and just so you know- the private property argument has been struck down by the courts in many, many cases. There is nothing in the constitution that makes a property owner the king of his land. See the recent ruling here for a reasoned discussion of the merits of that position.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FL gun law upheld by courts
- Thread starter divemedic
- Start date
Keltyke posted:
Unregistered was stating that he didn't think the government should be able to dictate what employers do on their own property. I merely used the handicapped as one example of where the government most certainly does tell employers what they can and cannot do when it comes to the rights of their employees. Every employee has a right to keep and bear arms. Some have a license (permission from the government) to carry a firearm on them at all times. This doesn't mean that they can carry it into their place of work, but it does mean that they can carry it in their car while they are driving to and from work. Once they get to work, if they cannot keep the gun in their car, what should they do with it? If the employer is telling employees that they cannot keep a gun in their car, nor carry it into work, is not the employer denying the employees' their right to carry a gun in their car away from work?
Some posters suggested that if the people who have carry permits don't like their employer's policies, they could seek work elsewhere. If an employer didn't provide handicapped parking spots for handicapped employees, should we then tell the handicapped employees that they have a choice to work elsewhere? I think that would fly about as well as a lead model airplane with a rubber band motor. That's why I made the parallel with the handicapped employees.
The handicapped, like any other, may seek employment wherever they choose, and not be discriminated against for their handicap.
I'm having trouble seeing where this is a parallel situation.
Unregistered was stating that he didn't think the government should be able to dictate what employers do on their own property. I merely used the handicapped as one example of where the government most certainly does tell employers what they can and cannot do when it comes to the rights of their employees. Every employee has a right to keep and bear arms. Some have a license (permission from the government) to carry a firearm on them at all times. This doesn't mean that they can carry it into their place of work, but it does mean that they can carry it in their car while they are driving to and from work. Once they get to work, if they cannot keep the gun in their car, what should they do with it? If the employer is telling employees that they cannot keep a gun in their car, nor carry it into work, is not the employer denying the employees' their right to carry a gun in their car away from work?
Some posters suggested that if the people who have carry permits don't like their employer's policies, they could seek work elsewhere. If an employer didn't provide handicapped parking spots for handicapped employees, should we then tell the handicapped employees that they have a choice to work elsewhere? I think that would fly about as well as a lead model airplane with a rubber band motor. That's why I made the parallel with the handicapped employees.
I merely used the handicapped as one example
Thanks for the clarification, USAF. You're certainly correct, the government DOES tell employers what can and can't happen on their property. For another example, take OSHA, HAZMAT, DHEC and other safety regulations that TIGHTLY control private business practices.
To ask a CWP holder to leave their weapon home just to be able to park in the employee lot is bordering on the ludicrous. Could they park off the premises?
I went to Tuesday Morning the other day. When I approached the door, I saw the familiar red circle/slash over a handgun. I simply turned around, placed my weapon in the car, returned to the store, and did my shopping. Tuesday Morning owns the parking lot, true, but they would be hard-pressed to enforce a "no guns" ban in a public place.
The problem, though, was that you can't occupy it when you go into work.
When I leave my house, I don't occupy it and some of my guns remain there.
divemedic posted:
In Minnesota, when we finally passed our "shall issue" carry permit law, many businesses posted that they would not allow guns on their premises. Most of those signs came down after a short while, specifically in business establishments that were open to the public, such as convenience stores. Some commercial business still have signs posted, but you don't see as many as when the law was first passed. It has not been an issue.
Some people will take their business elsewhere if there is a "no guns permitted" sign. I don't know how many people will go elsewhere if there is not a sign posted. But, in the case of the new Florida ruling and Florida's new law, the main beef was not about customers but was centered on employees.
Personally, I'd feel safer where a number of employees had firearms. That way, some crackpot might not feel as emboldened to show up with a gun and start shooting up the place, with the knowledge that he alone would be armed until the cops could get there.
and just so you know- the private property argument has been struck down by the courts in many, many cases. There is nothing in the constitution that makes a property owner the king of his land. See the recent ruling here for a reasoned discussion of the merits of that position.
In Minnesota, when we finally passed our "shall issue" carry permit law, many businesses posted that they would not allow guns on their premises. Most of those signs came down after a short while, specifically in business establishments that were open to the public, such as convenience stores. Some commercial business still have signs posted, but you don't see as many as when the law was first passed. It has not been an issue.
