FL and bringing guns to work...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if I truly don't understand this (and I do), I'm not lying. I'm not being dishonest.

Yes you are. I explained this to you already and you are still spouting the same junk about how property rights are irrelevant. Pruneyard wasn't a case about property rights, it was a case about how expansive a state constitution can be. SCOTUS ruled that a state can have more protection of certian rights than the federal constitution. California has this. Thats why in this case, the people were able to hand out papers IN THE COMMON AREA OF THE MALL.

In most other states, this would not have been the result because their constitutions run parallel to the federal constitution. Thats why in Lloyd Corp v Tanner, the exact same set of facts yielded a different decision, and that decision was based on property rights.


At the base of everything is that as 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.

This is utter nonsense. The california constitution is not a local law. We can now add federalism to the list of topics that you are skewing.


If this was a more protected right, such as that of freedom of religion or freedom of speech, SCOTUS would have ignored Cali state constitition.

Nope, thats not how federalism works. The court is not free to ignore the state constitution if it expands on the federal constitution.


But since it was NOT a right held up to that high standard (property rights) SCOTUS allowed local law to override it.

Just like how the Florida law would be perceived; it would override property rights.

This is why you're wrong and why you have demonstrated you are not competent to discuss this issue. Even if what you said was correct about property rights vis-a-vis the state constitution, the state constitution is not the same as a local law. A piece of legislation does not have the same weight as a constitutional provision. You keep intentionally misleading people by saying that a constitutional provision and local law are the same. They aren't. Thats your dishonesty.

Florida does not share the same expansions that california does, especially in respect to the 2nd amendment. As I already explained to you, the florida constitution gives no greater protection than the 2nd amendment. As such, this law does not have the constitutional backing that the people did in Pruneyard. As such, that case isn't on point, and its analysis is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the other analysis, namely whether the activity has any relation to any purpose for which the business exists. Unless the business is a gun store/range, carrying isn't related to any purpose of a private business.

Hence the courts rationale...

"Nor does property lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Few would argue that a free-standing store, with abutting parking space for customers, assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there. Nor is size alone the controlling factor. The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center. "
 
And yes ... insurance companies do risk analysis ...

Let's look at this from another angle.

The company I work for possesses a half dozen 12 gauge shotguns that we use on a regular basis, shooting a few thousand shells each year (if you know what a clinker is, you know why). This totally eliminates any argument about an employee being prevented from going postal due to no firearm in their vehicle. In the past, the company has raffled firearms to generate funds for various causes. It is common to see firearms listed for sale on the bulletin boards.

Yet, company policy prohibits firearms in employee vehicles. There are no signs posted and there are no restrictions placed on the general public using the same lot.

In the years I have worked there, two employees have been carjacked going to and from work. One was killed, the other escaped injury. At the same time, other than sore shoulders, no one has been injured by a firearm, either intentionally or accidentally. If my employer wants me to travel to and from work unarmed, he can take liability for my safety during the drive.

In the wake of recent mass shootings at forced "Gun Free" zones and the outrage people have over not being able to carry, how can any company support not only turning their parking lot into a "Gun Free" zone, but extending that gun free zone from my house to that zone?

I don't give a rat's $*@ about the property rights of companies, corporations, individuals or organizations, common sense says you do not forcibly disarm law abiding citizens. We didn't fight for years to become a "shall issue" state only to be denied that ability during 90% of our weekly travel time.
 
The company I work for possesses a half dozen 12 gauge shotguns that we use on a regular basis, shooting a few thousand shells each year (if you know what a clinker is, you know why). This totally eliminates any argument about an employee being prevented from going postal due to no firearm in their vehicle. In the past, the company has raffled firearms to generate funds for various causes. It is common to see firearms listed for sale on the bulletin boards.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the insurance burdens, but if your company does have a no weapons policy I'd say that is kid of hypocritical. Still their right, but hypocritical.

Yet, company policy prohibits firearms in employee vehicles. There are no signs posted and there are no restrictions placed on the general public using the same lot.

But there doesn't have to be. The reason you can't bring a firearm is primarily contractual and not property related. If this was a huge deal breaker for you, you could have gone elsewhere where there was no such policy.


In the years I have worked there, two employees have been carjacked going to and from work. One was killed, the other escaped injury. At the same time, other than sore shoulders, no one has been injured by a firearm, either intentionally or accidentally. If my employer wants me to travel to and from work unarmed, he can take liability for my safety during the drive.

