You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Disney employee suspended for carrying a firearm in his vehicle
- Thread starter HK123
- Start date
1 Yes, I cut and pasted it. From my own posts on the subject, and a bit of case law. It is called research. I know how case law is used. Even if it is from Federal cases in other districts, that is called "persuasive." If it is from the same jurisdiction, it is called "controlling."
2 I posted a well reasoned and good argument justifying the law in question. Instead of a well reasoned and thoughtful response, I get 2 replies.
One says "Just because you post a long response doesn't make you right." and then proceeds to post his unsubstantiated opinion again.
The other accuses me me of cutting and pasting. Neither post addresses the issue.
My post was pointing out the fallacious argument that the law was an unconstitutional usurpation of property rights. The exception that Disney is claiming is a different argument altogether.
OOps-sorry maybe this post has too many big words for Roy to understand:
Roy, the adults are talking about Disney going through your stuff because they are bigger than you and will push you down if you try to stop them. Some people think that it is OK to take your toys just because you are standing in their yard. Now you go out and play and don't worry about it, the grown ups will finish talking now.
It's called a vocabulary. Try it sometime.
2 I posted a well reasoned and good argument justifying the law in question. Instead of a well reasoned and thoughtful response, I get 2 replies.
One says "Just because you post a long response doesn't make you right." and then proceeds to post his unsubstantiated opinion again.
The other accuses me me of cutting and pasting. Neither post addresses the issue.
My post was pointing out the fallacious argument that the law was an unconstitutional usurpation of property rights. The exception that Disney is claiming is a different argument altogether.
OOps-sorry maybe this post has too many big words for Roy to understand:
Roy, the adults are talking about Disney going through your stuff because they are bigger than you and will push you down if you try to stop them. Some people think that it is OK to take your toys just because you are standing in their yard. Now you go out and play and don't worry about it, the grown ups will finish talking now.
It's called a vocabulary. Try it sometime.
Let me add this:
1 Whatever you and I think property rights should be is irrelevant. The courts have ruled time and time again that the Legislature has the power to set rules on property owners. Handicap parking, minimum wage, the FLSA, OSHA, and many other laws prove that the law can and does effect private property. That is an indisputable fact. It is what it is.
2 This law in general is probably going to stand. If you don't like that, vote in legislators that will change the law into what you want. Unless you don't live here in Florida, in which case complain about your own state and leave us to run ours.
3 Disney managed to get a loophole inserted into the law, and got the law to say something that the lawmakers did not intend it to say. Shame on the lawmakers for not paying attention to what they were voting on.
4 The fireworks loophole is the only shot Disney has of beating this, and it is a fair shot- I would say 70%. Of course, that is only delaying the inevitable, as the legislature will probably change it, unless there is a shift in the makeup of it after the election.
1 Whatever you and I think property rights should be is irrelevant. The courts have ruled time and time again that the Legislature has the power to set rules on property owners. Handicap parking, minimum wage, the FLSA, OSHA, and many other laws prove that the law can and does effect private property. That is an indisputable fact. It is what it is.
2 This law in general is probably going to stand. If you don't like that, vote in legislators that will change the law into what you want. Unless you don't live here in Florida, in which case complain about your own state and leave us to run ours.
3 Disney managed to get a loophole inserted into the law, and got the law to say something that the lawmakers did not intend it to say. Shame on the lawmakers for not paying attention to what they were voting on.
4 The fireworks loophole is the only shot Disney has of beating this, and it is a fair shot- I would say 70%. Of course, that is only delaying the inevitable, as the legislature will probably change it, unless there is a shift in the makeup of it after the election.
SugarmillMan
New member
Florida clarification
I want to emphasize that this discussion pertains to EMPLOYEES of Disney or other similar firms.
There is nothing in this law to prohibit any citizen who is legally empowered to have a firearm, from securing that firearm within their personal vehicle. Florida law permits this.
As to the question of Disney's so-called property rights extending to VISITORS personal vehicles (parked in Disney's parking lots) that will be a question for the Florida courts. Good luck with that one, Mickey.
I want to emphasize that this discussion pertains to EMPLOYEES of Disney or other similar firms.
There is nothing in this law to prohibit any citizen who is legally empowered to have a firearm, from securing that firearm within their personal vehicle. Florida law permits this.
As to the question of Disney's so-called property rights extending to VISITORS personal vehicles (parked in Disney's parking lots) that will be a question for the Florida courts. Good luck with that one, Mickey.
That's it- if your argument is hollow and indefensible, resort to ad hominem attacks.
Like these:
Funny thing is that I have yet to see one fact that supports the "private property rights" argument that has not either been disproven or is not personal opinion.
The facts presented and knocked down so far:
1 "If you don't like the rules, you should get another job somewhere else." This one is a mix of personal opinion, and disproven fact. The Government has already shown that they can dictate employment conditions through laws about minimum wage, workplace safety, and discrimination.
