Disney employee suspended for carrying a firearm in his vehicle

I do not need a cotus quote... If caught searching my ride without permission I would safely assume it is a car thief and since it is a felony to steal a car than I can detain the perp until leo arrives. As far as losing a job... "I was lookin' for a job when I found this one" No golden handcuffs on me!
As for the wording of the law it does much more than limit search of said vehicle...
The employer can no longer have the gun exclusion in the handbook among many other points.
http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wfor/files/gunbill.pdf
It also says an employer may not infringe on the rights of the employee to keep and bear arms for legitimate use. I too, live in florida but I live in the deep south up here in the panhandle.
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...

According to the law, my car is an extension of my privacy rights unless I am suspected of violating the law while in my car. So, yes, it would be none of your business unless you have clear evidence that I have a meth lab in my car.
 
The way I look at this issue is that agreeing to leave your gun at home is a condition of employment that you agree to when you go to work for a company with a no-guns policy. This is a voluntary decision you make. No one is making you work for anyone. If you don't like the terms of employment, find another employer. But you should not agree to leave your guns at home as per company policy, and then immediately break your word by bringing one to work. You renege on your agreement when you do. It is dishonest. Breaking any company policy you agree to at the time of employment is dishonest.

An employer and employee should be allowed to enter into any agreement to which both parties agree.
 
I am going to institute some new policies at my business:

1 All black employees will be paid half of what a white employee gets paid for the same job.

2 All females are required to have sexual relations with the owner of the company

3 Hispanic customers will be charged a 20% fee

4 All female employees are prohibited from wearing or possessing shirts, brassieres, underwear, blouses or any other clothing. They are subject to search of their bags, automobiles, and any other objects under their control to ensure that they comply and have no clothing of any kind on company property.

5 Too many employees are using the fire exits to sneak off property for lunch. Therefore, all fire exits will be chained shut, and all employees will be chained to their desks.

6 The large number of false alarms is causing too much disruption in productivity. The fire alarm will be deactivated, effective immediately.

7 Any employee caught violating any company policy will be summarily executed

I wonder what the courts will have to say about my property rights.

If caught searching my ride without permission I would safely assume it is a car thief and since it is a felony to steal a car than I can detain the perp until leo arrives.
Click to expand...

According to you, by parking on your employer's property, the law can't do a thing about it, because you agreed to the search merely parking on the employer's property. Besides, since you cannot have a weapon because of your employer's policy, how do you plan on holding them there?
 
If the employees agree to those requirements voluntarily, then I have no problem with any of them, except the one about murdering the employees.

The free market system will pretty much take care of the rest of your requirements. You won't find many people to work for you, and your Hispanic customers will probably go spend their money elsewhere.

But if you could find people who agree to those terms, I really have no problem with it.
 
In your analogy you are intending to break many laws some of which are possibly federal...
Now try to find anyone to agree to those insane terms.
I have not nor will not EVER take a job in which I agree to give up my rights to free speech, privacy or self defense. And yes I will break certain rules I "agreed" to on being hired. Like when I took a job delivering pizza while my real boss was slow on work, I agreed to not carry a gun while I was carrying in the truck. I would rather take my fired living butt home than be a buried good employee.
Have you ever intentionally driven over the speed limit in a personal vehicle? You agreed to obey the law when you got a drivers license too...
Brent
 
Right- and in your analogy, you are breaking the law by firing an employee with a gun in his car. Thanks for making my point.

The point is, the government has the power and the authority to force employers to do or not do certain things. Many here claim that to be unconstitutional. How is this law any less constitutional than the laws I mentioned above? How about the law forcing property owners to have handicapped parking spots? How about the law banning smoking in restaurants?

All of those laws were found to be constitutional. Why not this one?
 
Here is my opinion. Not humble at all. Disney is too expensive, elitist, crowded, and an overall pain to deal with the entire time you are there. Nothing but a money pit. Kind of like Las Vegas but for ten year old's. Best thing to do when they engage in nonsense like this is simply not spend money with them.

Instead of dropping three grand on a weekend trip to the Rip-off rodent, put the $2800.00 in the bank and take your kids camping or fishing with the rest. Your kids will be happier in the long run when they realize they spent time with you instead of a 20 year old college kid dressed in a six foot animal costume. That and you will keep the Disney-socialist party from getting richer and more influential than they already are.

