point to state law and validly claim they had no legal authority to ban employees from having guns in cars. As some have pointed out, they may actually increase their exposure by banning guns in cars. A woman raped and mugged because she did not store her pistol in the car paints a very sympathetic picture. There is, of course, a line that should not be crossed, where the wishes of the employer should prevail. That line is at the car door.

What CCW holders and gun rights groups should do is to specifically target those businesses for boycott that are supporting these court challenges. I'm sure that is one reason the Chamber of Commerce is a party in the Florida case -- to make it more difficult to identify those businesses. Gun owners should go to every business in the Chamber of Commerce and ask them to sign a petition to the Chamber to drop the case. Those who refuse to sign could be targeted for boycotting.

 

[jrfoxx]

A business should have the right to say what I can and can not bring on their property. I can tell you not to bring something on my private property, why can't they?

Becasue the 2 are not even remotely close to the same thing. Go buy a building in your town in the business district, dont get a business licesne or perform any business, and just live in it as your new home, and let me know what the govt says about it. Same with your current home. Open an assembly line with employess in your basement, or open your front door ans start selling keychains or something, and again, let me know what the govt does.In both cases, when you get you fine, eviction notice, court date, whatever, tell the judge about you property rights and see if you win. A business, even one owned by a single individual, is not the same as his home in MANY ways, so the rules on what you, or others, can and cant do in each are different, and in the case of a business, the rules are set by the govt, since they are ALLOWING you to have/be a business. I havent seen anything in the bill of rights about a right to be a corporation, or even to run a business. those are manufactured constructs/entities created by the govt., not natural/God given/constitutional individual rights. A business vs. a home is just 2 very diffewrent things, and thus, so are the rules for them.

Also, as has been brought up, the real issue isnt about being able to get into your car to acces your gun for SD while at work, it's more about having it available every second you chooses to do so on your way TO and FROM work, and wherever you may go/stop during that time, when you are off company property and off company time. Being able to get to and use it in the event of a workplace shooting in the building you are in is VERY slim to none. It's all the rest of the time this is about.

I fully support EVERONE'S right to set whatever rules they want as a condition of entering or being on/in your privately owned, non-business licensed home or land. You want to put up a sign that says "No women or Jews", or "Everyone must be nude-no clothing allowed" and enforce it, have a ball, it's disgusting, but it's your right on your private, non-business property. Do the same at the 7-11 or Kinko's, or whatever busines you own, and you're outta luck, prepare to get succeesfully, and very rightfully, sued and screwed, in the least.

My .02 cents, and as always, YMMV.

 

[Dick1911]

So do private property rights overrule equal opportunity? Can I ban blacks from my business? Or refuse to hire or promote women?

The constitution does not stop at your fence.

To my knowledge gun owners are not covered by the EEO. It would make things a lot simpler if we were. In addition you can't leave your race or gender in the car when you go to work so the comparison isn't valid.

Wayerhaeuser searched the vehicles of employees who were parked in a private lot...

Wow - I've not heard that one. Anyone want to buy my Wayerhaeuser stock?

 

[tntwatt]

without 2A there would be no private property rights.

 

[RobXD9]

There is perhaps a perfect question out their to contemplate. It fits the exact meaning of the law, but with a different protected Constitutional right inviolate.

Consider this - replace the word "gun" or "firearm" with the word, "Torah," "Bible," or "religious texts."

If a private company's policy prohibited the Bible from being on their property (including your locked car) - would that violate the 1st Amendment?

I'm betting the very people suing to stop this issue as it relates to guns, would also file suit if it was their freedom of religion was compromised.

I agree with the others - don't ask, don't tell.

Robert

 

[GEM]

You wanted common sense, well there it is...What good is your weapon outside in your car?


In a Georgia school shooting and the Applachian Law School incident, IIRC, right thinking folks ran out to retrieve their weapons and had a positive outcome.

The folks braying about the property rights of businesses that are open to the public and expect tax payer dollars to pay for the law and fire to come to their place of business just disgust me. If you are so private pay for your own fire and police.

Once you open a business, it ain't your castle.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I must have missed something. Can someone clear up this for me? Where are windows blinds and window tint protected by the Constitution?

The relation is that I'm allowed to have blinds on my windows and a right of privacy in my home.

I can't however, put extremely dark tint on my vehicle for the same privacy I have in my home.

Therefore, the vehicle being an extension of the home is crap. It's only an extension of the home when defense is involved.

Once you open a business, it ain't your castle.

Why isn't it? What makes my (theoretical) business any different than my home? Do I not have the right to tell my employees what they can and can not do?

I'm starting to change my mind on this law because someone mentioned something I didn't think of and that's defending myself to and from work. But you guys saying that I don't have a right to tell my employees what they can and can not do on my property is a load of bull. Business or not, my property is still my property.

