Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Florida pro-gun legislation filed

Discussion in 'Activism' started by camacho, Jan 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. camacho

    camacho Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Florida

    This is the second time around after last year, several of what we thought were pro-gun Florida representatives betrayed us:barf:

    Let's hope it passes this this time!
     
  2. JohnMcD348

    JohnMcD348 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Where can I keep tabs on this legislation? I'd like to know who voted for and against it when it goes through.
     
  3. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
  4. iiibdsiil

    iiibdsiil Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    740
    Location:
    910 / 813 / 561
    I really have a hard time with telling a private property owner that they have to accept anything... It's your property, you make the rules. No one is forcing me to work for an anti-gun employer.

    It seems like too many of us say "Government regulation is wrong, unless it is what we want to hear."

    Maybe I'm off base here, just something to think about.

    And don't get me wrong, I support it. But I support it because it is helping us gain back inches that were given up/taken away. It's a win for gun owners and a loss for property/business owners.
     
  5. hoppinglark

    hoppinglark Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    most people feel like a parking lot is a legal "right of way"
    You have to provide a place for people to park their cars, and the car itself is like a big outside locker.
    Regulating what a person keeps in that locker is not the Employers concern.
     
  6. mekender

    mekender Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,255
    its illegal for a private property owner to only server one gender or race, its illegal for them to deny access to the handicapped, it would be illegal for them to require a woman to remove her shirt upon entering, it would be illegal for them to require everyone that entered to smoke a joint or snort a line...

    but for some reason its ok that they choose to deny a constitutionally guaranteed right... none of the above examples are a constitutionally guaranteed right... hmmm...
     
  7. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    I agree. Who is the govn't to tell a business owner if he doesn't want to serve those "d@mn ni@@ers".. comply with the ADA, or hire women when they belong at home in the kitchen??? :cuss:


    [ the above is sarcasm for those who don't have a working sarcasm detector ]
     
  8. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    Does anyone have a contact list of those who voted this down last year, but who otherwise claim to be pro 2nd amendment?
     
  9. theaof1

    theaof1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    SB 1130 is listed as identical to HR 503. There is no vote of record shown for either.
     
  10. JBB

    JBB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    SW Florida
    I'll have my CCW license in a few weeks. My employer has a written policy against firearms on company property, so I hope this passes, as well. I would hate to be unemployed, but I will have a gun in my vehicle when I wish to.
     
  11. camacho

    camacho Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Florida
    Below is an email that was sent by the NRA-ILA last year:


     
  12. rogerjames

    rogerjames member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    633
    Location:
    Florida
    iiibdsiil, you have a hard time requiring a private property owner to comply with a federal/state given right that public properties have to honor?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    So I should be able to ignore federal and state laws and rob your ass at gun point because your private property is exempt from constitutional protection!!
     
  13. Guitargod1985

    Guitargod1985 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Florida
    Well, I guess we won't have to worry about Bob Allen voting against us this time!! Unless he votes with a twenty dollar bill slid under a stall partition. Hehehe!
     
  14. Samuel Adams

    Samuel Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Coastal Georgia
    2nd Amendment vs Private Property Rights. That's a tough one. :confused:
     
  15. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    iiibdsiil:

    Nope, you're not off base. A property owner should be able to do whatever he wants on his property without interference from any government.

    John Wayne Gacy should not have been arrested, tried, convicted, and executed simply because he entertained 33 boys and young men in his home. Okay, so he raped and murdered them but it all took place on his own property. He even buried them under his house on his property. It was his property, he made the rules, and they didn't have to go there if they didn't want to.

    Pacific Gas Company got a raw deal in being forced to settle lawsuits against it for $333,000,000 just because one of its companies dumped some Chromium compound on its own property. Okay, so the chemical is a likely carcinogen and so it did leach into the public drinking water and onto other people's property, but that's not the company's fault. If the other people didn't want to die of cancer they had the right to remove the poison from their property.

    Migrant farmworkers just don't get it. When they are employed by a company they are under the control of that company. If they don't like what happens to them there they can go to medical school and become physicians, law school and become lawyers, or get several million dollars and run for president of the United States. Instead they whine and complain about being virtual slaves, working for minimal pay and having it docked for the shacks in which they live, and being excluded from the mainstream economy.

    These other guys don't get it. When anyone steps onto someone else's property there are no laws except those of the property owner. The property owner can enslave his customers, search their persons or cars, take their womenfolk, sell their kids, confiscate their credit cards and use them for his own benefit, trade in their cars, libel or slander them, poison them, expose them to toxic radiation, and do anything else he wants.

    The Second Amendment doesn't apply on private property. No one has any Constitutional rights on private property. Every property owner makes his own rules and laws, and no one has any rights if he enters upon someone else's property. Restaurant owners can choose which customers to serve, doctors can choose which lives to save, hospitals can choose who to admit, and all businesses that invite the public can decide which drinking fountains and restrooms are used by which kinds of people. Anyone who doesn't like it can go somewhere else.