No, you can just park on the street. Because they don't allow you to have a firearm in their parking lot doesn't mean you have to leave the house without a firearm. What you just suggested is a false dichotomy.

In the wake of recent mass shootings at forced "Gun Free" zones and the outrage people have over not being able to carry, how can any company support not only turning their parking lot into a "Gun Free" zone, but extending that gun free zone from my house to that zone?

First, most "gun free zones" are on public property. This is a totally different issue. If you have a CCW, then you should be able to carry anywhere on public property (with the usual exceptions of court houses etc).

As far as extending that zone to your house, I already covered that. You simply have to make a choice. Would you rather have a gun in the car, or park in the parking lot. The choice is yours to make.


I don't give a rat's $*@ about the property rights of companies, corporations, individuals or organizations

I know. And the Brady bunch doens't give a rats ass about our 2nd amendment rights. However both are deserving of protection.


common sense says you do not forcibly disarm law abiding citizens

Again, no one is forcibly disarming anyone. You have the choice to work elsewhere. You have the choice to not park in the parking lot.


We didn't fight for years to become a "shall issue" state only to be denied that ability during 90% of our weekly travel time.

Being a shall issue state has nothing to do with this discussion. Because a state should allow CCW by a method that is both neutral on paper and neutral in practice has nothing to do with a private property owner setting his own standards. The two couldn't be further apart.

The issue of carrying concealed on private property that isn't your employer, i.e. the grocery store, movie theater, or wherever else you go shouldn't be an issue. Why? Because if you carry concealed, then no one should know. If someone does see your firearm, then you've comitted 2 sins. First, if the place is a anit-gun establishment, you've violated their rules. More importantly, in most states open carry isn't legal. Thus you have violated the terms of your ccw permit. In other words, you don't have the right to complain when its your fault that you are being booted from the property.

As far as the issue of what employers should allow, again, its simply not correct to say that anyone is disarming you. Many many companies have no issue with weapons. Others only have a no weapons in the building policy. You are free to go anywhere you want to if having a gun in your car is your issue. Alternatively you can work with the policy to find a compromise such as parking off the lot.

However this rhetoric where we compare private companies setting their own policies to states not allowing CCW, or saying that you are being denied the right to defend yourself isn't true and it doesn't help anyone.
 
Quote:
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.

from F.S. 776

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.


(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property


therefore, F.S. 790.06 authorizes carry,

(12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


Per Florida Statutes,section 810.02
defines “burglary” as “entering or remaining in adwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit anoffense therein. . . .” §810.02(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). There arethree essential elements of burglary: (1) a knowing entry into aconveyance; (2) knowledge that such entry is without permission;and (3) criminal intent to commit an offense within such aconveyance. T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

.According to section 810.011(3), Florida Statutes (1995), a“conveyance” is defined as “any motor vehicle, ship, vessel,railroad car, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping car.” To enter aconveyance includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance.

so we have Statues pertaining to Dwellings, Structures, and Vehicles..

They are treated diffrently..

The question I propose is this.

How can the person who owns/leases the parking lot for their business, that is open to the Public, and wishes not to have weapons on their property.
Not take away either 2nd amendment rights, or rights granted by Florida Statue 790, or Florida Statue 776?

a comprimise is leaving them in a locked vehicle, on the parking lot of the employer, since the vehicle is considered a conveyance, which is at a location temporarily. and is treated diffrently than real property, but does have rights..
the distinction is made when a CCW licensee disarms himself, and locks it in the vehicle, prior to becoming a pedestrian on others property. he still is in a occupied vehicle, and is covered under F.S. 790, lawful carry, and F.S. 776, occupied vehicle for justified use of force.
 
How can the person who owns/leases the parking lot for their business, that is open to the Public, and wishes not to have weapons on their property.
Not take away either 2nd amendment rights, or rights granted by Florida Statue 790, or Florida Statue 776?

Because a statute authorizing deadly force isn't exclusive to firearms. A person has the authority to use deadly force to protect themselves against the threat of death or seriously bodily injury. Not having a firearm does not prevent someone from using deadly force. Using a knife is deadly force. Using a car is deadly force. Using a tire iron or a baseball bat is deadly force. Sec 776 really has no bearing on this discussion.

As far as ccw goes, as has been stated ad nauseum, a ccw does not give you the right to carry a gun onto private property. Never has, and (hopefully) never will. It simply is a license by the state saying that it is legal for you to do so.
 
