FL and bringing guns to work...

[Garand Illusion]

This has been a great thread. For those without the patience to read through the whole thing, I thought I'd just recap the highlights ... I do believe the debate has run its course and I won't post anything new, but rather just this summary.

The OP, as are most of us, was quite happy about a proposed Florida law which stands a good chance of passing that will allow CCW holders to leave a handgun locked in their car even if they are parked on private party open to the public (in this case the public means employees of the company that owns the property or the general public). It further does not allow the property owner/employer to prohibit guns locked in cars. This allows CCW holders to protect themselves while driving to/from work, going out in the evening from work, etc.

Several people brought up interesting arguments against the law, basically arguing for:

• Property Owner's Rights (to control anything/everything on their property)
• Employers Rights (employment contracts -- to deny employment or fire for any reason)

These points were quickly repudiated by an avalanche of facts and history. The major arguments against were:

Property Owners Rights:
This whole concept would appear to basically be a Libertarian fantasy. A property owner has certain specific rights to his land, never enumerated in the COTUS itself and therefore left to up to the courts, and for the last hundred years the courts of the US have limited these very greatly indeed. Some laws that have withstood the test of time/judicial review include:

• Health Restrictions and safety restrictions
• Liquor laws (what you can/can't sell on your property)
• ADA restrictions
• Fire Code Laws
• Building Codes
• Zoning laws
• Easements
• Separation of Mineral Rights from Property Rights
• OSHA laws
• Racial equality laws
• And every other law passed (all the laws of the land apply to your property -- your property is a section that is part of a Nation/State/County/City, and every law passed by any of those entities is 100% enforceable on your land).
• And of course the generally despised "eminent domain" ruling that allows local government to seize private property for economic development.

There are, of course, many people on this board who would like property rights to be much greater in scope, but to date the courts have not stood behind this and the legal history of this country is very clear. It would take a massive reversal of legal precedent to argue that such a law as is proposed in Florida is somehow illegal because of "property rights" or constitutional law (which doesn't mean such changes shouldn't be fought for, but is outside the scope of argument over an individual pro-gun law).

Employers Rights (the employment contract)
It was also shown that while an employment contract can control any behavior or condition not covered by law, Federal/State/Country/City governments have retained rights to affect it. Some obvious proof of this given (and a few added on) were:

• Rules on hiring (race, religion, age, etc.)
• OSHA safety rules
• Union organizing rules
• Minimum wage laws
• Family leave laws
• Allowable work hours
• Various laws, many state specific, allowing the reasons an employee can/cannot be fired for.

Clearly, this new Florida law has been established to be no more burdensome than any other law setup for public safety or the good of the General public.

A secondary argument was the anti-gun argument that a gun locked in a vehicle is somehow dangerous and puts an insurance burden on the employer, but while this follows the Brady/VPC/etc. mantra of "all guns are dangerous" it gained little credibility in this forum. As was pointed out, many states have allowed guns in cars for years and even decades and accidental discharges are far too rare to affect insurance rates (and I do, personally, have sufficient insight into insurance laws to vouch for this).

So with the legal arguments against this law effectively dismissed (there is no violation of court protected property rights or the employment contract) and the idea that there is a burden on the employer by this law likewise dismssed by the simple fact that guns locked in cars are NOT dangerous ... the only question remaining is moral in nature.

i.e.: Is it moral to force property owners to allow guns locked in cars on their property?

As can be seen by the various polls ... the vast majority of us here believe that it is. With no burden on the employer, there is no reason not to support this law. And while the Brady campaign is against it because they know that the less worthwhile they make a CCW the less people will get it (for most of us, 90% of our driving is related to going to/from work) most of us recognize that except for a few hopeful Libertarians the real argument against this are more anti-gun than anti-rights.

Though many of us are still hopeful that libertarian principles will someday prevail.

Good debate all. And for those that sent me IM's and emails personally thanking me for my involvement ... I'm HAPPY to do it!

 

[STAGE 2]

Two quick points

These points were quickly repudiated by an avalanche of facts and history

Such as the fact that the only law of this kind has already been struck down in court?