Some people will take their business elsewhere if there is a "no guns permitted" sign. I don't know how many people will go elsewhere if there is not a sign posted. But, in the case of the new Florida ruling and Florida's new law, the main beef was not about customers but was centered on employees.
Personally, I'd feel safer where a number of employees had firearms. That way, some crackpot might not feel as emboldened to show up with a gun and start shooting up the place, with the knowledge that he alone would be armed until the cops could get there.
What!??!?!There is nothing wrong with contractually agreeing to forego your rights.
Of course there is. There is everything wrong with having to forego rights for employment. What about your right to not be murdered? Can you forego that?
Your rights are your rights, and can not be contractually foregone. Firing Line is, as advertised, “The leading online forum for firearms enthusiasts.” If you are anti-gun, as it appears, maybe you should find a gun control board where you can commiserate with others who might be more in line with your thinking.
JuanCarlos
New member
Of course there is. There is everything wrong with having to forego rights for employment. What about your right to not be murdered? Can you forego that?
Your rights are your rights, and can not be contractually foregone. Firing Line is, as advertised, “The leading online forum for firearms enthusiasts.” If you are anti-gun, as it appears, maybe you should find a gun control board where you can commiserate with others who might be more in line with your thinking.
Wait a sec. It's perfectly possible for him to be pro-gun, and a firearms enthusiast, and still strongly support the rights of property owners as well. This is a case where the two intersect, and he's simply siding with property owners...I get that. I don't agree, obviously, but I get it. Doesn't make him even remotely anti-gun.
Personally, I'd like to assume that part of it is that as a business owner (and a pro-gun one at that who doesn't enact such crap policies) he can't imagine the idea that many/most employers do have such policies and that most of us who don't own our own businesses don't necessarily have the option to just go elsewhere.
Which is the entire reason that I too disagree that it's reasonable to require somebody to essentially give up their rights as a condition of employment (at least insofar is it doesn't relate to their job performance...obviously free speech doesn't give you the right to tell off your superiors, that kind of thing).
The second amendment doesn't mean much when somebody winds up (through lack of other viable options) living in an apartment where they're forbidden from storing guns, taking public transportation where they can't carry, and/or working somewhere where they can't even store a gun in their car. At that point it's basically only the right of property owners to keep and bear arms.
I'm sure property owners have no problem with that.
Personally I'm not liking this new noble/serf arrangement that it creates.
There is nothing wrong with contractually agreeing to forego your rights.
Come to think of it, there's EVERYTHING wrong with signing away my Constitutional rights for employment. In England, they called that serfdom. In early America, they called it indentured servitude or slavery, depending on your color.
Too many paid for my rights with their blood for me to willy-nilly sign them away to some pipsqueak shop owner who thinks his word is the law of the land.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Guess who said THAT?
Unregistered
Moderator
Wait a sec. It's perfectly possible for him to be pro-gun, and a firearms enthusiast, and still strongly support the rights of property owners as well. This is a case where the two intersect, and he's simply siding with property owners...I get that. I don't agree, obviously, but I get it. Doesn't make him even remotely anti-gun.
Thank you.
Too many paid for my rights with their blood for me to willy-nilly sign them away to some pipsqueak shop owner who thinks his word is the law of the land.
I completely agree. The correct way to deal with that problem though is to not take that job. Work for someone else. If you truly resepect your second amendment rights as much as you say, you should not want to work for someone who would violate them anyway. If the employer found that he could not find employees because of his poor policy, then he would have to change his policy voluntarily. Its already hard enough finding good employees, and if people would stand up and refuse to work for someone who has a dumb policy like this, I think the policy would quickly change.
Another thing to consider is that you sign your rights away whenever you work for someone else. For example, most employers will not allow you to preach your religion to customers as they walk in. That violates your first amendment rights just as much as a no-gun policy violates your second amendment rights. Drug screens also violate your protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but of course no one makes much of a fuss about that right either.
I think one reason why many business owners might not want guns on their property is for liability. Would you be willing to absolve the property owner of this liability? In other words if a property owner was sued over such an incident, would you be willing to cover any judgement made against the property owner in a civil suit? My guess is no.
living in an apartment where they're forbidden from storing guns
I used to live in an apartment where it was against the lease to store flammable liquids. At that time, I flew radio control airplanes add had several gallon jugs of methanol/nitro fuel stored in the apartment. The landlord and I were on pretty good terms, since I paid the rent on time and didn't cause trouble. During one inspection, she asked me what the jugs were and I told her. She smiled and told me, "Next time, label them Kool-Aid, in case the government inspector is with me."
