Attention All Floridians!!! The Time To Act Is Now!

M

MilitaryPower

Inactive
I'm glad I got your attention. We have a pressing matter at hand.

A Letter to Marion Hammer.



Dear Ms. Hammer:

I am an attorney in Orlando, Florida. I understand that you are supporting the proposed Personal Private Property Protection Act introduced to the Florida Legislature this year. I wanted to bring a matter to your attention that relates to this Bill.

I represent Doug and Linda Gray, a husband and wife who were both employed by the Walt Disney World Company. They worked similar shifts, and traveled to work together. The Grays had to begin their commute before sunrise, and had to travel through some less than safe areas. In fact, they had been accosted on their commute to work in the past. They contacted law enforcement about this and were advised that they should purchase a firearm for their own protection during their commute. Based on this advice, Mr. Gray purchased a revolver to protect he and his wife. When the Grays arrived at work, the revolver was locked in their vehicle.

The Grays were both hired by Disney on November 13, 1996. They met at Disney during the final entry interview process, and were later married. Just 17 days before their 10th anniversary of employment at Disney, they were both terminated. While Mrs. Gray was being asked about an absence from work, she responded that her husband was unable to attend, and she didn't feel safe traveling into work without him. Upon further questioning, Mrs. Gray revealed that Mr. Gray had the firearm in their vehicle for their protection. Disney had the vehicle searched, and the firearm was found, locked in the vehicle where the Grays indicated it was. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gray were terminated. Additionally, Disney had the Orange County Sheriffs issue a trespass warning against Mr. and Mrs. Gray, so that neither could step foot on any Disney property again.

I attempted to intervene on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Gray. However, Disney would not allow me to participate in their review of this incident. Disney claimed that they had a zero tolerance policy with respect to firearms on their property. They would not listen when they were told that the revolver belonged to Mr. Gray, and that Mrs. Gray had never even handled the same. They would not listen when they were told about the Grays' commute and how it was dangerous for them to travel to work at the times they were scheduled.

Moreover, Disney showed no leniency toward the Grays whatsoever. The punishment for Mrs. Gray was the same as for Mr. Gray, because she knew that he kept a firearm in the vehicle and the vehicle was titled in both of their names. Disney did not take the Grays' years of service into account when they were terminated. Disney did not take into account the fact that the Grays voluntarily reduced their hours in the post-September 11, 2001 tourist slump, so that Disney would not have to lay off as many employees. Disney would not even withdraw the trespasses against the Gray so that they could bring their grandchildren to the parks when they visited on vacation. Mr. Gray was originally granted unemployment compensation, but Disney fought that as well and now Mr. Gray is obligated to pay back the unemployment benefits he was paid.

Doug and Linda Gray are good people. They had recently bought a house and were working hard to pay for the same. They worked for Disney for almost 10 years, and they no plans to change their careers. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world. The Grays had been threatened by criminals on their commute to work during the pre-dawn hours. Mr. Gray purchased a firearm for the sole purpose of protecting himself and his wife so that they could continue to show up for work at Disney. However, when Disney discovered that there was a firearm in its parking lot, Disney fired these hard working, long time employees without hesitation, without remorse, and without any recourse. When Disney was given the opportunity to show leniency, it failed to do so.

In short, Mr. Gray lost his job because he wanted to protect himself and his wife when they were traveling to and from work. Mrs. Gray lost her job simply because her husband wanted to keep her safe during their commute. Their lives have been thrown into upheaval because they were willing to take responsibility for their own safety. Certainly Disney did nothing to keep them safe during their commute; to the contrary, in complete disregard for the safety and welfare of its employees, Disney prohibits employees, such as the Grays, from protecting themselves while traveling to and from work.

The Grays understand that there was no law preventing Disney from terminating them as it did. However, they have asked me to share their story with you and with the Florida Legislature, so perhaps other good citizens of Florida are protected from similar actions in the future.

If I can provide any additional information on this topic that would be useful to you or the Florida Legislature, please do not hesitate to contact me. Until then, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Ernest J. Myers, Esq.
Orlando, FL 32801
Click to expand...
 
