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

[jeepmor]

Sounds to me like some upper management types that are real a-holes are concerned their poor treatment of the working folk might get them shot at.

However, shooting people in all regards, besides self defense, is already illegal.

Too bad our government works for corporations instead of the people, I don't see this one ending well for gunowners.

 

[XDKingslayer]

But there is case law on this. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

I'm sorry divemedic, I'm not good with legal mumbo-jumbo. What does all the mean in English and how does it apply to this?

Sounds to me like some upper management types that are real a-holes are concerned their poor treatment of the working folk might get them shot at.

I'm sure that's an issue. As is legal responcibility if someone does have to shoot someone on company property. That would be my biggest concern as Florida law will protect me if I have to shoot someone at work from being sued, there are no provisions for protecting my employer. Throw on top of that responcibility for ADs or NDs or collateral damage from self defense and I can see why a company is hesitant to allow this.

Heck, the place I work at has to block off our private employee parking lot because someone who shouldn't have been there tried to sue us because they damaged their car in our parking lot.

I am not aware of any Amendment that is without limitation, including 2A.

Shall not be infringed? I would say that is a modifier for no limitation if you ask me.

 

[divemedic]

That is one of the provisions of the Florida law. There is a liability shield there for employers who are in compliance with the law

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

In order for one right to "trump" another, there must first be two rights in direct competition.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution specifically enumerates the right to keep and bear arms.

Where in the US Constitution are the competing "private property rights" to which you refer enumerated? By what logic to you deduce that these so-called "private property rights" trump the clear and unambiguous language of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[divemedic]

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. While I do support this law, people should at least understand the legalities involved.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[lacoochee]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I am confused as to why this keeps coming up... it has already been addressed...

In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

How does allowing protecting concealed weapons holders from termination if they keep their self-defense weapon in their car cause property owners to be deprived of "all economic beneficial uses" of property?

And...

That would be my biggest concern as Florida law will protect me if I have to shoot someone at work from being sued, there are no provisions for protecting my employer.

You would be protected by the The Stand Your Ground Law as you would anywhere else in Florida and interestingly enough in your car which is also treated as your domicile.

 

[BeJaRa]

the point is, your car is your property no matter where it is parked. A property owner does not have the right to violate another property owners rights. As far as I understand it your car is an extension of your home.

 

[XDKingslayer]

You would be protected by the The Stand Your Ground Law as you would anywhere else in Florida and interestingly enough in your car which is also treated as your domicile.

I would be protected as the shooter, yes, but would my employer be protected if this happened on his property?

If I shoot someone in the parking lot because that's where my gun is, I can't be sued by the familiy of the dirtbag, but what's to stop them from suing my employer? The Stand Your Ground Law doesn't mention anything specific about businesses being protected, only the shooter IIRC.

 

[XDKingslayer]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Isn't that eminent domain? I don't see how that applies to this either.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

but what's to stop them from suing my employer?

Let's be real. If you legally shoot someone in the Walmart parking lot, you think the bad guy's family can sue Walmart?

The only cases where the property owner are sued are those where they fail to protect the victim of a crime, not the perpetrator.

Not to mention, how does a law that prevents employers from firing employees for having firearms in their vehicle, something they can already legally do, cause the employer/property owner to be any more liable for a shooting than they currently are?

 

[Dick1911]

If you legally shoot someone in the Walmart parking lot, you think the bad guy's family can sue Walmart?

Anyone can sue anyone in this country (ain't it great?), it just doesn't mean that there will be a judgement against them. But with WalMart and the right jury and trial lawyer WalMart could have to shell out some bucks.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Anyone can sue anyone in this country (ain't it great?), it just doesn't mean that there will be a judgement against them. But with WalMart and the right jury and trial lawyer WalMart could have to shell out some bucks.

This can happen no matter who shoots or kills whomever, whether Wal-Mart prohibits arms on its property or not - unless law prohibits such suits.

Woody

 

[XDKingslayer]

Let's be real. If you legally shoot someone in the Walmart parking lot, you think the bad guy's family can sue Walmart?

If I'm an employee of Wal-Mart, why couldn't the family sue?

If you want to be real, who is the better person to sue? Me, the one making minimum wage at Wal-Mart, or Wal-Mart the multi-billion dollar company that hired me to be an employee and direct representitive of?