As can be seen by the various polls ... the vast majority of us here believe that it is

So if I show you another poll from another gun forum with the vast support going the other way does this mean its not as black and white as you say it is?

 

[STAGE 2]

Enough with the personal attacks.

Enjoy your private property. Have a good day.

Pointing out inconsistencies and errors aren't personal attacks.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Such as the fact that the only law of this kind has already been struck down in court?

Ooops. I forgot. Rather than edit my previous post I'll just add this as an addendum.

Oklahoma passed such a law that was struck down by the courts, not because it violated property laws but because it violated OSHA laws (one of the other laws passed that affects property owners).

Similar laws have been passed in Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota and Kentucky and to my knowledge thos laws still stand and are enforceable. A final ruling in the OK case may or may not affect that, of course.

Thanks for the reminder, Stage!

BTW -- I'd be interested in seeing a poll from another pro-gun forum. Link?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Pointing out inconsistencies and errors aren't personal attacks.

Sorry, but I have no desire to continue the debate with you. Stating that I don't know what I'm talking about and that you consider your statements to be on par with the 10 commandments doesn't make you correct. An arrogant and condescending attitude while claiming everything you say is above reproach doesn't make you right. It doesn't matter. I don't really care what you think.

Have a nice day.

 

[STAGE 2]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=93655

76% to 23% in favor of libery.

Oklahoma passed such a law that was struck down by the courts, not because it violated property laws but because it violated OSHA laws (one of the other laws passed that affects property owners).

But did the court even reach the question of whether this violated a property right. If it didn't then you can't hold this up as evidence that property rights yield to carrying a firearm.

 

[gc70]

But did the court even reach the question of whether this violated a property right. If it didn't then you can't hold this up as evidence that property rights yield to carrying a firearm.

We should have ample oppurtunity to see how a variety of courts view such laws.

Fisher and Phillips, LLP
Look for employers to make similar challenges to laws that have passed in Kansas (which is also in the Tenth Circuit, and would be directly affected by the Tenth Circuit's decision in the Oklahoma case), Minnesota, Nebraska, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alaska.

 

[Garand Illusion]

LOL. Given the way this question was asked, even I would have joined the side of "liberty."

Here is the question. Should an employer/business owner be able to exclude his employees/patrons from carrying firearms onto his property?

You asked this with no context whatsoever, because the Florida law we're discussing would NOT allow people to carry guns on the private property, except for the brief period they are parking their car/driving off the property. It's about laws that allow weapons to be locked in cars, not whether people can carry firearms onto property/into buildings/etc.

You also chose a state with no CCW where even gun owners aren't used to be able to carry guns at all.

Try asking it again, like I did in my "targeted" poll, and you will find the results much different.

And if you find a group where gun owners are morally opposed to such a law ... so be it. I can accept that.

But at least you've given up arguing for non-existent rights of property owners/employers. That's a big plus.

 

[gc70]

Some commentary by Bob Barr on Georgia's pending "parking lot" law.

Bob Barr: Criticism of parking-lot gun bill misses mark (Published: 01/09/2008)

Here we go again.


The Georgia General Assembly session is about to begin, and self-styled "property rights" advocates once again are criticizing the National Rifle Association for daring to urge passage of legislation that would remind Georgia citizens that their right to lawfully possess a firearm, as guaranteed by Constitution and law, cannot be arbitrarily denied them simply because they might chose to exercise that right in or on a publicly-accessible parking lot.

In a Jan. 3 column ("NRA's latest bill would trample property rights") against efforts by the NRA and what appears to be a majority of legislators under the Gold Dome, Georgia Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Joe Fleming decries the NRA's effort to "establish" a "peculiar new right" (emphasis mine). The "right" for which Mr. Fleming chides the NRA is in fact neither new nor peculiar under either federal or Georgia state law; and it is certainly not "bizarre" as further characterized by Mr. Fleming's overblown and vituperative rhetoric.

Despite efforts by Mr. Fleming and others to prevent the legislation supported by the NRA and many state legislators from being signed into law, the measure is actually quite limited and very measured - if, that is, one reads it.