Businesses operate to make money, so why would they object to guns locked in cars in their parking lots? Most anti-gun business policies are blamed on the dictates of insurance companies which perceive risk from gun-related lawsuits. A law that shields a business from legal liability solves the insurance issue; no liability = no insurance risk.

Why else would businesses object to guns locked in cars in their parking lots? Businesses don't want to alienate customers or employees. Businesses might adopt anti-gun policies if they thought more customers or employees would favor anti-gun policies than pro-gun policies. A law that removes the need to make an anti- or pro-gun decision is a win-win because it prevents any customers or employees from being mad at the business (blame the lawmakers).

Of course, there is the 'liberty' argument - "It's my business and I'll do as I darned well please." While that is a nice sentiment, the reality of extensive existing business regulation makes it laughably untrue. The desire to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner 'because I can' adds nothing to the bottom line and is not a smart business motivation.

In short, the Florida 'parking lot' bill costs businesses nothing, shields them from legal liability, and relieves them from making policy decisions that alienate customers and employees. Opposing such a bill and ignoring the bottom line just to prove the ability to control something seems like a poor business decision.
 
Show me the statute that says that.

Whatever the particular statute for tresspassing is. If I own a business and see you with a gun, then I can tell you to leave. If you had a right to carry on private property, I couldn't boot you for having a gun.
 
Opposing such a bill and ignoring the bottom line just to prove the ability to control something seems like a poor business decision.

And poor business decisions are within the control of the particular business owner. Again, this idea that because a business is open to the public it loses all of its rights as a private property owner is simply wrong.
 
a ccw does not give you the right to carry a gun onto private property. Never has, and (hopefully) never will. It simply is a license by the state saying that it is legal for you to do so.

disagree with that one, see #4, construction..it is a right...

790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.--

(1) DECLARATION OF POLICY.--The Legislature finds as a matter of public policy and fact that it is necessary to promote firearms safety and to curb and prevent the use of firearms and other weapons in crime and by incompetent persons without prohibiting the lawful use in defense of life, home, and property, and the use by United States or state military organizations, and as otherwise now authorized by law, including the right to use and own firearms for target practice and marksmanship on target practice ranges or other lawful places, and lawful hunting and other lawful purposes.


(3) LAWFUL USES.--The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:

(l) A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased or in a public conveyance when the weapon is securely encased and not in the person's manual possession;

(n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;


(4) CONSTRUCTION.--This act shall be liberally construed to carry out the declaration of policy herein and in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. This act is supplemental and additional to existing rights to bear arms now guaranteed by law and decisions of the courts of Florida, and nothing herein shall impair or diminish any of such rights. This act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation in conflict herewith.


(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.--Notwithstanding subsection

(2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.
 
Whatever the particular statute for tresspassing is. If I own a business and see you with a gun, then I can tell you to leave. If you had a right to carry on private property, I couldn't boot you for having a gun.

You always have the right to refuse service. You can ask someone to leave for any reason you feel like. Gun or no gun.
Don't like blue hair? Ask them to leave. If they refuse it has the same consequences if they have a gun or not.
Blue hair is not outlawed in any of the 50 states that I'm aware of, but I can use it to ask you to leave.



Edit: The point being having a gun is irrelavent to the tresspassing.
 
Quote:

In public. Not on private property.

I see now...

constitutional rights only apply to public property...

sure would like to see cites, previous decisions on that..please provide.

would have to be constitutional rights cases decided by FL supreme court.
 
Last edited:
And poor business decisions are within the control of the particular business owner. Again, this idea that because a business is open to the public it loses all of its rights as a private property owner is simply wrong.

It would be silly to contend that a business open to the public gives up "all of its" property rights. But business property rights are already constrained by a huge number of laws and regulations. Fighting for a "right" that apparently adds nothing to a business' prosperity is at best foolish, and more probably counterproductive. However, I would like to hear anyone's explanation of how resisting a 'parking lot' law contributes to a business' prosperity.
 
Whatever the particular statute for tresspassing is. If I own a business and see you with a gun, then I can tell you to leave. If you had a right to carry on private property, I couldn't boot you for having a gun.

Florida law licenses me to CCW. Florida statute 790 specifically lists all places I cannot legally carry in Florida. Your business is not on that list. There is no provision on Florida law that allows you to add your business to that list. If I did not have the legal ability to carry on your private property, you would have the legal ability to prevent me from entering your property with a firearm. You could have me arrested. End of Story.