2 "It is my property, I can make rules as I see fit." Again, an incorrect assumption, since the government can require handicapped parking, and prohibit discrimination, require a license to operate, sell liquor, prohibit smoking, and a host of other rules that affect your property rights.
3 The only argument left- attack the person presenting the facts instead of attacking the facts.
Like these:
You should be thrilled with the upcoming presidential election. One of the candidiates wants even more government intervention and mandates.
Divemedic. That was an excellent cut and paste.
Some here think that by typing out a long response you are automatically right.
Funny thing is that I have yet to see one fact that supports the "private property rights" argument that has not either been disproven or is not personal opinion.
The facts presented and knocked down so far:
1 "If you don't like the rules, you should get another job somewhere else." This one is a mix of personal opinion, and disproven fact. The Government has already shown that they can dictate employment conditions through laws about minimum wage, workplace safety, and discrimination.
2 "It is my property, I can make rules as I see fit." Again, an incorrect assumption, since the government can require handicapped parking, and prohibit discrimination, require a license to operate, sell liquor, prohibit smoking, and a host of other rules that affect your property rights.
3 The only argument left- attack the person presenting the facts instead of attacking the facts.
I am not disputing the fact that the government has laws regarding private property rights and usage. I just contend that most of them are wrong.
That is like the rules of business
1. The boss is always right
2. When the boss is wrong refer to rules #1.
There are a lot of laws that I don't agree with and think are wrong but I can't go around breaking them and expect to get away with it without a lot of time, trouble and money. The only things I can do is either work to get them changed or sit around and bitch about them on an Internet message board.
allenomics
New member
Follow Up
Guard fired by Disney after gun protest files lawsuit in Orlando
Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
July 12, 2008
Former Walt Disney World security guard Edwin Sotomayor filed a lawsuit Friday in state Circuit Court in Orlando, challenging Disney's ban on employees bringing guns to work and seeking to get his job back.
Sotomayor, 36, of Kissimmee was fired Monday from his job as an unarmed, uniformed security officer at Disney's Animal Kingdom. Disney said he refused to cooperate with investigators who wanted to know whether he had brought a gun to work with him last Friday, as he had suggested he would. He did bring a gun -- a .45-caliber Springfield, he said -- but he would not talk with Disney officials about it because he thinks he has the right to bring the gun to work and not be subject to search.
The dispute arose from a new Florida law that allows people with concealed-weapons permits to keep guns locked in their vehicle trunks in employee parking lots. Disney World claims it is exempt from the law because of a provision that makes exceptions for companies holding certain federal permits for use of explosives. Disney holds such a permit for its fireworks shows.
Jon H. Gutmacher, Sotomayor's lawyer, said the burden of proof will be on Disney to show that it is exempt from the law.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction that would force Disney to return Sotomayor to his job. Gutmacher said Sotomayor also wants Disney to say he has the right to bring his gun to work in his car, "or we'll be right back here."
Disney spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez responded: "We have no idea what this lawsuit is about. It doesn't change our position that the exemption is clear. We won't compromise the safety of our guests and cast members at the Walt Disney World Resort."
Guard fired by Disney after gun protest files lawsuit in Orlando
Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
July 12, 2008
Former Walt Disney World security guard Edwin Sotomayor filed a lawsuit Friday in state Circuit Court in Orlando, challenging Disney's ban on employees bringing guns to work and seeking to get his job back.
Sotomayor, 36, of Kissimmee was fired Monday from his job as an unarmed, uniformed security officer at Disney's Animal Kingdom. Disney said he refused to cooperate with investigators who wanted to know whether he had brought a gun to work with him last Friday, as he had suggested he would. He did bring a gun -- a .45-caliber Springfield, he said -- but he would not talk with Disney officials about it because he thinks he has the right to bring the gun to work and not be subject to search.
The dispute arose from a new Florida law that allows people with concealed-weapons permits to keep guns locked in their vehicle trunks in employee parking lots. Disney World claims it is exempt from the law because of a provision that makes exceptions for companies holding certain federal permits for use of explosives. Disney holds such a permit for its fireworks shows.
Jon H. Gutmacher, Sotomayor's lawyer, said the burden of proof will be on Disney to show that it is exempt from the law.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction that would force Disney to return Sotomayor to his job. Gutmacher said Sotomayor also wants Disney to say he has the right to bring his gun to work in his car, "or we'll be right back here."
Disney spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez responded: "We have no idea what this lawsuit is about. It doesn't change our position that the exemption is clear. We won't compromise the safety of our guests and cast members at the Walt Disney World Resort."
Unregistered
Moderator
I thought Disney used fireworks not "deal" them?
Sigh... once again someone has not read the law.
Anybody that holds a LICENSE for fireworks is exempt from the law. All you have to have is a LICENSE. Disney has the LICENSE and is therefore exempt.
Actually, I think that a case can be made for more than that, and so does Mr Gutmacher. The statute says:
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.
