Disney employee suspended for carrying a firearm in his vehicle

H

HK123

Moderator
Many of you may know of this story through the various media channels including the NRA email alerts. Some of you may even live in the area of central FL.

Recently there was a law signed that went into effect on July 1 that allows any ccw holder in the state of FL to have a gun in their car while they are at work. The employer cannot deny them this right, but Disney corporation claims to be exempt from this law. They are not, every business in FL has to abide by this new law so why not them? Furthermore they attempted to force a Disney security guard to submit to an illegal search of his private property because he was taking advantage of this new law. He is a valid FL concealed weapons permit holder and was suspended by disney for not allowing them to search for any firearms in his private vehicle which was parked on Disney property.

I think it's safe to say that Disney does not support our rights. He was suspended on July 4 no less. How's that for Disney slapping everything we stand for as a nation right in the face?

story here http://www.wftv.com/news/16792006/detail.html
 
The exemption to the law, IMO may not apply to Disney, but I may check into it:

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.
Click to expand...


The exemption has two parts: Disney uses explosives in the form of fireworks, but that is not their primary purpose. The second part states that they should be engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on the property. I don't know if Disney is importing, manufacturing, or dealing in fireworks, but merely transporting and using them.
 
No the exemption would be for actual fireworks retailers such as Phantom Fireworks or the like.

The NRA is all over them on this one from what I know from limited knowledge of the case.

have to wait and see.
 
At our work, we have actually had an issue with this. A co-worker who has always carried a rifle in his rifle rack was fired because of carrying a firearm onto company property. For years he had done this, but we had a new 'supervisor' start out there and he didnt like the fact that there was a weapon on company property. He is anti-gun, through and through, plus a real a**hole, probably didnt want to take a chance ever he crossed paths with someone who didnt see eye to eye with him and getting blown away. We have signs on the door that state that you cannot carry a firearm any further than this point, but nothing that states that you cannot have a firearm in your vehicle, in contract or in the rule book. We lost a great 28-year service employee just because of this nut job. Plus this guy wont start an argument with a man, but will yell and cuss at the women at our work. He's a real piece of work...
 
Well, now it seems Disney fired the guy. I forsee a lawsuit that he will win based on the law if he chooses to go that route.

Disney is attempting to use a loophole that is reserved for ACTUAL manufacturers, transporters, importers, exporters, and/or retailers of explosive materials such as gun powder, certain chemicals and fireworks. Disney has and uses fireworks on the far side of their property which is not the same. If they guy had the gun in his car at a plant that transports gunpowder and fireworks then that would be a different matter under the new law.

Furthermore the Brady group would want you to believe that FL law says "All Employees" when in fact it's "only those employees who posses a concealed weapons permit" which is a BIG difference. There's a lot more steps to go through to get a CCW license vs just owning a gun.

They would also have you believe that they have a list of "hundreds of people" who have a CCW from FL and are rapists, thiefs, and people who have assaulted another. They won't provide this list however (imagine that). Also they might include people who have never been convicted and are alleged criminals. People can say whatever they want but it doesn't make it true. Innocent until proven guilty. They say "felons own CCW permits in FL" they are not recognising when someone has been exonerated of all charges, been given a full pardon, or otherwise has been a citizen in good standing for a number of years and paid their debt to society in full according to the law under the watchful eye of the government. They also will not furnish any list to prove that they are not just making up BS and calling it "fact".
 
The public face of Disney is quite different from its private one

I remember a report from a few years back, concerning the punishment and even firing of employees of EuroDisney for "not smiling enough".

Apparently some employees had taken to (unofficially) calling EuroDisney.....
"Mousewitz"

Things just haven't been the same since Walt died.:(
 
The guy was rightfully fired and it looks like disney is exempt

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.
Click to expand...

Disney does have a permit for explosive materials so its looking like their actions were valid. At the end of the day, this guy brought a weapon onto company property knowing full well it was in violation. He deserves what he got.
 
public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials
Click to expand...

I was not aware that the "PRIMARY BUSINESS" of Disney was the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation combustible materials and explosives. It would scare the soccer moms. Probably the little kiddies too. I thought it was just a bigger size amusement park.

edit to add: I have personally carried onto Disney (Orlando) property with a valid Florida CCW permit a half dozen times or so. The crimminals in the surrounding areas prey on unarmed, and cash-heavy tourists. Just info for those who don't know.
 