You have the choice to work elsewhere. You have the choice to not park in the parking lot.

You have the choice to move you business to a state that allows you to prohibit firearms on you property and have violators arrested for violating that prohibition.

Time for me to follow Grand Illusion....Scotty, beam me up. I'm outta here.
 
It's true businesses have a right to fire someone for bringing a gun to work, in their car or on their person. They have a right to fire someone looking at them the wrong way or wearing a purple shirt. They can fire you for.... anything except race or gender, without any reason whatsoever. Heck, you can fire someone for race or gender as long as you give them some other reason. They have the right to search you as a condition of access. They have to right to tell you in detail what you can or cannot do at work or what you can or cannot do at home.

So don't think you have a constitutional right to carry at work. You don't have any constitutional rights at work.

So they have the rights. The employees have the right to quit and go to another employer who will take their rights. Or to break company policy until they get caught. Or to go into business for themselves if they can afford it.
 
Florida law licenses me to CCW. Florida statute 790 specifically lists all places I cannot legally carry in Florida. Your business is not on that list. There is no provision on Florida law that allows you to add your business to that list. If I did not have the legal ability to carry on your private property, you would have the legal ability to prevent me from entering your property with a firearm. You could have me arrested. End of Story.

We've talked about this before. Because its legal doesn't mean its a right. If I'm a business owner, I CAN prevent you from entering onto my property of you have a firearm. Whether the state arrests you has nothing to do with this. If you had a right to carry onto my property then I couldn't prevent you from entering. I can.


You have the choice to move you business to a state that allows you to prohibit firearms on you property and have violators arrested for violating that prohibition.

Sorry, thats not how it works.

Really? So as an employer, I can require female employees to have sex with me, or they are fired?

Nope. However picking out stupid examples like this doesn't really change anything.
 
Quote:
Florida law licenses me to CCW. Florida statute 790 specifically lists all places I cannot legally carry in Florida. Your business is not on that list. There is no provision on Florida law that allows you to add your business to that list. If I did not have the legal ability to carry on your private property, you would have the legal ability to prevent me from entering your property with a firearm. You could have me arrested. End of Story.
We've talked about this before. Because its legal doesn't mean its a right. If I'm a business owner, I CAN prevent you from entering onto my property of you have a firearm. Whether the state arrests you has nothing to do with this. If you had a right to carry onto my property then I couldn't prevent you from entering. I can.

While I agree that there is a diffrence between lawful posession (does not necessarily infer a right, just states that it is not against the law) and a right, which is something that is protected by State Statue, or Constitition.

with all of the lawyers that proposed bills, and reviewed them before passage into law, and inclusion into Fl Statues, the wording is clear. you have to get to the end of the statue.

F.S 790.25
(4 ) CONSTRUCTION.--This act shall be liberally construed to carry out the declaration of policy herein and in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. This act is supplemental and additional to existing rights to bear arms now guaranteed by law and decisions of the courts of Florida, and nothing herein shall impair or diminish any of such rights. This act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation in conflict herewith.


if this is not a right, it would have not specified as one 3 times...

absent this wording, I would agree, it is lawful, and not a right.. but this states otherwise.


as a employer, you can specify your terms of offering employment, maybe even have a person waive this right.. some rights can't be waived though..
the ones enumerated such as civil rights, and labor laws, and ones specified in Constitition, Statue, administrative code, federal code, etc..this is more contractual in nature, and does not deal with property rights.

property rights can be any thing the owner desires, except proved contrary by statue, constitition, admistrative code, or other law.
 
if this is not a right, it would have not specified as one 3 times...

Its not. You need to read it more carefully. It says, "liberally construed to carry out the declaration of policy". It then references the RKBA. Because a statute references a right does not mean the content of the statute is a right itself. This clearly says that it is policy, not a right.

The next part says, "This act is supplemental and additional to existing rights to bear arms now guaranteed by law and decisions of the courts of Florida". Again, this isn't saying its a right, its saying that its tacking on to those rights that are found in the constitution and have been set forth by the courts.

The last part says, "and nothing herein shall impair or diminish any of such rights". Which is sort of a repetition of the above meaning that this piece of legislation is not intended to limit any of your PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED rights that are found in the constitution.

Because you see the word "rights" in a statute doesn't mean that it is itself a right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top