Since Disney did not obtain the permit "to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials" on their property, but merely to receive explosives from other licensees purely for the purpose of fireworks exhibitions, the attorneys for Disney may not have a case here. It depends on how the court wishes to rule in this case, and the Legislative intent will weigh heavily on the court's decision. At any rate, the burden of proof is now on Disney to show that they are exempt from the law. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
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.
Since Disney did not obtain the permit "to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials" on their property, but merely to receive explosives from other licensees purely for the purpose of fireworks exhibitions, the attorneys for Disney may not have a case here. It depends on how the court wishes to rule in this case, and the Legislative intent will weigh heavily on the court's decision. At any rate, the burden of proof is now on Disney to show that they are exempt from the law. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Unregistered
Moderator
I believe Disney imports fireworks directly, and does not go through a US distributor.
Not exactly. 18 USC 841 defines the terms thusly:
(g) “Importer” means any person engaged in the business of importing or bringing explosive materials into the United States for purposes of sale or distribution.
(h) “Manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use.
Disney will have their work cut out for them.
(g) “Importer” means any person engaged in the business of importing or bringing explosive materials into the United States for purposes of sale or distribution.
(h) “Manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use.
Disney will have their work cut out for them.
Disney will have their work cut out for them.
I wouldn't be so sure. First off, understand that the exception in the law here was likely made specifically for the benefit of Disney. Companies like Disney can wield enough power to get special exemptions in the law. In Delaware, for example, there is an exception to the law against NFA weapons for "reaserch and development" - otherwise known as the "DuPont exception" so despite the prohibition, DuPont (and their subsidiary at the time, Remington) could possess NFA weapons.
Second, while I haven't looked at the legislative history of the law, my guess is that the intent of the legislature was to allow individuals or companies handling explosives, whether dealing or using to be excluded from the law and prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises if they have an explosives license or a limited permit. Do you really think the intent of the legislature was to provide an exemption to companies which move fireworks in interstate commerce, but not those who store and use them under the same type federal license?
Furthermore, federal law requires a license to ship or receive explosives in interstate commerce. Disney is probably one of the largest consumers of fireworks and explosives in the country, and most certainly the state of Florida. It would be silly to assume they buy from an in-state distributor at the retail level on a limited permit, rather than a license. They have a license because they receive (and use) explosives in interterstate commerce. The fact that they are also the end user is immaterial as to the issue of whether they need the license to merely receive them.
I won't even bother going too far into the fact that Disney can easily allege he was not fired for possessing a weapon on company, but denying the search. That one's been raised before; he should have allowed them to search and find the gun.
Unregistered
Moderator
Technically I believe that Disney could argue they sell fireworks. They are included in the cost of admission to the park. Visitors pay to see the show.
Not true. Both of you. The law says that the license must be to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.
True, but the state law not only says that you must have the license, but that it must be for the purpose of engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on your exempt property.
The law doesn't say that you must simply have a license, but it specifies the purpose for which you must have it. Sure, Disney's lawyers lobbied for the change, but the Senators who voted for it have said that they never intended for it to be used to exempt a theme park. Whether the court will see it that way remains to be determined. To say it is a slam dunk is to fail to understand how laws are challenged. It is not up to Mr Sotomeyer to prove the law applies to Disney, it is up to Disney to prove that they are exempt.
Rep Mayfield, who wrote the bill, said: "The legislation was not intended to exempt Disney or other theme parks, Disney is just exploiting a loophole. The purpose of that exemption is for military contractors that are handling explosives or radioactive material or that sort of situation.”
Not allowing the search is also immaterial, the law states that you may not take any action against an employee for refusing a search of your vehicle.
Exhibiting fireworks for a fee does not mean you are selling them any more than selling tickets to a football game means you are selling football players.
don't you people even read the law before you develop an opinion?
Furthermore, federal law requires a license to ship or receive explosives in interstate commerce.
True, but the state law not only says that you must have the license, but that it must be for the purpose of engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on your exempt property.
The law doesn't say that you must simply have a license, but it specifies the purpose for which you must have it. Sure, Disney's lawyers lobbied for the change, but the Senators who voted for it have said that they never intended for it to be used to exempt a theme park. Whether the court will see it that way remains to be determined. To say it is a slam dunk is to fail to understand how laws are challenged. It is not up to Mr Sotomeyer to prove the law applies to Disney, it is up to Disney to prove that they are exempt.
Rep Mayfield, who wrote the bill, said: "The legislation was not intended to exempt Disney or other theme parks, Disney is just exploiting a loophole. The purpose of that exemption is for military contractors that are handling explosives or radioactive material or that sort of situation.”
Not allowing the search is also immaterial, the law states that you may not take any action against an employee for refusing a search of your vehicle.
Exhibiting fireworks for a fee does not mean you are selling them any more than selling tickets to a football game means you are selling football players.
don't you people even read the law before you develop an opinion?