Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

Status
Not open for further replies.

funnybone

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
103
:D

Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law By Michael Peltier
Wed Apr 9, 3:49 PM ET



Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

"The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security.

Critics say the measure usurps business owners' rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

"This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments," said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky, and Mississippi have similar laws, although in Oklahoma, an appellate court barred the state from enforcing the legislation on grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.

"We are disappointed that politics clearly won over good policy," Mark Wilson, president and chief executive of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.

(Editing by Tom Brown and Eric Walsh)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc
 
Don't count your chickens, as they say. We had a beautiful concealed carry law pass the house and senate here in VA, vast majority voting for the bill. Kaine veto'ed it citing some mythical LEO suggestions who, by the way were quoted as being "neutral on the subject".
 
Don't count your chickens, as they say. We had a beautiful concealed carry law pass the house and senate here in VA, vast majority voting for the bill. Kaine veto'ed it citing some mythical LEO suggestions who, by the way were quoted as being "neutral on the subject".

Not to worry.
Crist is not Kaine, but able.
Terrible pun,but the Governor will sign the bill.
 
Oh noze! There will be blood in the work place! Just like there is blood in the state parks after allowing CWL holders to carry there. Just like there was blood in the streets when the concealed weapons laws were passed decades ago! Everybody would be safer if they were in strict victim disarmament killzones!

Well, come to think of it none of those bloody idea ever came about and the victim disarmament killzones have been a disaster.

Here's something to think about though... homeland security jobs still won't let you have a weapon. How stupid is that? Wait a minute, I'll answer for you... Extremely stupid! Yet another sign of how completely aimless and ineffectual the current paranoid security state is.

At some point in time we have to figure out a way to eliminate the false paradigm that suggests being defenseless makes you safer. This is not something we have to hash out with the anti's, they are not involved. This is something we have to hash out with the government, law enforcement and the military because these are the people ramming it down our throats.
 
Thats disappointing to me, I hate to see someone lose the ability to decide what happens on their own property. I'm not a fan of the law that prevents a bar owner from deciding if his customers can smoke in his establishment or not, and I'm not a fan of a law that prevents a property owner for instituting whatever dumb rules they want about their property.
 
Crist is going to have enough people after his head without pissing off gun owners too.

And we're not really talking about losing control of your property in any real sense. These are strangers who have been invited on to the property to conduct business for the benefit of the owner. The owner of the property has little direct control over their behavior or the contents of their coat pockets. All this law does is strip away some of the illusion of control that wasn't there in the first place.

I can personally attest to:
-having carried nearly all the time at work despite it being forbidden. I have always tended to work long hours.
-knowing that many of my coworkers were packing as well.
-management being completely clueless of the company gun culture until they caught wind of me shipping crates of ammunition (this was back when it was like 7 cents a round) to my desk. They were horrified but quickly swept it under the rug because they didn't want to fire me.

The only business owners who object to this law(and I know a few business owners who should know better) seem to beleive on some level that:
-people that will disobey rules against threatening people's lives or killing them are going to obey some stupid company policy against carrying when the non-insane ones are disobeying it left and right
-that letting employers fire people for having guns is necessary when there aren't better reasons. This is nonsense because Florida is easily the strictest at-will-employment state in the union.
-that employees will go postal if you let them have guns. Which doesn't make sense because an enormous number of workers in Florida own guns but workplace shootings that aren't robberies are extremely rare here. Most employees realize that going on a murderous rampage isn't really the answer to being fired.
 
Last edited:
"Thats disappointing to me, I hate to see someone lose the ability to decide what happens on their own property. I'm not a fan of the law that prevents a bar owner from deciding if his customers can smoke in his establishment or not, and I'm not a fan of a law that prevents a property owner for instituting whatever dumb rules they want about their property."

there are tons of laws that tell property owners what they can or can not do if they are running a business. you are anti 2nd.
 
