FL and bringing guns to work...

[surveyor]

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.

+1 on this..

I take the belief that your vehicle is your private property, no matter where it is parked, if it is parked on a public parking area or a fenced private aera, makes no diffrence..

the diffrence made is when you step out of your vehicle..

once again by use.. we have insurance for loss, theft, damage to vehicles, we have laws relating to firearms and lawful carry in vehicles, they are treated as private property, castle doctrine applies, etc..these are at the state level..

my above post relates more to ccw outside of vehicle..not storage inside..

I'm well aware that other things trump property rights.. the list was good, and there are others as well.

Imformative post..

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I take the belief that your vehicle is your private property, no matter where it is parked, if it is parked on a public parking area or a fenced private aera, makes no diffrence..

I agree. If they find drugs in a vehicle, who gets busted, the car owner or the land owner?

What is in the vehicle is of no concern to the person owning the parking lot. (of course, those opposed will now bring up bombs, explosives, nuclear weapons, poison gas, etc...)

 

[divemedic]

1 As the point that a property owner can prohibit a person from passing out union brochures while on the clock. That is fine with me. He just can't prohibit me from having a union brochure in the trunk of my car. Same with guns- he can prohibit me from firing a gun (or perhaps even carrying one) while on the clock, but not prohibit me from having one in my car.

You state that the corporation should not have less rights than an individual- but by forming a corporation, they already have a legal framework in place to dodge responsibility and liability.

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

Of course there are. Why is that? Because the rights of a person not to get raped, murdered, etc. trump the rights of the property owner. My exact point. Soon, there will be a law that prohibits a property owner from disarming me.

As I said before, if a property owner wishes to deny people the right to self defense, then that property owner should be responsible for providing suitable security, or face liability if they fail to do so.

 

[allenomics]

Accountable for the decision that the property owner made?

Right...LOL. No, holding the assailant accountable for his/her actions against the employee.

 

[joab]

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

The bill is not about allowing patrons to have guns in their cars it's about employees having guns in their cars and whether employers have the righjt to determine what their employees do on company property
And no where did I say that every female in a strip club has to endure a certain state of undress
But the fact undeniably remains that a club owner has the absolute right to require that females working in his establishment maintain the level of undress that he deems consistent with their employment
Eevr see a dancer strip down to a full length duster

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%.

if true that's no better than what is being done to employers now
They should have the right to determine what is distributed on their own property
If in fact they can not that does not makes this bill any less a violation of property rights
I don't agree with the ADA either, that also does not make this bill any better
Just adding more wrongs to the list

No one forces the building owner to allow the public into their building either.

.You lost me there
The company offers a job the employee accepts it under the conditions the employers outlines it's all voluntary

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.

Well thanks for outlining the discussion, but I think we havd already figured it out

The same arguments are repeated over and over above, but I'm realy sick of reading the "but property owners have rights" whine.

Just as I'm sick of the other sides whining and trying to paint this as something on par with the civil rights movement
This is nothing more than the selfishness of one group trying to enforce it's will on another, no matter which side of the argument
you are on

Piling up a list of abuses against private property rights to support your case is no different than piling up a list of 2nd amendment violations to support more gun control

 

[Garand Illusion]

Just as I'm sick of the other sides whining and trying to paint this as something on par with the civil rights movement
This is nothing more than the selfishness of one group trying to enforce it's will on another, no matter which side of the argument
you are on

Piling up a list of abuses against private property rights to support your case is no different than piling up a list of 2nd amendment violations to support more gun control

More blatant illogic. Violations fot he 2nd amendment are violations of a civil liberty. Unless the military is trying to quarter troops on your private property, there are very few constitutional protections for property owners.

And since the 2nd amendment is a civil right, arguing for the ability to exercise that right IS a civil rights movement. Woolworth's cafeteria's used to think it was their right to restrict black diners -- after all, they own the property, right? Guess they got set straight!

There is no selfishness on either side. Gun owners are trying to protect their rights, and anti-gun "property owners" are trying to restrict those rights. It's simploy pro-gun vs. anti-gun people.

The bill is not about allowing patrons to have guns in their cars it's about employees having guns in their cars and whether employers have the righjt to determine what their employees do on company property

The issue is the same. It's about whether or not a property owner who has a parking lot open to the public (which includes employees for this discussion) can control what people leave locked in their cars. And rules of employment, even in a "right to work" state like Colorado, are heavily regulated. i.e. in Colorado there is a law that an employer can't fire an employee for doing something that is legal on their own time (put in place to protect smokers, but could also protect shooters from rabid anti-gun employers).