First, of course, opponents of the parking lot measure might want to remind themselves that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects against government infringing the inherent right to possess a firearm. While the Supreme Court of the United States currently has on its docket a lower federal court opinion from last year that found the District of Columbia's 30-year old gun ban to be unconstitutional, at least here in Georgia common sense and historical understanding generally hold to the notion that the Second Amendment - like, for example, the First - guarantees an individual right.

However, apparently in Mr. Fleming's universe, such individual rights as these can be arbitrarily denied by allowing governments or other entities (such as a business that maintains a parking area open to the public) to prohibit a person from exercising those rights on their property, even though that property is open to the public.

One might want to query Mr. Fleming and other opponents of the parking lot bill to determine if their expansive view of "property rights" would similarly empower the owner of a publicly-accessible parking lot to deny entry of a vehicle containing not a firearm but a Bible, the possession of which also is guaranteed by the Constitution. I suspect "property rights" purists like Mr. Fleming might squirm a bit on that one.

The fact of the matter is, legislation such as supported in Georgia by the NRA - HB 89 - does not infringe in any way the power of a "property owner" to use their property as they see fit. The legislation does not force the owner of a parking lot that is not open to the public to do or not to do anything at all regarding firearms or anything else. Nor does the measure affect the power of an employer to limit firearms in the workplace.

Let's quickly note some of the other things the legislation that has caused Mr. Fleming and some of his colleagues to become so incensed, does and does not do:

- The legislation simply reinforces the rights that law-abiding Georgia citizens explicitly enjoy, to maintain a firearm properly secured in their vehicle, subject, of course, to any otherwise lawful search.

- The legislation's provisions would not apply to businesses that maintain restricted-access lots, or to lots at sensitive sites such as defense contractors (Lockheed-Martin, for example).

- The proposed law would not prevent an employer from restricting an employee facing disciplinary action from bringing a firearm onto the property in his vehicle.

- The proposal supported by the NRA and others provides employers and property owners clear protection against liability for a person's misuse of a firearm that might be in their vehicle.

These are but a few of the common sense limits incorporated in this narrowly crafted piece of legislation. The legislation has in fact become necessary in recent years because businesses in a number of states are firing employees simply because those employees maintained a lawful firearm in their vehicle in a parking lot open to the public, and even though the person was doing nothing to harm anyone with the firearm - it was simply in their car. Allowing that sort of unreasonable action strikes many of us as - to use Mr. Fleming's word - "bizarre."

 

[STAGE 2]

You asked this with no context whatsoever, because the Florida law we're discussing would NOT allow people to carry guns on the private property, except for the brief period they are parking their car/driving off the property. It's about laws that allow weapons to be locked in cars, not whether people can carry firearms onto property/into buildings/etc.

You keep saying that but it makes no sense. Private property is private property. There is no distinction between a parking lot and a store. One is not "more private property" than the other.

This bill is trying to allow people to carry firearms onto private property. How they are carried on is irrelevant.

You also chose a state with no CCW where even gun owners aren't used to be able to carry guns at all.

This is why I question your arguments, because you don't have your facts straight. California does have CCW. Some counties are relatively easy to get one in, others are impossible.

However whether we have CCW or not has no bearing on anything. Its us another bogus rabbit hole.

 

[gc70]

Private property is private property.

There is a large difference between true private property and privately-owned property that is open to the public.

The owner of true private property, such as a residence, has nearly unlimited control over who can enter the property and their actions on the property. Don't like the color of a person's skin, or their religious beliefs, or even their clothes? Just tell them to leave. If the owner of privately-owned property open to the public takes the same action, they will run afoul of civil rights anti-discrimination laws for the first two of the three examples given. Privately-owned property open to the public is subject to substantial legal constraints that do not apply to true private property.

 

[Garand Illusion]

I still can't believe you try to get away with these ridiculous points and then act like everyone else but you is an idiot. This is much how the Brady campaign and anti's do it ... give 1/2 the truth and then act like they have some kind of moral high ground.

I haven't yet given up on you, though ... please read the following.

You keep saying that but it makes no sense. Private property is private property. There is no distinction between a parking lot and a store. One is not "more private property" than the other.

This bill is trying to allow people to carry firearms onto private property. How they are carried on is irrelevant.