I wish I did not live in a state run by Democrats.....

gun laws would be so much better.
 
i wish the news would stop labeling this as "bring your guns to work" because it isn't. They should title it "leave your gun in your car at work"
 
there are tons of laws that tell property owners what they can or can not do if they are running a business. you are anti 2nd.
And there are lots of gun laws too. The existances of acceptance of either of those sets of laws doesn't mean they're right. If I said I think an employer should be able to set a dress code does that mean I'm anti 1st amendment too? The 2nd amendment protects you from government. it doesn't give you the right to do anything on my property any more than the 1st amendment give you a right to right to hold a religious rally on my property.
 
The law isn't even about locking your firearm in your car. That is already legal.

This law is about employers can not fire you for observing your second amendment right.
 
The law isn't even about locking your firearm in your car. That is already legal.

This law is about employers can not fire you for observing your second amendment right.


You are correct sir. It should be called the "Protect your Constitutional Rights from Employers Law".
 
When Crist signs this, make sure to send him a letter of thanks for setting an example for the rest of the country.
 
I wish I did not live in a state run by Democrats.....

I wish you didn't either.
Here in Florida, we did from 1877 to 1998.
So we know the pain.
Democrat ,running for whatever office ,meant "tantamount to election".
So keep the faith.Our 120 year nightmare finally changed.
Hopefully, so will yours.
 
Thats disappointing to me, I hate to see someone lose the ability to decide what happens on their own property. I'm not a fan of the law that prevents a bar owner from deciding if his customers can smoke in his establishment or not, and I'm not a fan of a law that prevents a property owner for instituting whatever dumb rules they want about their property.

Property owners' rights can never--and should never--trump the individual civil rights of the citizenry.

Your analogy of a dress code versus First Amendment is erroneous as the preamble to that amendment has "Congress shall pass no . . ."

In the Second Amendment, no where does it say in the amendment WHERE or WHEN or in WHAT MANNER your right to keep and bear arms is allowed.

Rather, it says that your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Jeff
 
It almost pains me to say this. But I agree with soybomb. I do not like the government telling me whom I have to allow, or not allow on my property, with what.

It's easy to celebrate this today because we agree with the cause. But it'll be harder tomorrow when the government starts telling you you MUST allow Obama campaign stickers to be placed in YOUR windows by employees on 1st amendment grounds.
 
Rather, it says that your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

By the government of the United States.

Would you allow someone on your property with Pro Al Queda signs? Should the government require you to do so under the first amendment?
 
We could take this even further.

Should the government REQUIRE you to allow a flag burning in your parking lot under free speech? YOUR lot. YOUR company. YOUR property.
 
I've still got the fingers crossed. I've seen a lot of anti-rhetoric come out since this passed. The big business lobbyists are working overtime to sway the Gov. I'm sure the Nazi Mouse (Disney) is in the mix as well.
 
I don't see cars as employer property. So the law really has nothing to do with telling an employer what he has to allow.

It almost pains me to say this. But I agree with soybomb. I do not like the government telling me whom I have to allow, or not allow on my property, with what.

It's easy to celebrate this today because we agree with the cause. But it'll be harder tomorrow when the government starts telling you you MUST allow Obama campaign stickers to be placed in YOUR windows by employees on 1st amendment grounds.

If those Obama stickers are on an employee's car, that's fine. It's his property. Same with guns. Guns in his car are his property. Once the stickers come off his window and onto mine, then it becomes a property rights issue. And once the guns come out of the car and into my building, that is when it also becomes a property rights issue.

It has nothing to do with Obama stickers in your building's windows, people burning flags in your parking lot, or Al Queda signs on your property. None of those are the employee's car. The lot is yours. The windows are yours. The property is yours. The car is not.
 
I've still got the fingers crossed. I've seen a lot of anti-rhetoric come out since this passed. The big business lobbyists are working overtime to sway the Gov. I'm sure the Nazi Mouse (Disney) is in the mix as well.

Don't worry, Rusty.
This one is in the bank.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top