JP
 
I wonder what the courts will have to say about my property rights.
Click to expand...

The same thing they say about every right, its not absolute. Of course your argument isn't exactly correct.

There are different levels of private property rights. I can be the bigest racist in the world in my own home. However if I am going to run a business, then I waive some of these rights by virtue of opening up to the public.

Citing examples of circumstances where property rights are trumped in no way suggests that there is no such thing as property rights. I mean it would be silly to think the framers didn't value property rights. After all, the first continental congress stated that the three most impoirtant rights were "life liberty and property". And then we have 9th amendment.

So to say that there is no such thing as property rights is to completely misunderstand the framers as well as most subsequent jurisprudence.


The point is, the government has the power and the authority to force employers to do or not do certain things.
Click to expand...

True, but this power is not limitless as you contend.
 
After all, the first continental congress stated that the three most important rights were "life liberty and property"
Click to expand...

and yet, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is what made it into the document, showing that they decided that "property" wasn't what they wanted.

I can be the bigest racist in the world in my own home.
Click to expand...

If you refuse to sell your home to a person because of race, it is still illegal.

The ninth amendment does not apply here. Name one law turned over, using the ninth as the reason.

I ask again- where are property rights found in the COTUS other than 5A? As long as just compensation is given, property may be taken. Find me a case that ruled otherwise.
 
and yet, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is what made it into the document, showing that they decided that "property" wasn't what they wanted.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Life liberty and property was the phrase used in the declaration of colonial rights, one of the first resolutions passed by the continental congress. To say that the framers didn't value property rights is just plain wrong.


If you refuse to sell your home to a person because of race, it is still illegal.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I can refuse to allow you entrance because of your race, sex, gender, or any other reason.


The ninth amendment does not apply here. Name one law turned over, using the ninth as the reason.
Click to expand...

As of 2 months ago, no law had ever been turned over because of the 2nd amendment. Does that mean it too is irrelevant? I dont think so.

Because its not listed in the constitution doesn't mean its not a right. Private property rights are clearly an established principle in both english and american law. Thats just a fact.


I ask again- where are property rights found in the COTUS other than 5A? As long as just compensation is given, property may be taken. Find me a case that ruled otherwise.
Click to expand...

How about the 4th amendment. And the 3rd for that matter. And there's also the 9th which we already addressed.

As far as just compensation, you are correct in that limited circumstance. However that doesn't mean that the government can take anything and everything as long as it pays you for it. This can only take place in limited circumstances.
 
Exactly- and Florida Statute 790.251 fits squarely within that circumstance. To claim that a person has plenipotentiary power over an employee or invitee simply because that person has entered your property, and then to claim that the state of Florida does not have the power to regulate such a relationship flies in the face of legal precedent.

This law is not about the second amendment, this is about whether or not the state can take the property rights of a business to prohibit behavior under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

There is a large body case law on this. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.

A "paradigmatic taking" is a direct government appropriation of private property. In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as "regulatory taking". see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).

In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

This law (790.251) does not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but does result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto an employers property is unwelcome if they have corporate policies preventing weapons on property. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419(1982)

The Supreme Court first carved out the category of per se physical takings. In Loretto, the Court distinguished temporary physical "invasions" from permanent physical "occupations." The court ruled that an invasion is temporary, while an occupation is permanent.

A physical occupation, as defined by the Court, is a permanent and exclusive occupation by the government that destroys the owner's right to possession, use, and disposal of the property. see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

The laws we are talking about here do not force any permanent "physical structure" on an owner's property. Instead, they force an unwanted physical invasion by third parties engaging in an unwanted activity. The invasion itself is not "permanent" because the individuals engaging in the unwanted activity (guns in cars) do not remain on the property at all times, as would an actual physical structure. Nor does this law cause a "permanent" invasion by the government with regard to a particular parcel of property, such as the public bike paths at issue in public easement cases. In those cases, even if no person ever chose to ride his bike across a public path, there is nevertheless governmental intrusion because that particular parcel of land is stripped of its right to exclude.

If no individuals choose to engage in the activity of storing firearms in vehicles, landowners will not suffer unwanted invasions. It is therefore hard to classify the invasion caused by this law as permanent for purposes of a takings analysis.