From a strictly legal sense, you're right. We could just as easily pass a law saying that a business must allow anyone to carry any weapon they own anywhere on that property, irregardless of what the owner/employer wants. And at least in reference to private property open to the public (employees or general public) it would be completely legal and violate nothing in constitutional law.

But there are very few of us who would morally support such a law, including myself. Which is just what your Cali poll proved.

Now read the following very closely. IT's been repeated above, but I don't think you've gotten it yet.

1. This is a very specific law.
2. It ONLY allows legal CCW holders in Florida to keep a weapon locked up in their car while at work.
3. What is the difference? The burden on the employer. There is arguably a burden on employers to allow all employees to openly carry weapons.
4. There is NO burden on employers who have vehicles in their parking lots with guns safely locked up. Zero effect on them or their safety.
5. And this law is good for public safety, as it emplowers employees, who may have to drive through a very bad part of town to get to work, to arm themselves. It allows single women being stalked to NOT be forced to be unarmed for the drive in to work/drive home.

You see that difference? IT's a moral one, but it is significant. Because while either law would be 100% constitutionally legal and pass court review, the parking lot law is the best compromise of allowing property owners to have control over their property and allowing employees to have control over their lives and personal defense.

Big difference there.

This is why I question your arguments, because you don't have your facts straight. California does have CCW. Some counties are relatively easy to get one in, others are impossible.

True ... and so does the district of columbia. For the vast majority of residents, however, the law is useless (a few counties in CA. being exempt).

Depending on how your count, there are 38 - 40 states that are "Shall Issue." California is not one of them, and therefore the number of people with a CCW is very slim.

In any case ... it was a poll question targeted for the answer you wanted. And as such it's like a Brady Campaign poll -- it proves nothing except that you can slant a poll question.

And thanks to the poster who included a link to a legal argument involving the Oklahoma law. Hopefully that will be overturned, but in any case it's a case twisted around OSHA law and supposed worker safety, not "property rights". Because if they could prove their case on some constitutionally guaranteed right, they certainly wouldn't go after a highly debatable ruling on OSHA. And if the OSHA case is overturned, it's game over as "property rights" are not in question currently.

Good stuff!

 

[DonR101395]

Depending on how your count, there are 38 - 40 states that are "Shall Issue." California is not one of them, and therefore the number of people with a CCW is very slim.

I agree with you 100%, but it has peaked my curiosity since CA was someohow brought into the conversation about a FL bill. What percentage of the population in has a CCW permit in CA and FL? I'd look it up if I had a clue where to look.

 

[STAGE 2]

From a strictly legal sense, you're right.

And guess in what "sense" courts are going to look at such a law.

We could just as easily pass a law saying that a business must allow anyone to carry any weapon they own anywhere on that property, irregardless of what the owner/employer wants. And at least in reference to private property open to the public (employees or general public) it would be completely legal and violate nothing in constitutional law.

And this is the problem. The constitution is an express grant of power to the government. It also expressly states SOME of our rights. The constitution is NOT the end all be all of property rights or rights in general. And yet property rights are so important they they still found their way into this document.

Property rights by in large are a product of the common law. Certian things have been tweaked since 1789, but the fundamentals have not. This is why what you said above is wrong. You would not be able to pass a law that forces business owners to allow people carrying weapons into their store or their office.

There is NO burden on employers who have vehicles in their parking lots with guns safely locked up. Zero effect on them or their safety.

You keep saying this, but its patently untrue. First it is denying him the freedom to contract. Second, it is denying him the freedom to run his business as he wishes. Third, even though the law shields the employer from liability, there are still potential legal risks that the employer could face because he is aware that there are firearms on his property. Finally, the employer will suffer adverse effects from an insurance perspective. Like it or not, from the insurance companies perspective, firearms on the property is an increased risk regardless of how the law is written. This means rate go up or coverages are dropped.

Just because you don't think there is a burden, doesn't mean there isn't one.

True ... and so does the district of columbia. For the vast majority of residents, however, the law is useless (a few counties in CA. being exempt).

Incorrect again.

 

[divemedic]

Sorry, but even contract law is not absolute. There are certain elements of any contract that will cause that contract to be unenforceable.