First, let me state that I am against this law in Florida. I believe it should be illegal for a state to force private property owners to allow anyting on their property they don't want there, and this includes guns. Employees are there voluntarily, and if they chose to surrender their 2nd amendments rights voluntarily in exchange for employment, then that is OK with me.

However, while I am sympathetic to Disney in this situation, I think they are on thin ice legally. I do not believe their primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials. So I don't see how they can use that to their advantage. Their primary business is amusement park.

If a legal case is made of this, hopefully it will result in the law being stricken on grounds that it violates private property rights.
 
In 1990 I made many trips in my own dump truck onto their place to deliver decorative stone to them. I ALWAYS had my Mossberg 500 in the rear window rack. Once they had a Mouse Cop (Yes they are their own REAL cops) come to my truck and he told me I could not have a firearm "ON DIDNEY PROPERTY" and I told him in as sarcastic way I could muster my 21 year old self to do... "Well bud I Would never have a gun on YOUR property... it is IN *MY* PROPERTY". They called the place I hauled for and they told them... "he is independent of us and is our only delivery truck so take it up with him... and if you don't like it buy elsewhere.
I made many more trips and never buckled to them... They woulda crapped in their mouse hats to know it was loaded with 6 rounds...:D
I know I was not an employee and this law was not in place but I made my stand and held fast to it.

Brent
 
Good for you hogdogs! I think that prosecuting "things" and letting off those who "victimize or harm" others is getting it wrong on both sides.
 
I was not aware that the "PRIMARY BUSINESS" of Disney was the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation combustible materials and explosives. It would scare the soccer moms. Probably the little kiddies too. I thought it was just a bigger size amusement park.
Click to expand...

Its not, but the statute isn't limited to this. Read the part that I bolded...

property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

I believe that disney does in fact have such a permit. As such they are exempt under the statute.
 
Stage 2 is correct. After re-reading the law, all they have to have is a license to be exempt from the law. The employee does not have a case, in my opinion.
 
Surprised!

I am surprised that some of you want the government to dictate what is allowed on private property. If I owned a business, the less control that any government entity had over me the happier I would be. This is sort of like telling a bar owner he can not allow smoking in his establishment.
 
I am surprised that some of you want the government to dictate what is allowed on private property. If I owned a business, the less control that any government entity over me the happier I would be. This is sort of like telling a bar owner he can not allow smoking in his establishment.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if they agreed to be responsible for your safety while on their property or while commuting to/from work.
 
am surprised that some of you want the government to dictate what is allowed on private property. If I owned a business, the less control that any government entity over me the happier I would be. This is sort of like telling a bar owner he can not allow smoking in his establishment.
Click to expand...

Where were you a month or so ago when we had the big debate about private property rights. There are some people here that think as long as its gun related, its perfectly fine.
 
Actually, I am one of them who think this law is just fine. They are not forcing you to allow weapons on your property. It is already for me to bring my weapons on private property, and it always has been. What is at issue here is if you, as a land owner, get to force me as a car owner, to allow you to enter my property (my car) and search it.

I will say it for the 100th time- there is no such thing as property rights in the COTUS, except to say that if your property is taken from you, you are entitled to compensation. Since no one's property is being taken, there is not compensation due.
 
re:divemedic

So if I pulled a car onto your property with a portable "meth" lab in it, then it is none of your business?
 
Dive medic, If I read right you feel the govt. is not forcing business owners to allow guns on the property?
They are doing just that in florida. If you have a CCP you are allowed to bring a gun in your ride to work and the boss can't whine... unless they are greed lusting anti-gun establishment as didney is.
Brent
 
So if I pulled a car onto your property with a portable "meth" lab in it, then it is none of your business?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the discussion of the constitutionality of a law that prohibits land owners from violating the property rights of car owners?

Dive medic, If I read right you feel the govt. is not forcing business owners to allow guns on the property?
Click to expand...

No. It is legal for gun owners to bring guns on property without the new law. I know what the law is, I live in Central Florida.

ETA: All the new law does is prohibit the employer from searching the private property of their employees. Find for me where the COTUS secures private property rights against such a law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top