FL and bringing guns to work...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you’re willing to have legislated what someone can do with their property, don’t complain when the same legislature outlaws your guns.

Sounds like the whining is coming from the hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Why do some people repeatedly post the same line that has been firmly repudiated multiple times instead of trying something new?

One more time ...

The point of everything above is that LAWS can and DO override property rights. Even though it's my property, I have to follow all city, county, state and Federal laws while I'm on my property. I can't legally smoke pot, run a brothel, or do anything else illegal.

Same with corporate property. If the law is that you MUST let people using your parking lot leave guns in their car, there's nothing wrong with that.

As for my private driveway ... I havent opened that up for public use. I imagine the same laws would apply ... but if I don't like those laws I'll just put up no trespassing signs and not let anyone but myself parkt there. And if a company doesn't like the laws they can close down their parking lot. They can deny everyone access to it.

But the bottom line is a law forcing parking lots opened up for public use to allow civilians with CCW permits to leave weapons locked in their personal cars is legal, violates no property rights, is moral, and is a balance with individual rights already granted. It is NOT taking away someone's rights, so there is not danger of alienating someone from offending mine.
 
Not flaming you. Not prejudiced against corporations. I just recognize that natural rights do not apply here.

Even so, the situation that we are speaking of here involves the rights of two different parties, and when the rights of two people conflict and are mutually exclusive, one or both parties must lose a measure of rights.

Saying that I can avoid the situation by not shopping there makes as much sense as saying that one can avoid the situation by not opening to the public.

Perhaps instead of making absolute statements like that, we could allow the owners to prohibit weapons, but make them civilly and criminally liable for any subsequent damage done as a result of the failed policy if I am shot or robbed while disarmed.
 
I keep checking back, but haven’t seen anything new from the anti-other-guy’s-rights crowd here, but I found something myself this morning.

http://www.local6.com/news/15639652/detail.html

Commissioners in Martin County have unanimously passed an ordinance allowing county employees to go onto private property without permission to kill Africanized bees and treat areas where mosquitoes are breeding.

The county's mosquito control administrator Gene Lemire said the county already responds to bee and mosquito complaints with the permission of property owners.

But he said they have had an increasing number of incidents in which property owners either cannot be found or are unwilling to clean up the infestation themselves.
Click to expand...

Then they’ll pass an ordinance which allows county employees to trespass to kill mosquito’s. Then they’ll allow trespass to check if your swimming pool has a fence around it. Then to see if that shed you put up needs a permit. Then they’ll allow armed county employees to trespass because people get angry when their rights are violated. Then they’ll pass an ordinance to ban guns, because people keep foolishly resisting the “lawful” trespass.

See where this is going gentlemen? Property rights are as important as gun rights. As goes one, so goes the other. Either you support fundamental rights or you don’t. In the long run, I don't think your strategy is going to work out to your liking.
 
I don't know why I keep bothering ... but what the heck ...

Commissioners in Martin County have unanimously passed an ordinance allowing county employees to go onto private property without permission to kill Africanized bees and treat areas where mosquitoes are breeding.

The county's mosquito control administrator Gene Lemire said the county already responds to bee and mosquito complaints with the permission of property owners.

But he said they have had an increasing number of incidents in which property owners either cannot be found or are unwilling to clean up the infestation themselves.
Click to expand...

Then they’ll pass an ordinance which allows county employees to trespass to kill mosquito’s. Then they’ll allow trespass to check if your swimming pool has a fence around it. Then to see if that shed you put up needs a permit. Then they’ll allow armed county employees to trespass because people get angry when their rights are violated. Then they’ll pass an ordinance to ban guns, because people keep foolishly resisting the “lawful” trespass.

See where this is going gentlemen? Property rights are as important as gun rights. As goes one, so goes the other. Either you support fundamental rights or you don’t. In the long run, I don't think your strategy is going to work out to your liking.
Click to expand...

Do I see where this is going? Yes I do. A little thing called a civilized society that balances the right of the individual with the duties of the local community to protect itself. That's why we set up local communities and laws and police forces in the first place vs. just all grabbing land and then protecting it with guns and violence.

