Proposed Florida law: Companies can't keep employees from bringing guns to work

[TarpleyG]

Supporters of such laws say they prevent companies from forcing workers to give up their constitutional right to carry firearms. It's important for people to have their gun close at hand, they say, citing examples where employees must walk through dark parking lots after work.

Even the supporters do not understand what they are talking about. What good is a gun locked away in your car going to do you when you are walking to it after work? None. I guess it's just one more step in the right direction though.

Greg

 

[El Tejon]

Hawk, remember, many districts have additional requirements for graduation, e.g. "community service". No reason that should not include basic riflery training as well.

We as gun owners must be more aggressive in using the law to protecting our rights and influencing the culture. Learn from your enemies and adopt their tactics. Out G a G.

 

[HighVelocity]

"For a business to tell you that in order to come onto their property, you have to give up your constitutional right is wrong,"

Amen!

 

[MechAg94]

If they don't like it, the business could always provide parking outside the fence.

 

[Car Knocker]

Just where in the Second Amendment does it say that it pertains to private property in addition to the government?

 

[Car Knocker]

beerslurpy,

to expand on tetchaje1's post, anyone with a CFP can carry in Utah Govt offices. I carried while chatting with the former gov in his office a couple of years ago. Carry in public schools with a CFP is legal also.

 

[wild billz]

florida guns at work

Floridians who can own firearms legally can already carry a gun in their vehicle, as long as it is in a case, or container, glove box, and not readily accessible, such as on your person, unless you are a CCW. Some businesses, such as the one I work for post that firearms or other weapons are not allowed on their property.

It is an interesting issue. I believe that I should be able to carry my firearm in my vehicle, as protection, but I also see how private companies can dictate policy. Personally, I have issues with them restricting firearms in my personal conveyance, since they can not guarantee my safety between home and office, much less in the office.

The Florida legislation is trying to force companies to recognize your state right, plus your 2A. When my company banned weapons on premise this argument was brought up, and it came down to a private company can do what it wants on its property.

 

[VorpalSpork]

Not a constitutional issue

For a business to tell you that in order to come onto their property, you have to give up your constitutional right is wrong

The 2nd amendment is a prohibition against any federal firearms laws that would infringe on the preexisting right, “of the people to keep and bear arms.” So, while a company may be infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment is only supposed to protect you from infringement by the federal government. To say that the 2nd amendment prohibits companies from having a policy against people having guns on their premises is just as much of a stretch, albeit in the other direction, as it is to say that it allows something like the federal gun free school zones law. It seems nobody pays attention to the constitution anymore though. :banghead: Marion Hammer should have said something like.

For a business to tell you that in order to come onto their property, you have to give up your right to keep and bear arms, is wrong.

 

[miko]

When a person of a company forbid certain kinds of behavior or objects on their property, that is their natural right. Nobody has the right to be employed, park or force their presence onto their properies.

Employment as well as patronage are voluntary contractual transactions. If you do not like the conditions, do not enter into such contracs. Refuse the job and deny the patronage.

Calling on the government intervention to confiscate their property for your convenience (because ownership goes with control) is no different than calling on the government to confiscate people's income, wealth or weapons.

miko

 

[Alex45ACP]

they should be able to ban Catholics, Jews, people w/ red hair, gays, anyone with a health concern and people with names that start with the letter "S".

A polyester clothing ban is useful but now I know we've gone too far............................

Alex - what other rights do you wish to "check at the door"?

Yes, the owner of the property should be able to ban all of these things. It's called private property rights.

 

[Gray Peterson]

This is not a property rights issue versus RKBA issue. It's a property rights versus property rights issue, as well as a property rights issue versus discrimination issue.

First, businesses are public corporations licensed by the state. The federal government and states restricts discrimination on employment and public accomodation based on race, national origin, religion (which is a choice), creed (which is a choice), and sex. Some state go further and prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. To argue that a corporation, chartered and licensed and rather heavily regulated under state laws, has the same rights or more than, say, your private home and land, is patently false.

Second, what about the property rights of the worker? You have to remember that in some states, your car is also considered your castle. It's that way in Louisiana, New Mexico, now Florida with it's new stand your ground law. Your car is your own private property. This is one of the reasons I distrust at-will employment because there are a few companies feel that they can micromanage everything in your life, and with the state of the economy being the way it is, it's sometimes either go with them, or lose your house, your health insurance, etc etc etc.

Third, I believe that firearms ownership status should be a protected class, if religion, creed, and smoking outside of work (in some states) are protected too. You have people like Toby Hoover of OAGV demanding employers fire CHL holders, or prevent CHL holders from obtaining work at all, even if they have no intention to carry at work or to use any such parking lot exemption, for merely possessing a license to carry outside of work. They went from just demanding gun control from government to making us perpetually unemployed, homeless (being unable to rent an apartment, see my Archstone post), taking our children away from us via CPS, etc etetc. How does it benefit the nation as a whole if we have to rely on government assistance to get by? How does it benefit being unable to pay their debts until their credit is ruined and they have to file bankruptcy and lose everything? The only people who benefit are the anti-gunners who want to send us a message: Give up your guns, or we'll take away your jobs, your insurance, your housing at rental places, and your homes. The situation in Oklahoma, and what's about to happen in Michigan, is us, to use the term "shooting back" at such inane hatred and stupidity.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Yes, the owner of the property should be able to ban all of these things. It's called private property rights.

There's a big difference between private property rights and corporate property rights. Two completely different animals. Private property rights are not required to be licensed by the state for their existance (though one can make arguments that taxation of property is the same thing, I don't agree), whereas corporations and companies are required to be licensed by the state.

 

[TarpleyG]

Look at it this way--your car is an extension of your home and I believe most law will back that statement up. Should the company be able to tell you what you can and cannot have in your home? How about terminating your employment because you smoke--is that fair too?

Greg

 

[benEzra]

In at least some of these cases, some of the the "owners" of the corporation (employee shareholders) are the ones getting fired. In the case of a publicly held corporation, the owners probably aren't the ones setting the policy.

 

[bamawrx]

There will be blood in the streets if this passes!

 

[MarkDido]

About 353,000 people in Florida, meanwhile, have concealed-weapons permits, according to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. That figure does not include people who don't need to obtain the licenses, such as police and military personnel.

Ahhhh, newspaper reports and facts. Usually they are mutually exclusive!

AFAIK, military personnel, residing in the state of Florida are NOT exempt from having to obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit.

This affects way more than 353,000 people. In Florida, it is perfectly legal to carry a loaded weapon (handgun or long gun) in a vehicle as long as it is secured, that usually means in a glove cpmpartment or center console (doesn not need to lock), or in a holster or gun case. No CCW is required.

 

[tetchaje1]

Beerslurpy posted:
Not just government employees, everyone. All the animals should follow the same rules, no matter what the pigs say.

They can. I am not a gubmint worker and I can carry my gun anywhere that isn't a courthouse, prison, or mental unit.

 

[Rockstar]

I believe some of you guys would insist on a proctological exam of the Savior, if he appeared to you and offered you three wishes.

 

[Desertdog]

The sign I would like to see on the businesses I patronize;

"Please keep your firearms holstered."

 

[Standing Wolf]

Calling on the government intervention to confiscate their property for your convenience (because ownership goes with control) is no different than calling on the government to confiscate people's income, wealth or weapons.

My car is my property. I own it. I control what occurs in it.

 

[joab]

My car is my property. I own it. I control what occurs in it.

Do you?