FL and bringing guns to work...
- Thread starter PunchPaper
- Start date
- Status
You said that private property has no constitutional protection ( which is clearly wrong) you said that the framers passed all sorts of laws trumping property rights (which is also wrong) and you said that property rights were "mythical".
So you are technically correct in that you didn't use the words "no such thing as property rights", but you certianly did your best to give every alternative.
And again, this is incorrect. There are plenty of laws that have not passed constitutional muster regarding private property. The 4th amendment does not only apply to homes, it applies to private property period.
Again, incorrect. There is no list of "allowable" rules for trespassing. A business can boot anyone they want to for any reason they want to as long as it is not based on race, sex, or religion. You seem to think that because businesses can't discriminate based on these reasons, then its perfectly ok to add to the list. That simply isn't the case.
And courts have continually ruled that businesses have the right to prohibit weapons on their property BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS and not because of OSHA.
Then I submit you have no understanding of how insurance works. People that are carrying in the parking lot are doing so in violation of the posted signs. As a result, the business will not be liable for any accidents or damages that result.
This is completely different than a company that knowingly tolerates or abides weapons on their property. I promise you that their rates will be different assuming they can get coverage at all. In many cases, a no weapons policy is a prerequisite to insurance coverage. Thus it would seem that the insurance companies disagree with your assessment that guns in cars do not pose an extra risk.
You can call it the brady campaign, I call it responsible gun ownership. The only time a gun is safe is when its sitting in my holster, not unattended in a parking lot. On a separate local gunforum there were no less than 5 cars stolen in public parking lots that had firearms in them. Thats just locally. This isn't BS its real life.
Furthermore, there is always the chance of a ND. Always. Only an irresponsible person would say that an ND is impossible. I've personally witnessed a ND in the parking lot of my range when a gentleman was putting his pistol and bag into the trunk of his car. This situation is totally plausible for a ccw hlder who can't carry at work.
What facts? You say that you personally haven't heard of a ND and hold that as evidence that its not possible? Give me a break.
I've already told you that many insurance companies will not offer coverage to businesses without a no weapons policy. I've already told you that a business can be sued by an injured person for the acts of a 3rd party if they were tolerant of weapons on their property. Whether you like it or not, allowing firearms on property creates liability for the business. Forcing the business to allow firearms onto their property is forcing them to accept liability.
As far as it being "perfectly safe", well thats just a joke. The most careful of people can make mistakes. Its happened in the last and it will happen in the future. Saying that it won't is just ignorance.
Thats because you don't have any experience in the law or insurance.
No they aren't. An employee is free to park on the street, drop his gun off prior to arriving at work, leaving it at home, or finding some other place of employment.
The limit of that power regarding objects is whatever they want. An employer can contract with its employees to prohibit any items from their property. If you don't like it, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Sorry. This doesn't fly either. Guns, knives, etc are different than books, maps or bibles. I shouldn't have to tell you why.
You misstate the position. It is not that employers have control over the cars of employers, its that they have the right to exclude items from their property. Those are two completely different things.
For the above reason, you are incorrect. The right to exlude is not a right of control of other people things. It is a right of control over your property.
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:
The law will eventually pass.
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:
The law will eventually pass.
No. What I said is that a property owner will not be liable for the intentional acts of 3rd parties (ie shootings) or the negligent acts of 3rd parties (i.e. ND's) if they take reasonable measures against any forseeable dangers. The reasonable measure here is prohibiting weapons on their property.
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.
I'm curious to see what entities fall under subsection 6. That said, if properly applied, this does seem to eliminate the liability issue somewhat. However it should be noted that in spite of this provision, a lawsuit is still a reality. There are many cases where courts intentionally construe things like this narrowly. In addition to this, the business owners insurance will go up or may even be dropped REGARDLESS of this provision. So it is still detrimental to the owner.
However this fails to address the larger issue. At the end of the day, this law is telling a business owner how to run his business. I personally have no fear of guns. Others most certianly do. If a business owner is fearful of firearms and does not want to have them on his property, this law is overriding his wishes.
Most of us would be outraged if we ran a business and the government came in and told us we had to tolerate something that we hated or feared, which had nothing to do with the business. The only difference is that 100% of us are gun owners and probably 2% of us actually own a business.
Its just bias.
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.
Thats fine. If it is a public parking lot then there is no property right.