If my neighbor is never around and has some kind of mosquito infested body of water (such as a pool that has been untended in years) and my baby daughter gets a life threatening disease spread by mosquitos when the county WOULD have done something about the mosquitoes if such a law had been in place, I can imagine my conversation as she lays on her death bed:

ME: My lovely daughter, I'm sorry you have to die. But I respect my neighbor's property rights too much to allow the county to spray there for mosquitoes. A man on the internet convinced me that if I allowed the county to take action against him I'd be giving up my gun rights.
REALLY SMART DAUGHTERBut Daddy ... that mosquito pond endangers the entire neighborhood. Don't we form governments and laws to protect our selves from such things? And since the RKBA is enshrined directly in the constitution and your owning a firearm endangers no one else, how does this relate?
ME: Darling ... don't you see? The internet guy knows best. Apparently allowing for easements are OK, but anything else endangers all our civil liberties. Laws are all or nothing, you know. If I allow the county to spray for deadly mosquitoes, I'm allowing them to do anything. I mean *laughs* it's not like you can write a law to deal with a specific issue. The internet guy told me that.
REALLY SMART DAUGHTER: You need to quit believing everything you need on the internet.

So no, Mr. Little, the sky is not falling just because we pass a law limiting what you can do if you allow the public on your property. Nor if we allow local governments to take specific actions on your property (there is already a long list) without your consent. For criminal actions they still need a warrant, of course, but for legitimate matters of public safety, identified by our elected local governments that are answerable to ourselves, there is a law that can just be legislated.

There are few more rights limited in this country than property rights. And often (not always) for good reasons.
 
I only bother so that I can keep you tied to your computer.... leaving you less time to be violating someone's property rights.
Click to expand...

LOL. Your diabolical plan is working! I was so busy responding to this thread that I didn't have time to file a complaint with the HOA about the neighbor's rose bush that is CLEARLY violates covenants by being 5 inches too close to the sidewalk! :eek:

(actually ... I don't live in a covenant controlled community and hopefully never will ... but I would even say that those people who do choose to live there and support such things have as much right to pass civil agreements as they do to have the county/city/state pass legal agreements as to what is/isn't acceptable on private property).
 
The Florida Chamber of Commerce and by extension, tens of thousands of businesses are leading the fight against the measure.

Many non gun owners and even some who support gun rights, like me, believe the proposed law goes too far.

I run a business that prohibits guns. Way too much liability!

Advocates should reconsider their position and look objectively at the proposal from every viewpoint. Private property rights should prevail.

Pushing too hard could sway public opinion against broader gun rights.
 
If I owned a corporation I would ban Democrats from my property. It would take time away from my productive employees to do their work for them or to deal with their BS as customers. :D
 
The only way I would support such a law is if the business that prohibits my right to self defense is held civilly liable for any harm that comes to me as a result of a no firearms policy. I am curious- can you answer the following (not a flame- I really want to know how you feel)

For those of you that are believe in the "property rights" viewpoint-

- Do you think that you should be liable for harms that occur on your property, especially if your decisions or policies contributed to the harm?
- Do you think that your property right outweighs the right of others to self defense?
- If your property rights decision results in a gun free zone, and people are massacred on your property, should the property owner be liable, if you did not have armed security on the property, or make other reasonable arrangements to secure the safety of those whom you disarmed with your policy?
- In your opinion, how goes this jibe with the requirement that property owners provide emergency exits, fire extinguishers, etc.?
- If your property rights decision is to lock your emergency exits, and someone perishes in a fire on that property, should you be free from legal liability?
- Do you believe that gun free zones are effective?
- Do you believe that a criminal intent on killing others will be concerned that they are violating your no weapons policy?
 
There is an easy answer to the property rights question.

Your car is your property so if your gun is sitting in your car it's technically on your property. Now your gun is on your property which is on the business owners' property with their consent. Since the business owners' property rights don't extend inside your car; if they don't want guns in cars on their property they would have to ban cars from their parking lots. They would have every right to do this but what would you want to bet that they wouldn't? Problem solved. :D:cool:
 
If you’re willing to have legislated what someone can do with their property, don’t complain when the same legislature outlaws your guns.