See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 1980) (analyzing California constitutional provision permitting individuals to exercise free speech rights on private property against the wishes of the private property owner under a balancing test); Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1337-38 (applying Penn Central test to regulation that forced landlords to allow a "physical invasion" of their buildings by certain unwanted tenants); Boise Cascade, 296 F.3d at 1357 (holding that government official's periodic intrusion onto private property for purpose of conducting owl surveys over a period of five months was not a per se taking and must be analyzed under Penn Central test).
 
I'm no expert in Florida law, but let's look at the language which Disney claims makes them exempt, "engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property." Their business (not even a minor part of it) is not importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials. The terms "importing" and "manufacturing" are self-explanatory. To be a dealer, typically means to be in the regular business of selling the goods in question. For example, Avis or Hertz are not car dealers under most states' laws even though they sell a ton of cars. Their business, however, is renting cars. Disney does not sell fireworks or explosives and is therefore not dealing in explosives.

I also cannot believe anybody seriously is suggesting the government cannot regulate certain aspects of a business. As Divemedic illustrated, the government is not taking any property by mandating employers allow an employee to carry a gun in their car. States regulate length of breaks, minimum pay, many employee safety conditions, safety for the public, and many others. I know there was a federal judge in a western state (Arizona?) who held otherwise based on a preemption theory, but I'm telling you that will be reversed.
 
Word Volume

Some here think that by typing out a long response you are automatically right. I am sure that some anti-gun person could type out a 10,000 word dissertation on the evils of guns and the need for strict gun laws. That would not make him right. The counter agrument has far fewer syllables, it is called the second amendment.

You can type out as many words as you want, but the government telling anyone what they can or can not do on their property is wrong, period.
 
roy reali:

Not trying to make anymore trouble than is already here on this thread but the government already tells private property owners what to do on their own property and has for years. Not that I advocate any of the following but here are a few examples:

1. You can't beat your wife in your home.
2. You can't run a liquor establishment on private property without government approval (license).
3. You can't run a house of prostitution without government approval (license).
4. You can't legally harbor a fugitive on your private property.

To name just a few. The list is probably endless. As a few other wise souls have mentioned already we all have rights here, they just don't happen to be absolute.


JP
 
Its sad to see how many people take bits of a whole law.

I mean read the whole law. Primary means what these people do the majority of the time.

Yes, the Disney fireworks are along time (I think 15 mins) but the park is open at least 12 more hours of the day.

Thus Disney took part of the law and used part of the law. I believe this should be shot down in court very easily if the judge reads the whole law and not just part of the law.
 
re:JP Sarte

The activities you mention cause harm to others or society as a whole. If I do not want guns, alcohol, dogs, or any such thing on the property in which I pay taxes that is my business. It is my right to prohibit anything I find offensive as long as I am not harming anyone else. If you don't like my policies, go somewhere else.
 
Divemedic. That was an excellent cut and paste. The problems is that everything isn't as cut and dry as you suggest. Different states have different constitutional provisions as to what is an acceptable taking. Thus what works for california might not work for florida.

At any rate, if you bothered to read any of these cases, regardless of the outcome, each of them affirms the fact that private property owners have rights, and the government can only intrude in a limited set of circumstances.


I mean read the whole law. Primary means what these people do the majority of the time.

Yes, the Disney fireworks are along time (I think 15 mins) but the park is open at least 12 more hours of the day.

Thus Disney took part of the law and used part of the law. I believe this should be shot down in court very easily if the judge reads the whole law and not just part of the law.
Click to expand...

You need to read the whole law again. Disney isn't taking part of the law, they fall into one of the exceptions. There are two ways to be exempt. Either you primarily deal in fireworks (which disney doesn't) or you have a permit for fireworks (which disney does).

Thats it.
 
roy reali:

Although not my bag I guess it's up for debate as to whether prostitution, for example, is harmful to society or others. To each his own I guess. My point was simply to say that the government already regulates the use of private property and has for years. This is nothing new. Whether "they" did it to us or we allowed it to happen it's here.

For example, there are not "state laws" for the public parts of the state and then "every person's individual law" as soon as you cross over from public to their private land. I am not sure I like it anymore than you do but if we elect people to make laws they apply everywhere the law says they do.

Unfourtunately in this case for Disney the law is the law.

No hard feelings.

JP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top