This is what is trying to be done.

ALERT !! ACT NOW - SB-2356 Protect Possession/Guns/Cars/Parking Lots

DATE: March 22, 2007
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
NRA Past President
Executive Director Unified Sportsmen of Florida

SUBJECT: SB-2356 To Protect Possession of Firearms in Vehicles in Parking Lots

SB-2356 protects employees and customers from having their private vehicles searched and protects against punitive action by anti-gun business owners who would deny you your right to have a gun in your car for protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting when you park in a business parking lot.

SB-2356 stops ARROGANT CORPORATIONS who think they can control the personal private property you have in your private vehicle in parking lots.

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hold a hearing on
SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden on Tuesday, March 27, 2007.

Please immediately send email to members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden

Below is a list of the email addresses of those you need to contact

IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL PUT:

PLEASE SUPPORT SB-2356/Protect Firearms/private vehicles

(To send one email to all committee members at the same time, block or highlight the entire list and then copy and paste the block into the address section of the email.)

Senate Criminal Justice Committee

argenziano.nancy.web*at*flsenate.gov
aronberg.dave.web*at*flsenate.gov
bennett.mike.web*at*flsenate.gov
crist.victor.web*at*flsenate.gov
dawson.mandy.web*at*flsenate.gov
king.james.web*at*flsenate.gov
lynn.evelyn.web*at*flsenate.gov
wilson.frederica.web*at*flsenate.gov
wise.stephen.web*at*flsenate.gov

If you prefer to make phone calls, call these numbers:

Sen. Nancy Argenziano (R) Chair (850) 487-5017
Sen. Dave Aronberg (D) VC (850) 487-5356
Sen. Mike Bennett (R) (850) 487-5078
Sen. Victor Crist (R) (850) 487-5068
Sen. Mandy Dawson (D) (850) 487-5112
Sen. Jim King (R) (850) 487-5030
Sen. Evelyn Lynn (R) (850) 487-5033
Sen. Frederica Wilson (D) (850) 487-5166
Sen. Steve Wise (R) (850) 487-5027

BACKGROUND:

The bill will stop business entities from searching private vehicles and violating the constitutional rights of customers and employees.

Your Second Amendment rights are at the very heart of this issue. In addition to prohibiting searches of private vehicles in parking lots. The bills also prevent businesses from asking customers or employees to disclose what personal private property is stored in a private vehicle and prevents action against customers and employees who refuse to divulge that private information. Further, it prohibits action against a customer or employee based on information provided by a third party.

Some Florida businesses are trying to ban guns in cars in parking lot used by customers and employees. They are discriminating against people who exercise their constitutional rights – they are violating the constitutional rights of gun owners and Florida law.

Corporate giants have been trampling constitutional rights. Some are even attempting to coerce and intimidate gunowners into giving up constitutional rights as a condition of employment.

Your Rights are in Danger

Carrying firearms in a vehicle for hunting, target shooting or protection of yourself and your family obviously means you can leave that firearm locked in the vehicle in a parking lot when you go grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to the movie, to visit a sick friend in the hospital, to rent a movie, to the shoe store or anywhere else normal people travel to conduct business.

Florida law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Florida Constitution clearly and unequivocally give law abiding citizens to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes.

How can anyone justify telling a woman who is being stalked that she can't have a firearm for protection? In many cases police tell these women to get a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect her -- and calling 911 is nothing more than government sponsored dial-a-prayer.

A business owner or manager has no more right to say you can't have a firearm in your private vehicle than they have a right to say you can't have a pair of sun glasses, an umbrella, a Bible or a baby seat.

Such an anti-gun political exercise is not good business sense. They want your money but don't respect your rights.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against employees and customers because of race, religion, political party, color of eyes, hair or weight. And they certainly can't discriminate because of the exercise of lawful self-defense. And, make no mistake, these gun ban policies are blatant discrimination against people who chose to exercise a constitutional right and take responsibility for their own safety.



http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=2726
Click to expand...
 