Nothing is absolute. In this case, we are talking about the property rights of two individuals who are overlapping. A compromise must be reached. Again, if you don't like it, don't open to the public. Problem solved.

 

[grymster2007]

In this case, we are talking about the property rights of two individuals who are overlapping.

This "overlap" business is simply a stretch of the imagination to make it “OK” to trample the other guy. In the context of this discussion there are ZERO overlap in rights. The person denied access to the store or place of employment has suffered ZERO loss of rights because they are in no way required to shop or work at a given establishment.

To put a turn on a phrase stolen from GI: the "rights overlap" fallaciousness has been thoroughly beaten down here. There's just no way to argue that one is forced to work or shop anywhere.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Grym, et al ... I suggest you take a look at this case. It is a SCOTUS case where a person claimed that his 1st amendment rights were being infringed because a shopping mall (private property) wouldn't allow him to distribute literature promoting his right wing causes on their property -- not on the sidewalk outside, but actually within their building on their property.

Pruneyard Shopping Center Case

Did SCOTUS laugh at this case and say ... "No -- the property owner has the full rights to his property -- even though it's your right to say it, you can't just go there and distribute material a PROPERTY OWNER finds objectionable?"

Well ... I wouldn't have listed it here if they had.

SCOTUS acknowledged property rights (of course) but took a look at local law (the cali constitution) and declared that because of this local law the property owner MUST ACCEPT PEOPLE PASSING OUT LITERATURE S/HE DOESN'T LIKE. How much importance does SCOTUS give this mythical "property right?" Virtually none, if it can be overriden by state law. (It's like our 2nd amendment right will be if SCOTUS finds it as an indvidual right but allows laws like those in DC to stand.)

Compare this with how other rights are dealt with. If Cali had passed a law that newspapers couldn't print stories against illegal immigration, and then made it part of the California constitution, that wouldn't have held up for 10 minutes in Federal Court or SCOTUS.

But Property Rights, unlike enumerated rights in the constitution, (1st, hopefully 2nd, etc.) are not protected to that level. They are subject to local laws and local legislatures to the point is hard to call it a right at all.

The same (as has been seen with the many posts above) with the employment contract. All levels have government interject many rules into this contract, and employmnet contracts must deal with each and eveyr one. The parking lot bill would just be one more.

All of these parking lot laws may be overturned by the ruling on OSHA, because OSHA is FEderal law and Federal law trumps state law (just like state law trumps property rights) but that is yet to be seen.

The OSHA ruling is just another "nanny state" ruling enforcing that the government always knows better how to keep us safe (by keeping guns out of parked cars) than we do (having the ability to drive to/from work with our chosen means of legally owned protection).

So here is a SCOTUS decision proving that local law trumps property rights.

Responses?

And although I really am done arguing with Stage, just wanted to set him straight one more time:

Like it or not, from the insurance companies perspective, firearms on the property is an increased risk regardless of how the law is written. This means rate go up or coverages are dropped.

Insurance companies don't make up risk based on perceived risk. If they did, every business in any of the 40 "Shall Issue" CCW states would have "no guns" signs up to keep their insurance rates down. They don't, because insurance companies haven't seen a risk need to raise rates.

If the Fla. law is put in place and there is a sudden rash of people getting shot by guns locked in cars (which we know historically ain't going to happen) then insurance companies will raise rates. But like has been said ... that won't happen.

IT's the free market system. Let's say half a dozen insurance companies raise rates arbitraririly because this law goes into effect. And the rest don't. People will flock to those insurance companies that don't raise rates. And the insurance companies that did will have to explain why they raised rates for political purposes.

So unless insurance companies actually have proof that rates must go up, they won't do it. Because otherwise they'll lose business to the ones that don't.

 

[STAGE 2]

But Property Rights, unlike enumerated rights in the constitution, (1st, hopefully 2nd, etc.) are not protected to that level. They are subject to local laws and local legislatures to the point is hard to call it a right at all.

No no no NO NO!!!. This is why I told you that you are dishonest. We already covered this in PM's. Pruneyard was decided the way it is BECAUSE THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION IS MORE PROTECTIVE OF SPEECH THAN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

It has NOTHING to do with the difference between enumerated rights and non-enumerated rights. Thats why when this EXACT set of facts happened in another state, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the property owner and NOT the people alleging free speech. The court did this BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE OWNER.

