The 'vicious gun' argument seems incorrect and irresponsible. Can you cite a case in which "guns locked up in cars" discharged?
There is plenty of opportunity from the time it takes to remove it from one's holster and place it in the glove box.
The 'vicious gun' argument seems incorrect and irresponsible. Can you cite a case in which "guns locked up in cars" discharged?
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
(b) Except for public or private entities and employers subject to the exceptions of subsection (6), a public or private
entity or employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The
immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions by public or private
entities or employers which are unrelated to compliance with this section. This section does not create a new duty on the part of
the employer, property owner, or property owner's agent.
Wait a minute- you say that an property owner is not civilly responsible when a robber shoots someone on their property, so they should be shielded from torts resulting from their decision to prohibit weapons, even when that decision has the predictable result of providing a safe working environment for violent criminals.
Then, you go on to say that property owners should be able to prohibit weapons in cars in the parking lot because they can be held liable if the gun is ever fired.
ETA: If you read the bill, you would see that the proposed law grants liability to property owners for compliance:
Yes, the potential for liability is there because they are knowingly allowing firearms on their property. Thus they will have opened themselves up to liability.
Florida law already allows people to store firearm in their vehicles while parked in public parking lots.
The property owner has absolutely no say in this. What this law proposes is that those persons that happen to be employed by the person owning the parking lot cannot be disciplined because they are doing the same thing everyone else is doing in that parking lot.
Like everything else involving gun bans, this has nothing to do with property rights. It is a matter of the employer having this absurd fear that one of their employees is going to get pissed, get a gun out of their car and go postal. Because it happens once or twice per hundred trillion firearms brought to work, they think they are next.
What I don't understand, and what no one has bothered to explain is why if people have the right to bring it onto the property, do they not have the right to carry it into the building. The parking lot is no less "private property" than the building is, so why are we drawing this arbitrary line?
What I don't understand, and what no one has bothered to explain is why if people have the right to bring it onto the property, do they not have the right to carry it into the building. The parking lot is no less "private property" than the building is, so why are we drawing this arbitrary line?
There is plenty of opportunity from the time it takes to remove it from one's holster and place it in the glove box.The 'vicious gun' argument seems incorrect and irresponsible. Can you cite a case in which "guns locked up in cars" discharged?
The only time a gun is safe is when its sitting in my holster, not unattended in a parking lot.
The second statement is an interesting definition of "safe" in the first statement.Furthermore, there is always the chance of a ND. Always. Only an irresponsible person would say that an ND is impossible.
In the state of Florida, they do have that right.
Unless you have metal detectors at your door and search everyone that enters, you cannot stop someone with a CCW from entering.
You can post all of the no gun signs you want and they have no legal standing.
If you happen to catch them with a gun, all you can do is ask them to leave and have them arrested for tresspassing if they do not. If they are your employee, obviously you can also fire them. But it is not against the law for them to carry on your property.
You post a "no guns" sign on your business where I live and may as well save time and go file for bankruptcy. You will lose all of your business. Ask Blockbuster Videos. They tried.
Why will this law allow people to have guns locked in cars but not in the building itself? Because that is how this bill is being written. It is a specific bill that covers guns locked in cars, not guns carried into buildings.
A future bill may cover carrying into a building, but this one does not. The arbitrary line is in the wording of the bill. Does that help?
In the same way that laws that allow me to drive 75 MPH on the highway do NOT allow me to drive 75 MPH in my cul de sac.
The real question is ... how many different quotes will you mangle the above obvious point in to and then smear with incomplete logic and unsupported legal statements? I'm guessing 3.
Practically speaking, its relatively useless to have a gun locked in your car since you won't have it when you need it.
HOWEVER you do not have a right to do so. If you did, they could not ask you to leave.
While I am perfectly fine with consumers taking to their business to whomever they want, this attitude of "if you don't agree with me I'm going to screw you" is the complete opposite of what freedoms are all about.
Not so. They can ask me to leave because a property owner has the right to tell people to leave his property for any reason he wants. It does not make it illegal for me to CCW on his property. If I did not have the right to CCW on his property, he could have me arrested for THAT and not for tresspassing should I refuse to leave.
Boycotts have been effective for many many years. It is not me personally "screwing" your business. It is the entire community disagreeing with your business practices and letting you know about it by spending our money somewhere else. You know, using OUR rights to avoid offending your "property rights." You can have your business, your rules and anything else you want on your property, but we won't be there.
If you had a right to carry a gun onto private property, then he could not force you to leave period.
Although I have no concept of what I'm talking about
the property owner can force you to leave for any reason he wants, gun or no gun. He doesn't like the way you are dressed, you have body odor, you are too loud, you look suspicious, he thinks you might be a shoplifter, his customers are scared of you, any excuse he can come up with. He doesn't even need an excuse. Just because he simply doesn't want you on his property. None of those reasons are illegal. The CCW is merely another excuse he can use.
State law has already determined where I can carry CCW and listed the locations I cannot carry CCW. Some individual's business property is not on that list. The state of Florida does not permit individual businesses to post "No Guns" signs to prevent the entry of a person with CCW. Some states do allow that. You can say that Florida violates the property rights of business owners by not allowing that option. You can say other states violate personal rights by allowing that option.
And we can argue this forever. You have your opinion and I have mine. Stupid, ignorant, dumb, or whatever, neither is going to convince the other.
A local medical clinic posted a policy that they do not want off-duty law enforcement officers carrying firearms while visiting for doctor's appointments because it scares some of the employees. They own the property. Should they be able to enforce that?
Enough with the personal attacks.
Enjoy your private property. Have a good day.