OMG he's got a gun in his car

This topic recently came up on a local raidio show the "conservative" host took the position that in Indiana the employer has the right to regulate anything on there property even whats locked in vehicles being a private employer is not a government entity and sinse there policies are not laws these types of regulations do not violate the constitution
Indiana is an employment at will state and so an employer can termanate employment at any time with or without cause. So if an employer wants a strip search car search stool sample ect. ect. One can always seek other employment???
I am of the opinion just because one can do a thing does not always mean one should do a thing or adopt a particular policy.
I would be very disturbed to find out my employer thought I was a threat to my fellows in any way.
 
While I think Disney was unnecessarily harsh in their treatment of the couple mentioned, I have to say they are within their rights to deal with policy breakers in any way they deem fit.
I'm sure the Mr & Mrs Gray new of the gun policy.
Regardless of how righteous their intent, they willingly broke that policy knowing it could lead to their being terminated.
They took that chance.
They lost.
Maybe I missed it, but how the heck did Disney find out they had a gun in the first place?:confused:
That being said, I will be getting in touch with the committee members.
Being a Florida resident, I would love to see this law changed.
But if we are talking about private property, what can be done?
 
Pathetic

I have to say they are within their rights to deal with policy breakers in any way they deem fit.
Click to expand...

Just another example of how corporate America runs the country. At the surface of this letter, it would seem that on the one hand, if you want protection from bad neighborhoods, buy a gun (as told to them by the establishment). The other hand says, sorry Mr & Mrs Gray, we don't care if you get mugged or carjacked on your way to work and that will be no excuse for being late. :eek: No guns allowed.

Corporate giants have been trampling constitutional rights. Some are even attempting to coerce and intimidate gunowners into giving up constitutional rights as a condition of employment.
Click to expand...

I thought y'all had the 2nd Amendment that gave you your right to bear arms. Hmmmm - I guess corporate America really does run the country and does as they please. How disappointing.

And yes, how did they find out there was a gun in the car and after all, why should they care? It's in the car! I wonder just how many Disney employees (ooops, sorry, Associates) own and carry guns to and from work but never tell anyone? Shhhh - it's a secret. :rolleyes:

HiltonFarmer
 
Let me offer some different perspective here.

The constitution restricts the ability of a government entity from depriving you of your rights. It does not limit the ability of priviate individuals or corporations to make rules that limit or remove certain rights.

It is illegal for a government employee who may be in your home legally, to snoop through drawers or cabinets while you are out of the room. Anything found during such a search would be inadmissable in a court and the employee subject to suits for violating your rights. However, a private person is not constrained as such and if (s)he snoops, discovers contraband and reports that to police, their testimony is admissable in court. [Unless the gov't has previously enlisted their aid to do so.]

Many businesses now notify employees that they reserve the right to search their briefcases, handbags, etc. at any time. They have the right to search their own property (desks, file cabinets, drawers, etc.) on their property. In some cases, businesses include a statement that they may search anything you bring onto company property (which may include your vehicle).

A key element is "company property". If your office is in a business park with a common parking lot to other businesses (i.e. a parking lot for a multistory building of which your company has the 3rd floor only) then the car lot is not clearly "company property".

We can thank corporate lawyers for many of these anti-self-defense policies. A friend was starting a business and wrote his employee handbook using a boiler-plate form. His corporate lawyer added a no-firearms clause just after the no alcohol/drugs policy. He removed it and the lawyer advised him that without it, he would have to pay higher insurance premiums and find another corporate lawyer! Said lawyer would NOT defend him if someone was injured by a firearm on the premisis unless that clause prohibited all firearms. He found a different lawyer.

What he found was that insurance companies also insisted on seeing certain policies in place to "limit liability". Without a no-weapons clause, if someone brought a gun to work and injured someone else with it the company would be open to a lawsuit because they failed to prohibit that activity.

In this case, the employer would likely have told the Gray's to change their route to work so as to avoid the "bad areas" of town. If that was not possible, their secondary reply would be to move their residence to somewhere that would allow them a safer commute to work.