I explained this to you not more than several hours ago and here you are lieing about it. You have zero credibility.

Insurance companies don't make up risk based on perceived risk.

Then you don't know anything about insurance companies. A risk assessment is exactly that, an estimate of percieved risk. Thats why if you are a perfect driver with nothing on your record, and you live in a big city, your rates will be higher.

If they did, every business in any of the 40 "Shall Issue" CCW states would have "no guns" signs up to keep their insurance rates down.

They don't need to have a no guns sign to abide by this agreement. They merely have to boot people who thy know are carrying.

So unless insurance companies actually have proof that rates must go up, they won't do it. Because otherwise they'll lose business to the ones that don't.

And again I submit that you have no idea how insurance companies work.

 

[STAGE 2]

Sorry, but even contract law is not absolute. There are certain elements of any contract that will cause that contract to be unenforceable.

Unconscionability usually deals with the parties rather than the terms, however for the purposes of this discussion, a no weapons policy is NEVER unconscionable.

 

[Garand Illusion]

No no no NO NO!!!. This is why I told you that you are dishonest. We already covered this in PM's. Pruneyard was decided the way it is BECAUSE THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION IS MORE PROTECTIVE OF SPEECH THAN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

It has NOTHING to do with the difference between enumerated rights and non-enumerated rights. Thats why when this EXACT set of facts happened in another state, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the property owner and NOT the people alleging free speech. The court did this BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE OWNER.

I explained this to you not more than several hours ago and here you are lieing about it. You have zero credibility.

Even if I truly don't understand this (and I do), I'm not lying. I'm not being dishonest. Why do you go to name calling? Use facts, not name calling. I'm being logical, credible, and using references to real world cases -- not my own "but I just know everything so ignore everything else" arrogant point of view (like you are). This is generally a forum of intelligent, informed people. Your lack of rational thought processes and then subdividing everyone else's thought process to try and disprove it piecemeal will not work here. Quite frankly most of your posts border on asinine.

But do you seriously not get this? Because it's very simple. I'm guessing you do get it, but you just have your own agenda and don't care.

At the base of everything in this case is that a LOCAL LAW (the California State Constitution, which is a local law from a Federal viewpoint) is being used to TRUMP property rights! That is a fact, and it is inarguable. The Federal Judges ruled that the man's right of free speech, as defined by local laws, overrules property rights.

If property rights were more protected , such as that of freedom of religion or freedom of speech, SCOTUS would have ignored Cali state constitition.

But since property rights are NOT a right held up to that high standard (right or wrong, that's a different argument) SCOTUS allowed local law to override it.

Just like how the Florida law would be perceived; it would override property rights. No constitutional problem. Just like there hasn't been in any other state that passed this law (how many times have I had to say that? PLEASE try to remember it this time! Or show somewhere where such a law WAS proven unconstitional -- hasn't happened!)

It is a fact that other rights are much more protected that property rights, particularly enumarted constituional right. i.e. if this had been a Baptist Church and Wiccans were arguing they should be able to pass around their literature, you again would have seen a different outcome. Possibly because of property rights (a church is only open to members, not the general public) but definitely because of freedom of religions issues.

Please ... quit arguing from an emotional, fantasy point of view. Argue with case law and real logic. Because thus far you've been nothing but shrill and emotional. As such I'm afraid it's you who has zero credibility with any reader who has followed this thread.

And yes ... insurance companies do risk analysis ... but like I said ... at this time they have no reason to raise risk based on this law. Because guns locked in cars are NOT more dangerous, as we've learned over the decades in states that already allow this. Insurance companies didn't do so in Okalahoma, Kansas or any other states with a law like this. Because insurance companies won't raise rates without reasons to do so because of the market forces I discussed earlier.

BTW -- barring unforseen circumstances, I am totally done with this thread. I'm going to not open it or view it again. So have a good time. For anyone else reading this ... look at the previous posts. The facts about this law are very clear, and the positions taken by Stage are not honest, rational, or supported by legal precedent.