Again, I'm right back on the middle of the fence. Telling me I can't have my gun is just as much of a trample on my rights as making my employer allow me to do it is to his.

A business being open to the public has nothing to do with this. This is also effecting businesses that aren't open to the public. This also has nothign to do with fire and police and who pays what taxes.

It's about whether the right of a person to defend themselves out-weighs the right of a business to tell it's employees what they can and can not do on business property.

I can't make that decision. Just because I'm a gun owner doesn't make me rights more important than the business owner.

 

[MechAg94]

I think those vehicle searches in OK could have been legal if the employee had talked about having guns and the wrong person heard about it. They had reason to believe there were guns in the car. In addition, it may been a violation of OK law to have them there. I don't know. I have CHL in TX so it shouldn't matter for me legally speaking.

For me, I work at a chemical plant. All of the positions I have held save one have been at plants in my career. There are no chemical plants in this area that I am aware of that don't have weapon's policies. Some have parking outside the fence, most of the big plants don't. I know Dow does search vehicles at the guard shack from time to time. Even at our corporate office, parking is in a 3rd party lot, yet the company still maintains a no weapons policy. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, it is grounds for termination per policy. They acknowledge it may not be illegal, but it is still against policy.

Most any chemical plant out there could easily fence off a parking area(s) and have people check in or enter though a personnel entry gate. Then they could restrict anything brought beyond that point. Personally, I think they don't want guns because management does not want to have any employees getting upset and having a gun anywhere nearby.

I also think businesses could require guns to be stored in locked case and such. There any number of ways to make it work.

 

[romma]

As I have already stated, it is completely legal for these companies to lock the gate on their parking lots, and keeping employees out forcing the employees to park elsewhere.

Their rights are still intact if you look at it this way. No more guns on the property.

 

[lacoochee]

Even at our corporate office, parking is in a 3rd party lot, yet the company still maintains a no weapons policy. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, it is grounds for termination per policy. They acknowledge it may not be illegal, but it is still against policy.

And you find it acceptable?

It would not be a very large stretch for your company to terminate you for owning any firearms at home or otherwise. After all I am sure they don't want you owning any firearms anywhere if you should become upset at management.

 

[Dick1911]

I'm starting to change my mind on this law because someone mentioned something I didn't think of and that's defending myself to and from work. But you guys saying that I don't have a right to tell my employees what they can and can not do on my property is a load of bull. Business or not, my property is still my property.

Again, I'm right back on the middle of the fence. Telling me I can't have my gun is just as much of a trample on my rights as making my employer allow me to do it is to his.

XDKingslayer, I keep coming back to the fence like you do. It is without a doubt a Catch 22 situation and any outcome forcing one or the other will be a trampling of someones rights. Much of this thread refers to corporate business, but most businesses are run by private individuals who owns that business. That makes it an individual's property, not corporate property. I don't think there's a good way to settle this as long as there are those with a phobia about handguns.

 

[divemedic]

But you guys saying that I don't have a right to tell my employees what they can and can not do on my property is a load of bull. Business or not, my property is still my property.

Actually, you are mistaken. Property owners/employers have NEVER had the unrestricted ability to dictate their employees/invitees behavior. For example:

I must maintain handicapped parking places.
I must follow fire codes. I cannot lock my fire exits, I must maintain certain fire protection systems, etc.
I cannot require all female employees to perform sexual acts upon me in order to keep their job.
I cannot prohibit employees from wearing or even possessing clothes on my property.
I cannot require my employees to let me punch them when they pick up their paychecks.
I cannot discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, or national origin.
I cannot refuse to sell my property to a person on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, or national origin.
I cannot prohibit a handicapped invitee or employee from bringing a wheelchair or seeing eye dog on my property.

and on, and on. I am sure you get the picture. Property rights are not now, nor have they ever been, absolute.

You have many abilities and rights in your home that you do not have in your business. For example, you can prohibit persons of a certain race from entering, if you so choose. You do not have that right as a business owner. You cede certain rights when you open to the public. That is just the way it is, and always has been. The law is what it is, and all of the wishing in the world will not change hundreds of years of legal precedent.

 

[Dick1911]

It would not be a very large stretch for your company to terminate you for owning any firearms at home or otherwise.

lacoochee, that may be a stretch but I know there are companies considering firing and not hiring people who smoke - even if they only smoke at home. All this in the name of health care costs. I'm not a smoker, myself, but I find such an idea pretty bad. Gravitationally challenged people (like me) are next....

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Here's a perfect examply of why you should be able to have a weapon in your car:

I was a home improvement salesman. I went to many rural areas and also many inner-city areas that were quite dangerous. I have a concealed carry permit and kept my weapon in my car.

When I drive to work for my morning meeting before going out to my opponents, should I have to leave my weapon at home?

Obviously the answer is no.

Office places do NOT protect their employees, employees have to protect themselves.