Sounds like the whining is coming from the hypocrites.
Click to expand...
As a Floridian gunowner who has carried in direct defiance of company policy for many years, I have to agree

This is a battle cover whose rights get trumped nothing more
I side more with the property owners

Some of the arguments I have heard here are poorly thought out at best and ridiculously ridiculous at worst
 
Two issues: The State doesn't ALLOW you to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights doesn't either. The BoR merely outlines SOME of the God-given inalienable rights of a Person and LIMITS Gov't with the others.

A Corporation has been interpreted to have the rights of a Person. Without the risks associated with being a Person. Unlawful even if legal.
 
The only way I would support such a law is if the business that prohibits my right to self defense is held civilly liable for any harm that comes to me as a result of a no firearms policy.
Click to expand...

Why not hold the assailant liable, criminally and civilly?
 
As a Floridian gunowner who has carried in direct defiance of company policy for many years, I have to agree

This is a battle cover whose rights get trumped nothing more
I side more with the property owners

Some of the arguments I have heard here are poorly thought out at best and ridiculously ridiculous at worst
Click to expand...

What a well thought out and coherent position. Thank you for sharing.

Why not hold the assailant liable, criminally and civilly?
Click to expand...

Accountable for the decision that the property owner made?
 
What a well thought out and coherent position. Thank you for sharing.
Click to expand...
OK I guess you need examples

Poorly thought out
ABSOLUTELY! So if I want to prohibit shirt and bra possession for women between 18 and 25,
Click to expand...
Ever heard of a strip club, they pretty much enforce that rule at every one I ever went to

Or if I want to prohibit union brochures, canes/walkers/crutches/eyeglasses, etc., I can do that too. Right?
Click to expand...
You do have the right to restrict publications from being passed out on your property and as to the rest look up the Americans With Disabilities Act
The government has already suceeded in tell property owners who they have to allow on their property with the establishment of protected groups

How can a corporation have property rights?
Click to expand...
The corporatinon ois owned by people, people have the rights

One could easily say that a corporation need not follow fire codes, or product safety laws. "If you don't like it, don't buy it."
Click to expand...
Public safety issues

Collectively, a group of individuals that ban together to avoid liability do not have more rights than a single individual.
Click to expand...
Neither should that group have less rights than an individual
And how do they FIND that firearm in my vehicle? They have to SEARCH my vehicle. How about my property and privacy rights?
Click to expand...
You willingly signed them away when you accepted the terms of employment

Call me a hypocrite, but I am not going to let myself become a victim to a violent crime to save some company a few bucks on their insurance premium.
Click to expand...
No one forces you to enter the building and why do you feel that your feeling that a gun makes you safer justifies forcing the property owner to have to pay more in insurance premiums

Ridiculous
Can Disney sell cocaine on their land?
Click to expand...
Can IBM sacrifice virgins?
Click to expand...
Can Winn Dixie require employees to have sex with Corporate executives?
Click to expand...
You are aware that you cannot do these things on your private property also right? There are many laws prohibiting drug trafficing, murder, and rape no matter where they occur
More business' need to ban women wearing bras and tops.. it is their right after all.... Lemme know when and where...
Click to expand...
Thee Doll House on SOBT every day from 10am to 2 am
Click to expand...
 
I'm for property owners rights, but this one needs limitations..

a little diffrent example if there is a business that has a common (public) parking area for customers (mall, shopping center, grocery store, retail establishment, etc)

and a business that has a private separate area that employees only (not the public) has access to (think of a fenced in area where only employees of a business park, and is not shared by the public, or other businesses)

in the example of the private parking area, I'm all for property owners rights, also as far as no firearms, well if that is the company policy, it should be posted publicly, if the business deals with the public. (there are some business that don't deal a lot with the public, (lab testing, consulting, etc))
the same rights extend to all groups of people, employees and the general public.