    Hey, it worked in this country for a couple of hundred years until some troublemakers decided to agitate for change. But now, in these enlightened times, there's no reason not to roll back the calendar to the 1960s and earlier. And that's what many so-called enlightened people are arguing for, although they either don't realize it or don't care.
     
  16. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,403
    Location:
    Illinois
    how is this bill any different than the OK bill that the federal courts ruled violated OSHA requirements ands was thus invalid?
     
  17. camacho

    camacho Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Florida
    I was not sure what that meant and did a search on the "honorable" Representative. I guess his career is over now!

    Amen brother! You said it. This is exactly what is wrong with the way some perceive property rights.
     
  18. ExSoldier

    ExSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    Okay but will this legislation affect folks like me who teach in a public SCHOOL for a living or must we continue to have large targets painted on our backs as we manuever thru some very dangerous areas in order to get to and from our work locations?
     
  19. Sans Authoritas

    Sans Authoritas member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,126
    Private property rights.

    You have the right, as a homeowner, or a property owner, to decide who may or may not come into your house or pass onto your property.

    The right to exclude and permit people onto your property does not give you the right to treat that person however you wish once you have admitted them onto your property. Whoever made the gross leap of logic regarding pedophiles, etc, was being entirely logically unsound. The law of morality is not suddenly suspended because you walk onto someone else's property. Such a leap in logic is absolutely absurd.

    Bless the businesses who do not want to allow peaceful, gun-carrying people onto their property. There are lists of such places on websites, especially for gun owners. They are to encourage retaliation by peaceful, moral and just means: letter writing and boycotts. This is America. Don't force your viewpoint down their throats by legislation: take your business elsewhere.

    As it is, if someone violates the will of the property owner by merely and peacefully carrying a firearm, he should be charged nothing but simple trespass, and that only if he refused to leave when asked.

    If you want to force renters to rent apartments to Satan worshipers who use their apartment for black masses and goat sacrifices, you have got some real problems. That is because the apartment owner owns his property. If you say that government can legislate as to what peaceful and just things you do with your property, you are saying that his property is not really his property at all, but the property of the Government. Such a notion is not true, nor is it just.

    As for a business that does not want to allow black people, etc? I would laugh to see some storeowner put up a sign saying "Whites Only" in this day and age. He would be bankrupt within a month, and justly.

    Laws against discrimination on private property only got passed only after there were enough people who didn't believe in such racist foolishness to begin with. The laws were a product of what people believed, not a cause. Anti-discrimination laws are not what cause people to not be racist. Only a legal positivist could believe such nonsense.

    -Sans Authoritas
     
  20. TBT

    TBT Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    91
    Sans Authoritas ... bravo man. Bravo.
     
  21. camacho

    camacho Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Florida
    Great! I do not see a problem then! Let's just codify what we already believe in, i.e., our rights extend to our cars.
     
  22. Sans Authoritas

    Sans Authoritas member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,126
    Sans Authoritas said:
    Camacho said:
    If you consent to having your car searched by a private business owner by voluntarily parking on his clearly marked lot, if you believe that any such business owner would stay in business very long, or if you are indiscreet enough to let people know you have a firearm in your car, your beliefs have problems that all the codification in the world won't help.

    -Sans Authoritas
     
  23. eric.cartman

    eric.cartman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Florida
    Sans, and others, listen up, and listen good.
    This is not about 2nd A. vs. private property.
    We're not talking about carrying CW onto someones property.
    We're talking about having one in YOUR car.

    To all of you against such legislation, answer me this:

    Your car, is who's property?
    Your car becomes who's property once it leaves your garage and enters the public road and/or private parking lot?
    The INSIDE of your car is already considered the extension of your home in FL.
    So who's property is THE INSIDE of your car, where the gun is storred?

    So are you really bringing a gun onto someone's private property???

    :banghead:
     
  24. HOME DEPOT GEORGE

    HOME DEPOT GEORGE Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon line
    Home Depot Loophole

    I am a supervisor at a florida home depot and was always a little pissed about their gun policies. They even have it listed in the employee sop book. They do allow guns in cars in two or three states one of them being alaska. Now to the loophole I've gone as far as having a long discussion with my store manager about the rule, well a few weeks ago I was called to the customer service desk about a customer being injured in the parking lot, when I called the manager about how to handle it he instructed me NOT TO FILL OUT AN ACCIDENT REPORT BECAUSE WE DO NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT PROPERTY THUS IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO COVER AN INJURY IN THE LOT. Looks like they have no say about what employees can and can't keep in our cars at least at this location.:neener::neener::neener:
     
  25. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    Great news for you!Hope I can find a loophole of my own in my employers parking lot.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page