 

[divemedic]

How does allowing protecting concealed weapons holders from termination if they keep their self-defense weapon in their car cause property owners to be deprived of "all economic beneficial uses" of property?

It doesn't. notice, I am the one who posted that. I was answering the question: "Where in the US Constitution are the competing "private property rights" to which you refer enumerated?"

Isn't that eminent domain? I don't see how that applies to this either.

Eminent domain is covered under the takings clause, but it gets more complicated than that.

The SCOTUS has ruled that regulations can have the effect of taking property by depriving the owner of the benefit of that property by being so onerous as to deny the owner the rights to use his property as he so desires. The court cases that I posted in my previous post sum up the opinion of the courts rather well, if I do say so myself. The courts have held in case after case that a temporary or minor taking without compensation, such as a government requirement that requires handicapped parking, utility easements, and other such requirements, do not violate the takings clause.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Gotcha.

I don't think this law has a dog in that fight anyways. This obviously isn't depriving the owner of any property.

But something else you mentioned is starting to edge me towards being supportive of this law. It's been ruled that businesses must have handicap spaces in their parking lot, even "employee only" parking lots.

Not much difference between forcing them to have handicap spots and forcing them to allow guns in vehicles if you get down to the nitty gritty.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Me, the one making minimum wage at Wal-Mart, or Wal-Mart the multi-billion dollar company that hired me to be an employee and direct representitive of?

In the State of Florida you cannot be sued for a legal self defense shooting. It is hard to believe that if the actual shooter is free of liability by law, anyone else can be inserted in their place in a lawsuit.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

This whole argument of finding the property owner liable for the gun owners actions under this law is pretty much mute. Gotta find some other reason to hate it.

The law reads:

(b) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section.

 

[divemedic]

XDKingslayer-

I don't think this law can be fought along the 'property rights' line under the takings clause, either. The fact that a person can bring a weapon into a parking lot in his car against the owner's wishes is only a temporary invasion that causes the owner no economic harm. I don't see that going anywhere.

The OSH attack only flew in OK because they got a Clinton appointee as a district judge. That will be overturned on appeal, IMO.

And you are correct, in as far as government has restricted the rights of property owners in many cases, and it has always been upheld. I believe it will here, as well. Since there are (to my knowledge) at least 9 states that have already enacted, or are debating, a similar statute, this is something that is gaining ground, just like CCW did in the late 80's and the 90's.

 

[divemedic]

I thought this would happen.

Looks like the law was upheld.

 

[TCB in TN]

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.

The only thing is that the CAR is not the property of the company. As long as the actions of one individual do not infringe upon the rights of another, there should be no issue. Exactly how does an employee having a gun left in the car (the employee's property), impact the company? On the other hand, forbidding the employee from keeping the gun in their car (the employee's property) keeps the employee from exercising their rights either before or after work.

 

[winston smith]

People who believe that some corporation's "property rights" are more important than citizens' right to life and the protection of it, should consider their own property rights: Do you live near a drainage ditch?

One of my employeers owns 4-6 acres with an old house on it she lived in. She and her plumber husband wanted to build their dream house, a log cabin. They checked with the building inspector; no problem. Checked the town maps; no problem. Began building next to a stream that started as runoff from the orchard uphill, ran under the road, into another drainage ditch and another orchard. The State Conservation office stoped them; its a "protected stream".

Court settlement: they replant 3,000 plants along the stream. They build the house.

The Army Corps of Engineers shows up; they have authority to grab any wetlands in the country. They hand it over to the EPA; another settlement: rip out all the plantings, plant different plants. Effective difference: Zero. Validity of a court decision: Zero.

As a parting shot, the EPA officials say "don't blame us, its all Bush's fault" for not giving them enough funding.

So You think You own your land?

Now they can ask me to leave their property if they don't like that I am carrying, and I can choose to stay away from them if I want to carry.

But if most available employment is from corporations where I am a sitting duck for any crazy or crook, then my employment opportunities are limited and that marginalizes me and all gun owners.

We become second-class citizens in economic terms, along with with the rest of our rights.

It makes our right to life impossible to protect on a daily basis, and eventually allows bad people to make what was common sense and common in the culture into a crime.

I think the corporation's "rights" will just have to take second place to the second ammendment.