I'm not going to repeat my other arguments, because you didn't really counter any of them. The whole point is very simple:

You argue about what "rights" a property owner has. As I show in a great deal of detail, these "rights" don't exist. For right or wrong, Federal and local government has retained the ability to enforce rules and laws upon private property owners. There are not just one or two exceptions, but many.

You don't have to like it, it's just a fact. If you don't like it, try and change the principle of how we govern and what private property means.

But so long as that principle is in place, there's no reason it should just be used for "liberal" purposes (many of which I do agree with). Because this law puts NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER on the business owner (it doesn't affect him/her if there are guns locked up in cars out in the parking lot). The only argument against it is strictly an ANTI-GUN ARGUMENT. Just another way to try and restrict gun owners, hoping to dissuade more from buying/carrying guns in the guise of a property rights debate.

Just look at the people arguing for it: The Brady Campaign (could care less about any property or contstitutional rights -- has argued for laws that allowed random police searches of registered gunowners) and other anti-gun groups.

If all of your allies are anti-gun groups, there's a good chance your argument is anti-gun.

Because there are no logical or legal reasons to stop employees or the public from leaving legally owned and carried firearms locked in their vehicles. None.

 

[joab]

The issue is the same. It's about whether or not a property owner who has a parking lot open to the public (which includes employees for this discussion) can control what people leave locked in their cars. And rules of employment, even in a "right to work" state like Colorado, are heavily regulated. i.e. in Colorado there is a law that an employer can't fire an employee for doing something that is legal on their own time (put in place to protect smokers, but could also protect shooters from rabid anti-gun employers).

If you can show any instance where a customers car has been searched then I may agree that it is the same issue
The issue is about taking your gun to work not taking your gun shopping
And Colorado may infringe on an employers rights to determine who he wants working for him but Florida doesn't
There are many employers that will fire you if you are seen smoking during working hours whether on property or not
That has been held up by SCOTUS

Using your logic against I could show that there is no right to own a gun, and I can prop that up with as many federal and state sponsored laws to support that as you can to support that there are no property rights

 

[Garand Illusion]

Using your logic against I could show that there is no right to own a gun, and I can prop that up with as many federal and state sponsored laws to support that as you can to support that there are no property rights

But if you did so, I would show you the 2nd amendment which (depending on Heller) proves that I do have a right to own a gun. All laws about that will have to pass some kind of scrutiny, so while there are laws a total ban is not possible (again, depending on Heller). If Heller fails, then you are right, and you CAN show that I have no right to own a gun.

Where is your basis for these property rights? Please enlighten me as to the constitutional clause?

Since this law does not deprive you of your property, it is within the state's control to pass laws as to what you can do on your property.

 

[divemedic]

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.

The strip club analogy has been slightly mis applied. This discussion is not about an employer being forced to allow employees to carry in the workplace- this is about an employer being prohibited from allowing an employee from having a gun locked in his car in the parking lot, thus forcing the employee to be defenseless on the drive to and from work.

A more accurate analogy would be a strip club owner prohibiting his employees from having a shirt in their car, thus forcing his employees to drive to and from work topless.

 

[somedudefromhouston]

I own a small corporation and 2 businesses that are "open to the public" although I never knowingly agreed to that.How exactly is it determined that you are open to the public? And what does that infer? That i must allow any a hole to enter my shop and do what? For how long ?
I have all the city ,county and state permits to operate these businesses in this location.
Yet I feel like my parking lot is the same as my driveway at home.
Its PRIVATE PROPERTY.Mine. I OWN it. Through hard work and diligence.
I make the rules here. I pay the taxes, I paid the mortgage, I pay all of it.
Although I support a No shirts/no Bra rule, I dont think I will push it.
As much as I wish to declare my shop to be in a sovereign state of righteousness, I submit to the powers that be over and outside of my realm.
But I will enforce parking, loitering, or other behavior that I dont want.
Carry by employees has never been an issue. Never will be.
Libertarian at heart, realist at work.

 

[divemedic]

Try to put a sign out front that says "Whites Only" and see where your property rights go.

Try chaining your emergency exits shut.

Operate without a business license. If you had full control over your property, then you could operate without a license. As soon as you have employees or customers, you are open to the public. That makes you subject to a host of laws that do not apply to private homes.

Even if you rent your home out to others, you lose many protections that you would have as a private homeowner.

 

[joab]

Since this law does not deprive you of your property, it is within the state's control to pass laws as to what you can do on your property.