Lastly, never tell your employer about any restraining order issued in your behalf to keep violent or threatening persons away from you. Corporate lawyers will recommend the company fire you immediately to avoid liability should the "restrained" person(s) injure you or others on company property. The theory is that once they are aware that a potential exists for someone to be injured they should remove the potential source of the injury -- you, as the trouble-magnet. If they are not aware of the problem then there is much less liability.
 
I always carry a gun in my glovebox. While I understand the issues surrounding the Gray's, why in the hell would you tell anyone you have a gun in your car? This is an anti gun world and most people think that people carry a gun for nefarious reasons only. No one ever thinks you could carry a gun for self defense because everyone is in the mindset of "The police are here to protect us."
 
So Disney searched the car? Do they have a right to search your property? How about your house?

Also think about this, if Disney had a no Koran on premises policy would that be legal? You have the right to own a Koran under the first amendment and the pistol is covered under the second, so the comparison is fair.
 
Re: Disclosure of the firearm

My guess is that in the course of explaining her absence, she indicated that their morning commute took them through bad parts of town where she did not feel safe driving alone. More than likely, someone asked her why she felt that way and she revealed the previous incident(s) in which they were accosted or threatened in that area. As as guess, a Disney flak probably asked her "why didn't you take another route to work?" to which Mrs. Gray probably responded that they followed the advice of a LEO and purchased a revolver.

Keep in mind that your employer doesn't care how you get to work or what difficulties you face in getting there on time. All they care about is that you show up on time and do your job. YOU are responsible for getting yourself to work. In the employeer's eyes, if they needed to spend 30 extra minutes detouring around the bad area, they should leave their house earlier to allow for it. If that's not possible, they should move their residence to a place that allows them a safer commute.

Now, with that said, the main question boils down to the right of your employer to search your vehicle at will. As I said before, some employers reserve the right to search any item you bring onto company property and they often never specify what will trigger such a search. If, by signing an employment agreement, even in employment-at-will states, you thereby consent to the rules, policies and procedures of the company, then you're probably out of luck.

The secondary question is the scope or limits of the right of the employer to search. For instance, we can all understand a software company's desire to control it's products and a personal search might include removing your wallet from your pocket and a cursory look for electronic media or paper with company information. If they begin removing the contents for inspection, it's my view that they have crossed the line into invasion of privacy. Likewise, a search of your car reveals a bolted-down secure box in the trunk. The company demands you open it. Do they actually have the legal right to do so? Likewise, do they have a right to read through any personal mail left inside your vehicle? I think not. Personally, I'd tell them that I'd lost the combination.
 
CSSpecs

Companies can prohibit any manner of items on their company property as they see fit. They can prohibit any political, religious, racist or obscene publications or printed matter from their facilities. This would include copies of the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. You may have a right to those things, but your employment agreement probably requires you to follow the rules and polices of the company. If a company prohibts the display of "religious symbols, materials or apparel" by employees, then Jews cannot wear their yarmulke, Muslims can't wear a turban nor can Sikhs wear their turbans.

Can they search your home? Interesting question.
With some companies allowing telecommuting options this is a gray area. If employers can be held responsible for injuries sustained by a home-office worker, then shouldn't they be allowed to inspect that office area to reduce injury hazards?

If your company supplied computer equipment for you to work at home, would they have a right to inspect your installation of that equipment to insure its proper use, protection and to make sure you weren't overloading circuits? Possibly. But if said equipment is located in your front bedroom, they obviously have no need to snoop through the rest of the house or open your closets or dresser drawers.
 
The National Rifle Association won the first round this afternoon in its two-year fight with Florida's business lobby to allow employees to keep guns locked in their cars when they park at work.

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee approved the bill by a 7-1 vote after a lengthy hearing in which businesses ranging from Walt Disney World to Harris Corp. turned out to oppose it. The NRA, by contrast, picked up some help testifying in favor of the bill from labor unions and trial lawyers.

(Source: Orlando Sentinel, March 27, 2007)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top