The business that has a public shared parking lot, either shared by other businesses, or by the public, with no barriers to access, has all the rights associated with public property, not private property, as far as use.
so I would not agree to the principle of no weapons in a private vehicle, on private, but publicly used property.

if the company wishes to have their employees unarmed while on their property, it should be treated as private (limited to the use of employees only) property.

not much diffrent than a easement here..
someone owns the property
someone grants limited use over a specified part of the property, for a specified purpose, all other rights are reserved.

if both the public and the employees rights are the same, I see less of a issue with this.

but when the public has access to use a parking lot on private property, that is not posted with signs specifing what the terms are, and goes into a business that has no signs specifing what their policies are, and the employee has only a manual stating what company policies are, I don't see that both groups of people have the same rights..
 
A more ridiculous case of taking things out of context/not understanding points I've never seen. Even on this forum. To set you straight ...

ABSOLUTELY! So if I want to prohibit shirt and bra possession for women between 18 and 25,
Click to expand...

Ever heard of a strip club, they pretty much enforce that rule at every one I ever went to
Click to expand...

NO. A strip club does NOT enforce any rules against women being dressed. Female patrons can come and go as they please while fully dressed. In most clubs non-strippers (i.e. cleaning crew, bar tenders) do not undress and cannot be forced to do so (a strip club owner who told his nighttime janitor she had to work naked would probably go to jail).

Undressing is a condition of employment for stripper, not a condition of entering the facility. And a necessary condition of employment, as hiring a stripper who won't undress is like hiring a mechanic who refuses to fix cars.

Likewise, a company that hires women to work as mechanics CANNOT have any rules or conditions of employment that force them to undress. Did you think they could?

But I can't think of a job that would be affected because the employee has a gun locked up out in his car. Because there isn't one.

Or if I want to prohibit union brochures, canes/walkers/crutches/eyeglasses, etc., I can do that too. Right?
Click to expand...

You do have the right to restrict publications from being passed out on your property and as to the rest look up the Americans With Disabilities Act
The government has already suceeded in tell property owners who they have to allow on their property with the establishment of protected groups
Click to expand...

NO! ... you cannot stop union brochures and information being passed out on your property. You cannot stop union organizing activities on your property. That's the law. The rights of your workers and society (as defined by law) TRUMP your property rights 100%.

And the ADA is another proof to my point. There is huge precedent and plenty of moral reasons to enforce rules on private property owners as to who they can allow on their property. Even as to how they have to set up their property to accomodate people. The ADA TRUMPS your property rights 100%.

Call me a hypocrite, but I am not going to let myself become a victim to a violent crime to save some company a few bucks on their insurance premium.
Click to expand...

No one forces you to enter the building and why do you feel that your feeling that a gun makes you safer justifies forcing the property owner to have to pay more in insurance premiums
Click to expand...

No one forces the building owner to allow the public into their building either. Does the owner have to pay more insurance for allowing disabled people on his property? I don't know. Or care. As a society we have said that if a company is going to own a business, a minimum rule of running that business is that they MUST make accomodations for people with disabilities.

In the same manner, if we decide as a society (via our elected leaders) that we are all made safer by making sure people are able to carry their legal weapons with them, then companies MUST accomodate that. And if it raises some kind of insurance rate (very doubtful) then it raises it for all companies and keeps the playing field level.

The same arguments are repeated over and over above, but I'm realy sick of reading the "but property owners have rights" whine. AS has been proven repeatedly, the laws passed by society to make society safer TRUMP those property rights. This is NOT AN ISSUE and there is not point in debating it, because such a law is legal and has plenty of precedent to make it so.

The only argument is whether it's best or not for society, and that is a matter of personal opinion. Not saying we should debate it, but understand that arguing for property rights is pointless because property rights are not violated by this law, anymore than by all the other laws mentioned.

So just to recap a few of the MANY laws that TRUMP property rights for the public safety:

  • Union Organizing Rules
  • ADA
  • Fire Safety (inspections, etc.)
  • Health Rules (particularly for restaurants)
  • Labor Laws (OSHA, etc.)
  • A myriad of public easements (sidewalks, utility lines, etd.)
  • Height of building laws
  • zoning ordinances
  • Any illegal activity (growing pot, drugs, violence, etc.)

I'm sure there are more ... above are just some general examples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top