Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fire ordnances and safety violations that apply to everyone aside, what an employee does, says, displays, listens too, or puts in his car is an extension of his home and property. The minute he takes it out of the car and onto my pavement, my walkway, my elevator, my building, my garage, etc THEN it is up to me what happens. Not before. Car=extension of home.

All of the hypothetical examples you're going to come up with all can be boiled down to one question: did it stay in his car? If the answer is yes, than it's out of your grasp.
 
So you'd address the flag burning question by technical "fire codes" and "safety codes" instead of answering the question. We're being hypothetical here. Assume there are no "fire codes" prohibiting open burning of materials in parking lots. Or they simply require a fire extinquisher present. Whatever.

Do you think it would be hunky dory for the government to require you to allow flag burning in your parking lot? Maybe if he does it in the bed of his pickup, since it's an extension of his home.
 
This has been long overdue for law abiding gun owners. However it needs to be readdressed next session so that average Joe's who do not possess a CWP can legally bring their firearms to work without fear of legal or employer reprisals. I see nothing wrong with people getting CWP's, but they should not be forced to get one just to have a means of protection to and from work.

The real issue I have with leaving a firearm in the car is that more guns will wind up being stolen as a result. Most people do not have a GunVault or other means of securing it beyond the glove box or trunk. If an employer insists that their employees cannot have a firearm on their property (which I fully agree with if they so choose), then they should provide a safe and secure means of locking the firearms up during work hours.
 
Yeah, I would be fine with that. Can an employer tell someone they can't listen to Christian music or Rush Limbaugh in their car? Can and employer tell them they cannot have a bible or Quoran in their car? Can an employer fire someone over political bumper stickers?

No. Car=personal property, not business property.

The flag burning isn't in my parking lot, it's in the employees car.

And bringing up fire codes is not a diversion. If someone burns a flag on their lawn, and there is a law against burning anything on their lawn, it's not a free speech issue. If the law is specifically against burning flags, then it is.
 
Wow. Well, at least we know where you stand on that issue.

If someone burned a flag in the bed of their truck in my driveway, I'd be going to $#%ing jail. Guaranteed. I would not be cool with that at all. Let alone outside my business in full view of my customers.

But I can't fault you for an inconsistent view.
 
Do you think it would be hunky dory for the government to require you to allow flag burning in your parking lot? Maybe if he does it in the bed of his pickup, since it's an extension of his home.
Click to expand...

Nope and it's not the same thing and you know it.

First of all, you would be going to jail if you attacked the person that did that and depending on who it was you were attacking you might be going to the hospital, but you and I both know your home is treated differently under the law. I would agree with you if an employee of your showed up in your home with a gun you can fire them. A business is completely different.
 
HETHENS! I forecast at least once every monday a disgruntled Floridian employee will have his stapler stolen for the last time, run to his/her car, retrieve an evil assault rifle, and shoot up the place.

It will be reported with the headline "Looks Like Someone Had a Bad Case of the Mondays..."

case-of-the-mondays.jpg
 
Well then, (I note you edited your post, so I'll respond here to the part you added) answer the question with regard to your business. Taurusowner was consistent. I'm not seeing the same consistency here.
 
great!!!

we need a law like this in louisiana. im told i can't have a gun in my truck on chemical plant property. i was gonna work for contractors at many different plants. having second thoughts now. its not a dont ask dont tell rule, they have dogs that will detect gunpowder.

a business is subject to countless laws already so yea, those here against this should be ashamed as a pro gun rights person(which is questionable imo).

fact is i feel a need to have guns at home, more so in my car out on the streets. louisiana law says your vehicle is an extension of your home. how do we even have this problem with anti gun employers, i dont know.

anyone know where do i start to find out if louisiana is gonna pass this law?
 
Originally I was torn between a land owners right to decide who is armed on his property but everyone needs to work and our litigious society would have EVERYONE disarmed. Its a prudent measure in my opinion. It doesn't mandate they carry their firearm at work, just they are allowed to have it locked in their vehicle which is their own property. Good stuff.
 
siglite...

a flag-burning demonstration in the lot is nowhere near the same as keeping a gun locked in your vehicle. that would be more analogous to me taking my gun out, waving it about, shooting it in the air, etc.

one is an act of demonstration that occurs clearly on your property. the other is an object you have no knowledge of, out of sight, completely contained within my property. you don't get to search my car for bibles or nazi flags, so why is a gun any different? and you certainly can't control what a customer has in their car either. they have a right to privacy within their own vehicle, and so does the employee.

if, as an employer, you are uncomfortable with the idea that people may have things in their own cars that you don't like, you are free to disallow employee parking in your lot (lots of retail places do). but if you allow my car, you allow its contents, just as you do with customers. hell, you could disallow them parking there too, but i don't think it'd be real good for business. ;)


ETA: oh yeah, and the fire ordinances do make a difference. again, that would be more analogous to waving a gun around and/or firing it. both are prohibited by ordinances that have nothing to do with property owners' rights and everything to do with public safety.
 
Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.
Click to expand...

Employees should be able to protect themselves and have all other basic rights even if they work for an employer who is anti-gun. Sure, an employee can choose to work somewhere else or not take the job in the 1st place but people NEED jobs and sometimes sign the employee agreement borne out of that need (akin to minor duress). I'm glad the the FL legislature is taking the action that they are. I wish the MN legislature would do the same.
 
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.--TexasSkyHawk
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what it says. Thank you for posting that TexasSkyHawk.

Isn't it weird how plain English gets twisted around to mean the opposite? :eek:

your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, unless it is INFRINGED!--Me. (that's nuts!)
Click to expand...

/
 
Um Cajun....we DO have this law, it passed a few weeks ago.

now, there are some weird stipulations. I would suggest going to bayoushooter.com and looking in the legal department for the specifics.


(we being Louisiana) granted....my gun was in my truck while at work anyways even before the law got passed, I would rather get fired for having it in my truck at work than killed while at the gas station headed home.
 
Lets not forget, a security guard at Disney has already lost his job by following this law after they said "they were exempt" from this law
 
It's ridiculous we even need these laws. I, for one, don't buy the private property BS. Your property is NOT a sovereign nation. Anything legal on the sidewalk (or car) is legal IMO anywhere not explicitly prohibited by law.

There should be no reason for a business or employer to have the right to deprive you of self-defense everywhere else on your trip simply because of his/her views on the subject. I don't even believe they should have the right to make you leave if your CCW is "discovered" or if legally open carried. What's legal is LEGAL, period.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I like this way of drawing the distinction.

Clearly, the employees have rights. At the same time, a business owner has rights too. It is simplistic to say that either one is always paramount and can never be infringed.

The fact is, that sometimes two legitimate rights come in to conflict with each other and you have to make a distinction about which right takes precedence in which situation.

Otherwise I would have to allow a Communist political rally in my living room at 0300 every day for ten years, if the local Communists wanted to exercise their rights of assembly that way. The Commies have a right to free assembly and free speech, right? So I guess I must have to allow them to exercise that right in my bedroom when I'm trying to sleep.

Obviously in some cases private property rights do trump Constitutional rights - thus I have the right to tell the Commies to go have their political rally elsewhere.

I think viewing the car as the employee's private property is a good place to draw the line in this situation. Thus, sitting in his car in the parking lot, the employee has the right to launch off on a White Supremacist tirade. However, if he has the same tirade on the job in front of customers, the employer can ask him to shut up or fire him.
 
if, as an employer, you are uncomfortable with the idea that people may have things in their own cars that you don't like, you are free to disallow employee parking in your lot (lots of retail places do). but if you allow my car, you allow its contents, just as you do with customers. hell, you could disallow them parking there too, but i don't think it'd be real good for business.
Click to expand...

I suppose if that's what it took to enforce property rights, that'd be the route I'd have to go. (Please remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) From a more broad philosophical perspective, I believe that property rights trump civil liberties. The Bill of Rights is not a limitation on what citizens can do. It is a limitation on what government can do. Am I against such a restriction on public property? Absolutely! But I firmly believe in my right to dictate what occurs on my property.

So, if the flag burning thing is a bit of a straw-man, or apples to oranges, what about the entire car that's painted with swastikas? That's arguably a first amendment exercise. Should the law force you to allow four or five employees to have swastika covered cars parked in YOUR lot?

We may have to agree to disagree. But I dislike government intrusion into private property and private lives regardless of whether I agree with the particulars of a given intrusion.
 
It's ridiculous we even need these laws. I, for one, don't buy the private property BS. Your property is NOT a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...
Rustynuts could you please let me know ( pm is ok ) just what you consider sovereign . I have seen this word a lot and would be intrested in just exactly what it means to you .
 