That presupposes that you have an alternative choice. In Central Florida for many people, that is not an option. Disney, Universal, and Publix together control a significant portion of the job market, what with being the three largest non-government employers in the area.
Your opinion essentially sets up a system whereby the only people who have rights are people who own property. That is the sort of European style of royalty that sets you up for the rich to own everything, and the poor having no rights.
Especially when Disney's property is in a Government District where the electorate receives one vote for each acre of property owned. I give you two guesses as to who owns the majority of property within the district, and who gets elected within that district.
When you have enough money that you become the government, it is no longer a free market, for you answer to no one.
Your opinion essentially sets up a system whereby the only people who have rights are people who own property. That is the sort of European style of royalty that sets you up for the rich to own everything, and the poor having no rights.
Especially when Disney's property is in a Government District where the electorate receives one vote for each acre of property owned. I give you two guesses as to who owns the majority of property within the district, and who gets elected within that district.
When you have enough money that you become the government, it is no longer a free market, for you answer to no one.
Unregistered
Moderator
So you think Disney would continue its policy, even if they could find no one to work for them??
Do you think they would completely shut down operations over this policy??
Its seems like everyone thinks their rights are important, until they have to do something inconvenient to keep them.
Do you think they would completely shut down operations over this policy??
Its seems like everyone thinks their rights are important, until they have to do something inconvenient to keep them.
What does this have to do with civil rights? Of course, if you are offering jobs, someone is going to take them.So you think Disney would continue its policy, even if they could find no one to work for them??
The simple fact, is that the state has passed a law recognizing Second Amendment rights for employees. Disney, through its highly paid lobbyists, was able to carve out a loophole for itself. I think the law should have been unqualified. What is the difference if the parking lot is associated with Disney, Walmart or a city building? If you are going to recognize a civil right, it should be recognized anywhere.
Frankly, the shallowness of the anti-gun arguments here are beginning to bore me. Good night!
So you think Disney would continue its policy, even if they could find no one to work for them??
The flip side of that is "So you think people are going to starve and get their homes foreclosed on over this (or almost any other) issue?"
There is not a property right like the one you speak of in this country.
Handicapped parking?
Fire codes?
Minimum wages?
Occupational safety?
Child labor laws?
Building codes?
Laws against price fixing?
Pollution laws?
Utility right of ways?
We used to have the kinds of laws in this country where the owner of property got to decide whatever they want. What we had was working conditions where workers were locked inside the building, working in unsafe conditions for wages that were nearly nonexistent.
When reporters tried to report and change the system, they were beaten and in some cases, killed. The pure free market cannot exist, because someone will attempt to cheat the system, either the worker or the owner. There is a certain amount of government oversight needed. That is just reality.
The difficulty is in maintaining balance. I think this law does that.
JuanCarlos
New member
So you think Disney would continue its policy, even if they could find no one to work for them??
Do you think they would completely shut down operations over this policy??
Its seems like everyone thinks their rights are important, until they have to do something inconvenient to keep them.
I honestly don't think the job market is such that a potential employee can actually turn down a job over this policy...not when the vast majority of positions in the state are with companies that have the same.
For a majority of jobseekers, their only options are to either take a job with a company that has this policy, or be unemployed. Sure, if a majority of the state could afford to be unemployed for a month or so while these companies figured out this policy was losing them prospects, it might work. Of course, most of the same propertyowners who own their own business are the exact same people who oppose expanded unemployment benefits (or much of a social safety net at all, really). Funny, that.
Like I said, it's great that you as a business owner don't institute such a policy. But most do (in number of jobs, if not in actual number). You're giving me the option of either forgoing my right to bear arms, or to be kicked out of my home (can't afford it), have no food (can't afford that), and basically having my life destroyed.
Which is exactly why even if I was willing to do so, the next guy wouldn't be...hence, they'll have zero problems filling their positions with the policy intact.
Prisoner's Dilemma? I'm thinking so. And it's not going to get fixed without the intervention of another party who wields more power in this situation than the property owner.
Don't like it? Then you, as a property owner, have the choice to move your business out of Florida. Or to move to a location where public parking is available (and not provide your own). What, that's not much of a choice for you? Again, funny that.