Before I could buy into your no property rights argument I would have to resign myself to agreeing with the Kelo decision, and that aint about to happen

This discussion is not about an employer being forced to allow employees to carry in the workplace- this is about an employer being prohibited from allowing an employee from having a gun locked in his car in the parking lot, thus forcing the employee to be defenseless on the drive to and from work.

No this discussion is about preventing property owners form determining what is appropriate on their property. The employee's safety on the way to and from the property is not the property owners responsibility

 

[grymster2007]

Since this law does not deprive you of your property

The premise of private property is not only that it cannot be taken from the owner. If that were the only benefit to private property, then it would not be worth much. Private property is coveted for the fact that the owner has the exclusive right to determine its use, the proceeds of it's benefits and its transfer.

Any time any of these are infringed in any way the owner is deprived of his/her property. It really does not get any simpler than that.

BTW: this "brady campaign snake oil" spewer grants privilege to concealed carry on his properties, but he reserves the right to review and amend or revoke that privilege at any time.

 

[surveyor]

Private property is coveted for the fact that the owner has the exclusive right to determine its use, the proceeds of it's benefits and its transfer.

Any time any of these are infringed in any way the owner is deprived of his/her property. It really does not get any simpler than that.

not buying into all of that.. private, think residence, or farm, not open to the public, no business going on, no employees, just family.

business is a diffrent matter, if you don't believe me.. think about this..

you have a unimproved peice of property, that you plan to develop into a business (comercial property) to build something on it, drag out a engineer to come up with a plan that puts the required infrastructure in, to comply with storm water run off, drainage structures, holding pond, building, required # of parking areas, utility connections, elevations, amount of pervious to impervious areas, amount of landscape to be replanted, tree credits & debits based on what you cleared, limits of clearing, demolition plan, paving plan,etc..

you also may have a architect to design the building, and have a set of architectural plans for it, as well as a structural engineer to come up with the structural plans..

all of this after you have it surveyed, and locate all the trees on it, and full topography..

not to mention tree removal permits, and any areas you have to set aside for environmental reasons..

not meaning to be long winded here, but basicially your view that as private property you have the exclusive right to determine its use, and the amount of use is not so.

you can only develop a certain percentage of the land,(60% if lucky) and you have to get permits to take out any protected trees that were found, etc..

you have to leave areas natural, and replant others (that's why you see trees planted in curbed islands in parking lots)...you may have to grant a utility easement through your property for others to tie into..

this is just the start of the regulations applied to the business owner..
when employing people you can't discriminate, and all of the other federal labor laws.. etc..
you have to provide access for handicapped folks, due to the fact that you are opening a business up to the public, or have employees..

as far as trying to claim that your parking lot that was required due to local government regulations is on private property, the USE of the property has changed to public when you have employees, and are open to the public..are you going to subject a member of the public to trespass when they are there buying your good or services..

I'm ok with the belief that a vehicle is private property, and subject to laws relating to search, and transport of weapons, where it is parked does not negate that.

if you do not wish weapons on YOUR property, and that does not DENY me of my rights in MY property, well I'm ok with that.. armed trespass and all, you could ask me to leave. (state statue)

the way I see this is I leave my weapons in My property (vehicle) and when I step out of my property onto yours I am abiding...

no diffrent than leaving your weapon in your vehicle while at a government building..Note it does not say government property, that is handled diffrently, a correctional facility, a military base, those are specified..
if it's good enough for government work, its good enough for me..

 

[STAGE 2]

You argue about what "rights" a property owner has. As I show in a great deal of detail, these "rights" don't exist. For right or wrong, Federal and local government has retained the ability to enforce rules and laws upon private property owners. There are not just one or two exceptions, but many.

What planet are you living on? Property owners have all sorts of rights. Ever heard of tresspassing? You keep insisting on this fallacious argument that because there are some regulations on private property there is no such thing as property rights. Thats just bunk.

Because this law puts NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER on the business owner (it doesn't affect him/her if there are guns locked up in cars out in the parking lot).

Thats bunk as well. The employer can potentially be held liable for anything that occurs on their property, especially if they sanction it. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask their insurance company what is going to happen if they start allowing firearms on the property.

Furthermore, this notion that because the gun is in the car its perfectly safe is both incorrect and irresponsible. The potential for a ND ALWAYS exists. Further there is always the possibility of someone breaking into the car (which happens very frequently in large corporate parking lots) and stealing the firearm.

In other words, these notions that 1) it places no burden on the employer and 2) its perfectly safe are simply fabricated.

The only argument against it is strictly an ANTI-GUN ARGUMENT. Just another way to try and restrict gun owners, hoping to dissuade more from buying/carrying guns in the guise of a property rights debate.

