Disney employee suspended for carrying a firearm in his vehicle

[shaggy]

Here's my copy of the exeption in FL law; correct me if its wrong and, if so, provide a link to the proper text.

(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,

Disney probably uses, stores and transports more explosive material than every other federal licensee in the state combined. By that section alone, I think Disney is covered. But the definition continues:

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

At a minimum, Disney obtained a license to engage in the act of dealing, but I would not be surprised if they do some manufacturing and quite possibly direct importing of explosive material. The act of merely receiving explosive material in interstate commerce and/or otherwise disposing of that explosive material constitutes dealing and requires a federal license.

Furthermore, while the act does prohibit an employer from searching a vehicle specifically for firearms, Disney could retain the right to search the vehicle for other reasons as a condition of employment (drugs, explosives, anything unrelated to firearms, or even no reason at all). By refusing a general search, not related to firearms, he could have violated the terms of his employment agreement to allow a search for other materials.

 

[divemedic]

(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,

That is the correct text, but I don't think that anyone can claim that the PRIMARY business that Disney carries out on exempt property has anything to do with anything except tourism.

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

This part of the law is slightly trickier. In order to be dealing in explosives, Disney will have to prove that they are selling explosives at wholesale or retail. They are not selling at retail, and I don't know if they are selling wholesale. That burden of proof will be Disney's standard to meet. The same goes for manufacturing.

The definition of dealing does not include simply receiving. From 18 USC 841:

(i) "Dealer" means any person engaged in the business of
distributing explosive materials at wholesale or retail.

In addition, Disney will have to prove that the property which they are licensed for is the same property that the parking area is located on, because the law states that they are only exempt for the property. That is going to be a bit trickier. Disney has purposely subdivided their property for purposes including tax reasons, alcohol sales, voting, and other various reasons. The Disney complex is over 100,000 acres spanning four counties, 6 zip codes, an improvement district, and 2 incorporated cities. That doesn't include the beach clubs, condos, the sea port, or any of the miscellaneous Disney stores that are located throughout the state. Also, this could not include any of the hotels, restaurants or shops that lease property from Disney.

Disney was specifically searching for firearms in Mr Sotomeyer's car. They said so in the press release, they said so to the Deputies who were there, they said so to Mr. Sotomeyer when they attempted to search, when they suspended him, and again when they fired him.

Proof:

Mr Sotomayer announces that he intends to bring a gun to work in his car.

Here, he is suspended for refusing the search. In the article, they claim he has video.

Here they fire him.


Note that in each case, the Disney representative announces that they did what they did because they believe they are exempt from the law. There is no way they can claim that they fired him for anything else. This entire case will hinge on whether or not Disney is exempt from the law.

 

[shaggy]

That is the correct text, but I don't think that anyone can claim that the PRIMARY business that Disney carries out on exempt property has anything to do with anything except tourism.

Given the amount of fireworks and explosives Disney uses, stores, and transports, I'd say thats a distinction without a difference. It may not be their primary business, but by sheer volume alone, its probably far in excess of any other primary dealer/manufacturer in the state if not the entire east coast.

Disney will have to prove that they are selling explosives at wholesale or retail

No they don't. Receiving in interstate commerce and or otherwise disposing of explosive material constitutes dealing and requires a license. Read the federal law with respect to the activities which require a license, and further, the definition of "distribute".

In addition, Disney will have to prove that the property which they are licensed for is the same property that the parking area is located on, because the law states that they are only exempt for the property

Not really. Read the law - it pertains to property owned by an employer who has obtained an explosives permit " to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property". They have an explosives permit so they can engage in those activities on their property - if they wanted to set up a fireworks stand or receive a shipment of fireworks in the parking lot, they could. As far as I'm aware, the license does not specify any single part of a licensee's land the licensed activities must take place upon, as long as its in the same jurisdiction as the license. (IOW if the parking lot is in another county that the licensed premises, they may have a problem).

 

[Unregistered]

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.

No, I disagree, and think Disney will be able to easily convince a jury of this. Especially a jury in Orlando.

I think the intent of the law could be construed in court to mean that lawmakers did not want places that had a lot of fireworks around to also have a lot of guns around..

Of course, I don't blame the guard for suing Disney. Its a huge corporation with a lot of money. I don't know whether they will want to fight this one in court or just pay the money whore off and be done with it.

The employee must be a man without many scruples. Why else would he lie to get a job with a company whose policies differ from his own views?

 

[divemedic]

He isn't suing for money. He has not asked for monetary damages. AFAIK, he is looking for an injunction. You know, like Heller did. I guess Heller and Gura were whores too.

Why else would he lie to get a job with a company whose policies differ from his own views?

How did he lie?

 

[shaggy]

Its a huge corporation with a lot of money. I don't know whether they will want to fight this one in court or just pay the money whore off and be done with it.

My guess is that they will fight it tooth an nail. When its time to lawyer up, Disney doesn't mess around.

 

[STAGE 2]

Has anyone bothered to ask the question of whether the license that Disney has is the same type required in sec 843? If so all this arguing is irrelevant.

 

[PT111]

I will be willing to bet that Disney has several lawyers on staff and has consulted independent lawyers throughout all of this and are not getting their information off of Internet message boards.

I don't know whether they are right or wrong and if they will win this case or not but I guarantee you that they have already discussed this in great detail with knowledgeable attorneys who know the exact wording and definitions of the laws and permits.

 

[Unregistered]

How did he lie?

He promised to abide by company regulations when he took the job. One of them was to not carry a gun to work.

If he is not suing for money, then how will an unemployed security guard afford a lawyer? How did he get a lawyer to take the case if there is no hope for a payment at the end? Did the NRA take up the case for him?

 

[divemedic]

Gutmacher felt the case was good enough that he took the case on contingency, meaning the winner will be awarded legal fees. Also, they were at the last gun show accepting donations, and are also accepting donations at Gutmacher's address. I posted a thread on that yesterday.

Gutmacher is no fool. Many (including myself) consider him to be the best firearms attorney in the state.

He promised to abide by company regulations when he took the job. One of them was to not carry a gun to work.

Any promise made that violates the law is void. If company policy mandated that he had to work for half pay if he were black, it would be void. Same thing here, the company is in violation of the law, so the man is suing.

 

[shaggy]

Has anyone bothered to ask the question of whether the license that Disney has is the same type required in sec 843? If so all this arguing is irrelevant.

Yes, we're partly assuming they have a license since the company has publicly stated that as its defense to the FL law in question. Disney is the largest users of fireworks in the country (90,000 lbs/year) and has been more involved in developing fireworks technology in the last few years. I'd say its a pretty safe assumption they have a license as per sec. 843. Even if thats not the secific license they have, the professional grade fireworks they use are a federally regulated item.

 

[Unregistered]

Any promise made that violates the law is void.

I don't think it violated the law, since Disney is exempt from it. It is very unlikely a central Florida jury is going to rule against Disney. But I don't blame the lawyer for trying. Its like playing the slots.

 

[KyJim]

I know Disney has a number of subsidiaries, partnerships, limited liability companies, and the like. Does anybody know for a fact the legal entity with the license is the same legal entity which hired the guard?