So, if the flag burning thing is a bit of a straw-man, or apples to oranges, what about the entire car that's painted with swastikas? That's arguably a first amendment exercise. Should the law force you to allow four or five employees to have swastika covered cars parked in YOUR lot?
Click to expand...

at least this is a bit more analogous, as it deals only with one's vehicle. still, it's on the outside of the vehicle rather than hidden within, so it's not quite the same.

even if i were to agree with you (which i don't) that the property owner has an absolute right to dictate what is allowed on their property, i would certainly never agree that they have any effective means of enforcing that right (i.e. searching your car). that makes it a moot point in my book. they may arguably be able to ban it, but they can't go through my car looking for it, just as they couldn't go looking for anything else. the car is my property.

as to the example you give, i'll admit it's a tough one. liberty and rights aren't always easy. i think i would have to say yes, it ought to be allowed. there's really no difference between that and having any other type of bumper sticker on your car. again, i'm left (IMHO) with only the options of:

1. disallowing all employee parking in my lot,
2. living with it (i'd probably choose this, honestly. and i think the risk of it actually happening is low), or
3. (being honest and realistic here) finding another way to get rid of the employee in question. honestly, that isn't hard in a "right to work" state. the first time he opened his mouth at work about his supremacist beliefs, he'd be gone, for instance.


to sum up, i can totally understand that the rights of property owners should be respected. my sticking point is that my car is my property, and i am still entitled to privacy within it, even when parked on someone else's property. if the owner is permitting me to park on his property, he accepts that i may have things in the car he doesn't like. as long as they stay in the car i do not see this as a violation of the property owner's rights.

YMMV
 
I suppose if that's what it took to enforce property rights, that'd be the route I'd have to go. (Please remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here.) From a more broad philosophical perspective, I believe that property rights trump civil liberties. The Bill of Rights is not a limitation on what citizens can do. It is a limitation on what government can do. Am I against such a restriction on public property? Absolutely! But I firmly believe in my right to dictate what occurs on my property.
Click to expand...

The government has the power under the constitution to dictate what you can and cannot do on your property. The only limits are enumerated rights, and whether or not they are taking your property without just compensation.

Can you kill another person on your property if they are an invitee? No.
Can you make a rule that prohibits female employees from owning or possessing clothes on your property? No.
Are you required to have handicapped parking spaces? Yes.
Are you required to allow utility right of way? Yes.
Are you required to maintain fire alarms and emergency exits on business properties? Yes.

Obviously, property rights do not trump all.
 
Can you kill another person on your property if they are an invitee? No.
Can you make a rule that prohibits female employees from owning or possessing clothes on your property? No.
Are you required to have handicapped parking spaces? Yes.
Are you required to allow utility right of way? Yes.
Are you required to maintain fire alarms and emergency exits on business properties? Yes.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but in many cases, property rights DO INDEED trump civil liberties. Specifically the BoR. As an agreement / condition of employment, you may be asked to surrender your 1st amendment rights (no hate speech on the property) your 2nd amendment rights (no weapons on the property) your 4th amendment rights (ever worked in a secure facility where you're searched for removable storage media, cameras, etc..?), and I'm sure there are other examples. People can, and routinely do waive their rights as a condition of employment. And I'm fine with that, because I believe in a free market. Those people are free to seek employment elsewhere. And if I can't find enough qualified employees, I'm free to change my policies.

I find no legal fault with requiring employees to voluntarily concede some of their rights while on my property and representing my organization. However, doing such a thing is rife with moral and perhaps logical fault in my opinion. Again, remember I'm playing devil's advocate. I will never deny an employee their second amendment rights.

However, I will concede that Texas Bulldog touches upon what makes this discussion very gray. He's right that the car is still his property. He's wrong, however, that employees are immune to having their vehicles searched. Go apply at Boeing. You'll find quite quickly that a searches of your vehicle are in black and white in the employment agreement. Your failure to consent to such search, by your own agreement, is grounds for instant and immediate termination. And the courts will back Boeing.

(I have nothing against Boeing, I just happen to know that this language is in their employment agreements.)

And isn't there a big ruckus being stirred up by a guy at Disney that was fired for not allowing them to search? (had a gun in the car).

I would've loved to have sat in on the committee meetings in Florida. This argument/discussion is good here. It had to be epic there. And again, remember, I'm playing devil's advocate. I'll never deny someone's 2nd amendment rights on my property.


<diversion>
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of leaving guns in cars anywhere. (this is a diversion from the core of the discussion, I know) I consider a gun in a car "unsecured." A friend of mine, who works for an organization that requires guns be left in the car was burglarized not once, but TWICE. Now criminals somewhere are in possession of two very nice Sig Sauer pistols. Unfortunate. And who do we blame for this? My friend who excersized his rights exactly to where his employer (and the law) allowed, or the company for restricting his right to carry in the buildings (there's where my vote goes)? </diversion>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Florida Bill 503 passes the House!
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Hkmp5sd
H
C
  • Locked
Federal judge to hear challenge to Florida's guns-at-work law
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
2K
divemedic
D
U
  • Locked
Author of Florida Stand your ground law says his law doesn't protect shooter
Replies
15
Views
965
Sam1911
S
B
  • Locked
Bush lawyer enlisted by opposition to Florida HB503
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Rustynuts
R
U
  • Locked
Why you don't want Concealed Carry at Work
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
henschman
H
Back
Top