Another thing to consider is that you sign your rights away whenever you work for someone else. For example, most employers will not allow you to preach your religion to customers as they walk in. That violates your first amendment rights just as much as a no-gun policy violates your second amendment rights. Drug screens also violate your protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but of course no one makes much of a fuss about that right either.
The first is in no way analogous, as preaching religion to customers actually affects the performance of your job. As for drug screens, I actually do make a fuss about those, and given the prospect of a job that doesn't require them over one that does I will always choose the latter (and tell them why). Even though I don't use drugs.
Of course, the difference is that there are plenty of employers (at least here) that don't require them, largely because they actually cost money. Printing "no guns allowed on company property, including vehicles in the parking lot" in the employee handbook costs nothing.
I think one reason why many business owners might not want guns on their property is for liability. Would you be willing to absolve the property owner of this liability? In other words if a property owner was sued over such an incident, would you be willing to cover any judgement made against the property owner in a civil suit? My guess is no.
I wouldn't be willing to cover it. Which is exactly why the law needs to be altered such that (assuming it's my gun) I'm the one who is actually legally responsible for it. I actually understand that (in many cases) this liability issue is the reason for the policy, and I'd agree that changing one side without changing the other winds up screwing the property owner.
I would assume that the deloper who owns the building does, however that is irrelevant. Regardless of ownership issues, a parking lot for a building whose tenants do buisness with the public, is by defintion a public space, or a semi-public place at least. Furthermore by refusing to allow me to keep my gun in my car, the building is, for all practical intents preventing me from carrying in public, as I would be required to leave my gun behind on the way to work, in order to not have anything in my car. This places a restiction on my right to carry to and from work.Really? Who bought it, whose name is on the deed, and who pays the taxes on it?
Noone has suggested anything if the sort. Perhaps you should actually read the opinions peopkle have posted here, rather than trying to argye a strawman?Why is it that so many people seem to think that the only right that is absolute is your right to have a gun? Other people's right to control their own property don't just melt away because you have a gun.
Last edited:
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Duplicate threads merged.
PunchPaper
New member
Floridian and still not clear on the law...
As far as I understand, as things stand, employees with CCW licenses
may bring their guns to work and leave them locked in their cars.
Is there any brewing challenge to this?
I hope not, my Ruger P89 is just another tool in the car, like a tire jack or jumper cables, I don't see how this is causing anyone any problems.
It will certainly make me feel safer arriving or leaving in the dark
winter months.
As far as visitors to a business, what does this boil down to?
Does a business still have to post a sign if they do not want concealed firearms in their store?
I remember once reading that some banks in high crime areas have
automated equipment that will trap you inside if your gun sets off its sensors.
One reason not to think, hey, I am not printing, it's my business.
As I have mentioned before, there is delicious irony that my employer will
not let you smoke anywhere on company property (even in your own car)
but a gun is fine. I don't even smoke, but this still amuses me.
It's also funny how this big company has swept the whole issue under the rug. It's like "don't ask, don't tell".
Ideas?
As far as I understand, as things stand, employees with CCW licenses
may bring their guns to work and leave them locked in their cars.
Is there any brewing challenge to this?
I hope not, my Ruger P89 is just another tool in the car, like a tire jack or jumper cables, I don't see how this is causing anyone any problems.
It will certainly make me feel safer arriving or leaving in the dark
winter months.
As far as visitors to a business, what does this boil down to?
Does a business still have to post a sign if they do not want concealed firearms in their store?
I remember once reading that some banks in high crime areas have
automated equipment that will trap you inside if your gun sets off its sensors.
One reason not to think, hey, I am not printing, it's my business.
As I have mentioned before, there is delicious irony that my employer will
not let you smoke anywhere on company property (even in your own car)
but a gun is fine. I don't even smoke, but this still amuses me.
It's also funny how this big company has swept the whole issue under the rug. It's like "don't ask, don't tell".
Ideas?
Don't like it? Then you, as a property owner, have the choice to move your business out of Florida. Or to move to a location where public parking is available (and not provide your own). What, that's not much of a choice for you? Again, funny that.
Invalid comparison. One is an example of the market working itself out. The other is a business having to modify itself in response to state action.
The first is in no way analogous, as preaching religion to customers actually affects the performance of your job.
As opposed to telling crude jokes, hovering at the water cooler, surfing the web or all the other things that workers do that effectively destroy job performance. Of course, someone extolling the virtues of being a follower of Cthulhu won't kill anyone like a firearm will.