A pseudo strawman/ad hominem. Does that make it a 2fer? There is no guise here. Private property does not cease being private property because its owned by a business and not a home owner.

The difference is something that you have created because its much easier to rail against an evil corporation than mom and pop. The irony here is that many many businesses are actually sole proprietorships, partnerships, or LLC's that are family owned.

Bottom line, being pro gun and believeing in property rights are NOT mutually exclusive. Anyone who suggests otherwise has no understanding of the law or our rights.

 

[STAGE 2]

business is a diffrent matter, if you don't believe me.. think about this..

Your example is not relevant. Any of those restrictions that you stated are going to be part of the zoning regs which are readily available to view prior to the time the property is purchased.

 

[grymster2007]

you have a unimproved peice of property, that you plan to develop into a business (comercial property) to build something on it, drag out a engineer to come up with a plan that puts the required infrastructure in, to comply with storm water run off, drainage structures, holding pond, building, required # of parking areas, utility connections, elevations, amount of pervious to impervious areas, amount of landscape to be replanted, tree credits & debits based on what you cleared, limits of clearing, demolition plan, paving plan,etc..

you also may have a architect to design the building, and have a set of architectural plans for it, as well as a structural engineer to come up with the structural plans..

all of this after you have it surveyed, and locate all the trees on it, and full topography..

not to mention tree removal permits, and any areas you have to set aside for environmental reasons..

not meaning to be long winded here, but basicially your view that as private property you have the exclusive right to determine its use, and the amount of use is not so.

you can only develop a certain percentage of the land,(60% if lucky) and you have to get permits to take out any protected trees that were found, etc..

you have to leave areas natural, and replant others (that's why you see trees planted in curbed islands in parking lots)...you may have to grant a utility easement through your property for others to tie into..

this is just the start of the regulations applied to the business owner..
when employing people you can't discriminate, and all of the other federal labor laws.. etc..
you have to provide access for handicapped folks, due to the fact that you are opening a business up to the public, or have employees..

as far as trying to claim that your parking lot that was required due to local government regulations is on private property, the USE of the property has changed to public when you have employees, and are open to the public..are you going to subject a member of the public to trespass when they are there buying your good or services..

So.... you seem to think government regulation of private property is fine and dandy.... unless of course the regulations infringe upon the property most dear to your heart (your gun)..... nice!

That's the problem here. When it comes to rights, most here are stuck on gun; completely missing the connection between real and personal property and the the fact that all fundamental liberties work together with equal importance. If someone else's liberties are trampled, so are yours. And the very, very tired argument that somehow violating property owner's rights does not infringe upon them does not fly with anyone who's actually a champion of a free and just society. They are simply the musings of hypocrites.

BTW: Anyone here ever, EVER have their mind changed on any controversial subject, by reading the arguments posed on these forums? I vow to be open to that, but to date no one has proffered an argument convincing enough!

 

[gc70]

(it doesn't affect him/her if there are guns locked up in cars out in the parking lot)

Furthermore, this notion that because the gun is in the car its perfectly safe is both incorrect and irresponsible. The potential for a ND ALWAYS exists.

The 'vicious gun' argument seems incorrect and irresponsible. Can you cite a case in which "guns locked up in cars" discharged?

 

[Garand Illusion]

I PROMISE this will be my last post on this restating the obvious and that which I have stated over and over. So have fun after this one. If anyone comes up with something new maybe I'll post ... but so far I've just seen repeats of arguments already dealt with by multiple posters.

What planet are you living on? Property owners have all sorts of rights. Ever heard of tresspassing? You keep insisting on this fallacious argument that because there are some regulations on private property there is no such thing as property rights. Thats just bunk.

I never actually said there was no such thing as property rights. But there are NO property rights that trump the law. None. All the laws of the land extend to your property, it is still part of the United States, etc. This debate is about property rights vs. laws. And it is clear that laws win. Every time.

Trespassing would be if I violate your ALLOWABLE rules for access to your business. Already (as has been repeated again and again) there are many rules regarding what you may enforce upon your business property. This would be one more law of many. There is a lot of precedent for it and no court has ruled against such a law for reasons of property rights.

Please read back through numerous other posts about limits to your private property upon which you run a business (or even don't run a business).

Thats bunk as well. The employer can potentially be held liable for anything that occurs on their property, especially if they sanction it. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask their insurance company what is going to happen if they start allowing firearms on the property.