Sure they have a say if it is private property. They also have a say if as part of the employment contract, the employee agreed not to bring weapons on the property.
Are we not going to restrict the rights of private parties to contract as well?
Again, this just goes back to bias. My business is no different than my home. In fact it is arguably more important as it is my livelihood. If I deem that firearms are dangerous then I reserve the right not to have them on my property. Its really that simple.
All of you who support this law are advocating for more interference into the privacy of others, and more governmental intrusion into business. You just justify it by wrapping it up in you favorite hobby.
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?
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.
PS. 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.
Garand Illusion
New member
Just one more explanatory post. *sigh* I guess I'm just a real giving kind of guy!
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.
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.
Now we are making progress. It is not an inanimate object locked inside another inanimate object that poses a risk, but a person handling the inanimate object improperly.
I took a look at some restrictive signs on properties today.
"No consumption of alcohol."
"No skateboarding allowed."
"No smoking."
Notice that the restrictions are all on the use of objects by people rather than on the objects themselves. Assuming those restrictions meet legal requirements for the property owners to avoid liability for inappropriate activities, why insist on a different standard for guns?"No skateboarding allowed."
"No smoking."
Restrict the objectionable activity, not the object.
No you don't. If you had a right to carry onto private property, they wouldn't be able to tell you to leave.
You are confusing the ability to carry unnoticed in violation of a businesses policy with the right to do so. Sneaking something onto someone elses property doesn't make it a right.
Sure they do. They are standards which if you violate, you will be removed.
And this is where you're going wrong. Something being a right, and something being against the law are two different things. It is not against the law for you to carry on private property, HOWEVER you do not have a right to do so. If you did, they could not ask you to leave.
And again, this is a perfect example of the bias that I'm talking about. 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 really. "Just because" isn't a sufficient justification. Practically speaking, its relatively useless to have a gun locked in your car since you won't have it when you need it. The only reason to have this law passed is to start making further inroads into carry on private property.
However since such a law would not pass constitutional muster, this law is the next alternative.
Irrelevant. No one has rights on a public highway.
With all due respect, you haven't presented a single argument other than "cause we can do it". Thats not even close to sufficient. You bring up irrelevant things like speed limits and mineral rights and hold them up to be evidence of your position.
Like I said before, you have no experience in the law. You are simply arguing from personal opinion. That why the only other version of this law has already failed.
Perldog007
New member
Eminent Domain? Anybody? how does that fit in here?
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.
For example, PAYPAL won't let you use their service to buy firearms. That offends me so I refuse to do business with them. Do they care? Nope. But if I could, I'd get every gun owner in the US to boycott them. It's their option not to allow certain sales and mine not to do business with them.
And again you don't have any concept of what you are talking about. Law and rights are two TOTALLY SEPARATE concepts for the purposes of this discussion.
You are arguing that because you can't be arrested for carrying a gun onto private property that it is somehow a right. Thats unequivocally false. If you had a right to carry a gun onto private property, then he could not force you to leave period. He can because you have no right to bring a gun onto his property.
Thats perfectly fine, however when you start to legislate this bias, that crosses the line.
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?
That much is clear
Exactly. Now if you had a right to carry onto his property, he would not be able to ask you to leave using the firearm as a basis.
Whether they can post signs is irrelevant. They still reserve the right to boot you for carrying. Where you are going wrong is that you are taking the places that you can legally carry and asserting that this means you have a right to carry there.
A more accurate statement is that you can legally ccw in any non-exempt location AS LONG AS IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
Except mine isn't an opinion. Its based on the current state of the law.
Its irrelevant to this conversation. A police officer is not subject to the same rules as a regular person and at the same time is subject to rules which regular people are not.
As such, this scenario has zero bearing on the issue of ccw holders bringing their guns onto private property.
Garand Illusion
New member
Good choice. Arguing with some people, such as the one undoubtedly referenced, is useless. No matter how many points put forward they will ignore the logic, call you names, and then shrilly repeat the same argument that so many posters have already riddled with holes.
At least I won my bet on my last post -- Divided into 3 separate posts and then debated with nothing but arguments that have already been defeated and bear no logic or intellectual insight.
I just hope the bill in Florida passes and the one in Oklahoma is reinstated based on the weak case brought against it. Besides protecting our rights as gun owners, the Fla law will keep us all safer while putting no burden on the property owner. Everybody wins!
LOL. How many replies will I get to this one? I'm not guessing anymore.
- Status