Well ... let's see. I live in Colorado where you can carry a gun in your car with or without a CCW. How many parking lots have I seen posted as no guns allowed? Hmmmm. That would be zero! So are all those owners paying higher insurance rates for not posting?

Of course not. Insurance bases rates on risk. There is no provable risk to having guns in cars. If there were and it was a risk factor for insurance, you'd see signs up all over the 40 states that allow concealed carry/guns in cars.

Furthermore, this notion that because the gun is in the car its perfectly safe is both incorrect and irresponsible. The potential for a ND ALWAYS exists. Further there is always the possibility of someone breaking into the car (which happens very frequently in large corporate parking lots) and stealing the firearm.

In other words, these notions that 1) it places no burden on the employer and 2) its perfectly safe are simply fabricated.

The first argument is the clearest echoing of the Brady campaign I've ever seen. "No gun is ever safe." As has been pointed out, guns stored in cars don't just start shooting at people.

So the notions that it 1) places no burden on the employers is still true as is 2) that is is PEFECTLY safe! Sorry, but them are the facts here. Colorado has had guns in cars for 5 years, Florida for longer, and there is no history of ND's in cars of any significance (sure 1 or 2 have happened with the millions of people that carry, but i haven't read about them).

Your example is not relevant. Any of those restrictions that you stated are going to be part of the zoning regs which are readily available to view prior to the time the property is purchased.

And of course zoning laws never change, right? LOL -- they change all the time. If they affect a business owner generally some recompense is made. In this case there would be no effect to business owners, so no need for recompense.

That's the problem here. When it comes to rights, most here are stuck on gun; completely missing the connection between real and personal property and the the fact that all fundamental liberties work together with equal importance. If someone else's liberties are trampled, so are yours. And the very, very tired argument that somehow violating property owner's rights does not infringe upon them does not fly with anyone who's actually a champion of a free and just society. They are simply the musings of hypocrites.

Please ... we all understand the concepts of many rights, not just gun rights. We also know that there are very valid arguments on the side of this Florida bill.

Not saying y'all don't have some validity in your arguments either, but like someone else said ... this debate is not going to change my opinion. I haven't seen any of the main points here refuted.

Adios ...

 

[Wuchak]

The issue with employers banning employee from having firearms in their parking lot comes down to one thing for me and that is it means employees cannot be armed on the way to or from work. Unless the employer is going to provide an armed escort for their employees this policy has a direct effect on the safety of the employee when they are not on the employer's property. They are in effect dictating what the employee may do during times when the employee is not actively engaged in work for the company or on company property. Just how far is the employer's power over their employees supposed to extend? They are employees, not serfs. The first time an employee with a CCW permit that would have had their weapon except for a policy like this being in place is badly hurt or killed and the employer is found legally liable because their policy prevented the employee from having the means they ordinarily would have had to defend themselves, and the employer is ordered to pay a couple of million in damages we will see these policies go away quickly. I guess I have to wonder why someone would hire somebody they don't trust enough to have a firearm in their car.

For those who believe that employers should be able to ban their employees from having guns where do you place the limit of that power to dictate what physical objects employees may have in their car? I'm talking about things that the employees can legally own not drugs, etc. Do you think an employer can tell an employee they cannot have a Bible in their car? They cannot have a plastic dashboard Jesus? No Christian CD's? No CD's with obscene lyrics? No comic books? No maps? No sunglasses? No multi-tool in the glovebox? No 3D cell maglights (could be used as a club you know)? If you don't think that employers could tell employees they cannot have these things then what makes guns different? They are an object the employee is legally able to own. Also for those who believe that employers have absolute control over the contents of their employees cars do you think the employer must then take full responsibility for all damages that occur to the cars when they are on company property? If they are broken into do you consider the company liable for it since it occurred while it was parked on company property? I think they would have to be since if they have the right to dictate down the level of what's in the cars then they have the responsibility to make sure they are 100% safe while on their property. It cannot be both ways. The rights come with responsibility.

I'm of the view that my car is an extension of my house. It's my little bit of secure personal space that I take with me as I go about my daily business. What's in it is my concern and nobody else's. We had the law passed here in KS last year that allows CCW permit holders to leave their guns in their car even if a company has a policy that prohibits it. They also extended this to all parks and state and local government locations, some of which had posted their parking lots. It was a complete non-issue here.

I'm curious if people would feel differently about the FL law if it only allowed CCW permit holders to have their guns in their cars.


The KS stuff if you're interested in how another state dealt with it.
The KS AG's summary of the effects on CCW holders
http://www.ksag.org/files/shared/HB2528.Modifications.pdf

The bill
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/2528.pdf