Controlling your property does not mean that a person's constitutional rights end when they are on your property. If you allow people on your property, then you allow them in "with their rights intact". If you don't want people to have rights while on your property, maybe you should not allow people on your property.
FL gun law upheld by courts
- Thread starter divemedic
- Start date
Controlling your property does not mean that a person's constitutional rights end when they are on your property. If you allow people on your property, then you allow them in "with their rights intact". If you don't want people to have rights while on your property, maybe you should not allow people on your property.
JuanCarlos
New member
Show me where I've said these can't be limited by the employer.
Oh, wait. You can't.
WeedWacker
New member
IIRC Castle doctrine referring to the vehicle is usually that it is an extension of your home. Police cannot search it without a warrant (only plain sight via windows) and logically employers cannot consider the inside of your personal vehicle their property. What is in the vehicle is yours, not theirs. If they have the right to search your vehicle with little or no evidence and without a warrant that is an invasion of privacy and could then be construed as an illegal search.
First off to Unregistered's position:
As a libertarian, I totally support the Second Amendment.
However, I recognize that monopolies, such as Disney's in Florida, have made it necessary to write laws to curtail their monopolistic arbitrary abuse of the country. The Robber Barons taught us that companies will squeeze so hard that people end up owing them money, and, will take away any and all Constitutional rights, unless stopped. While I abhor laws in general, and, that they should be a last resort, some regulation of these folks is necessary.
This case is NOT a triumph, but a first step. First off, as a former manager, I wanted as many people as possible armed, and watching my back. I don't want them leaving firearms in cars, that are easy to break into, and, creating a possible lawsuit that my rule created a situation that set up a theft that resulted in a death.
Next, I don't want my people walking unarmed, late at night, to their cars, unprotected. And, here is the rub. If you take away my ability to protect myself, the law, and I, should expect you to provide a TOTALLY safe enviornment
to and from my vehicle.
Good example: Oakland arena. They have metal detectors, and wands. That means pretty much no one gets in, as a customer, with a firearm. They have a HUGE parking lot, that you pay 15 dollars to park in, that is just a wonderful place to get mugged. No thank you, I stopped going, but, I should have another alternative, and, if you are going to put me in that position, I want a 100% safe escort to my car, or, if I'm mugged, I'm suing you for everything I can.
The owner creates a dangerous condition, then makes it worse by preventing any method of defense possible.
Also, the argument is that the property owner has the right to control his property, and, the employee should not take the job if he doesn't agree with the owner. How about this? Chances are the majority residents in the state
have the right to elect officials that look out for their intrests, and, to pass laws that protect their intrests. Oregon's law that people can't pump their own gas, for example, to insure jobs, and other such laws. The majority residents of the state have the right to pass laws that regulate property owners' behavior, and, when it affects a fundamental right, the Federal government has the ability to intervene as well. If the PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T LIKE IT, TOUGH. It's easier for the property owner, usually rather rich and well to do, to sell his property and move his business. Just look at Silicon Valley for that example...
Since this is already in Federal Court, it's going to be intresting to see the Appellate Case, and, if the SCOTUS picks it up. It's a perfect case for the
scrutiny level being established, and, if anything, this judges ruling, overturning a state law, appears to be a great case for states' rights, as well.
As a libertarian, I totally support the Second Amendment.
However, I recognize that monopolies, such as Disney's in Florida, have made it necessary to write laws to curtail their monopolistic arbitrary abuse of the country. The Robber Barons taught us that companies will squeeze so hard that people end up owing them money, and, will take away any and all Constitutional rights, unless stopped. While I abhor laws in general, and, that they should be a last resort, some regulation of these folks is necessary.
This case is NOT a triumph, but a first step. First off, as a former manager, I wanted as many people as possible armed, and watching my back. I don't want them leaving firearms in cars, that are easy to break into, and, creating a possible lawsuit that my rule created a situation that set up a theft that resulted in a death.
Next, I don't want my people walking unarmed, late at night, to their cars, unprotected. And, here is the rub. If you take away my ability to protect myself, the law, and I, should expect you to provide a TOTALLY safe enviornment
to and from my vehicle.
Good example: Oakland arena. They have metal detectors, and wands. That means pretty much no one gets in, as a customer, with a firearm. They have a HUGE parking lot, that you pay 15 dollars to park in, that is just a wonderful place to get mugged. No thank you, I stopped going, but, I should have another alternative, and, if you are going to put me in that position, I want a 100% safe escort to my car, or, if I'm mugged, I'm suing you for everything I can.
The owner creates a dangerous condition, then makes it worse by preventing any method of defense possible.
Also, the argument is that the property owner has the right to control his property, and, the employee should not take the job if he doesn't agree with the owner. How about this? Chances are the majority residents in the state
have the right to elect officials that look out for their intrests, and, to pass laws that protect their intrests. Oregon's law that people can't pump their own gas, for example, to insure jobs, and other such laws. The majority residents of the state have the right to pass laws that regulate property owners' behavior, and, when it affects a fundamental right, the Federal government has the ability to intervene as well. If the PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T LIKE IT, TOUGH. It's easier for the property owner, usually rather rich and well to do, to sell his property and move his business. Just look at Silicon Valley for that example...
Since this is already in Federal Court, it's going to be intresting to see the Appellate Case, and, if the SCOTUS picks it up. It's a perfect case for the
scrutiny level being established, and, if anything, this judges ruling, overturning a state law, appears to be a great case for states' rights, as well.
Both sides so far do not plan to appeal. Granted, this is a preliminary injunction, but is a good indicator of how the Judge is going to rule.
ETA:
Yes, employees with a CCW may not be fired or otherwise disciplined for having a gun in their car, having a CCW, or refusing a search of their vehicle for weapons. This was a preliminary hearing and the challenge is still moving forward and the full trial will be coming up.
As far as visitors, that portion of the law was struck down because of some poor wording in the statute. As it stands, a business can ask you to leave the property if they find you with a firearm, either in your car or on your person. This case does not make it illegal to carry a CCW, or otherwise possess a weapon on a business' property. It merely allows them to ask you to leave if found out.
ETA:
Yes, employees with a CCW may not be fired or otherwise disciplined for having a gun in their car, having a CCW, or refusing a search of their vehicle for weapons. This was a preliminary hearing and the challenge is still moving forward and the full trial will be coming up.
As far as visitors, that portion of the law was struck down because of some poor wording in the statute. As it stands, a business can ask you to leave the property if they find you with a firearm, either in your car or on your person. This case does not make it illegal to carry a CCW, or otherwise possess a weapon on a business' property. It merely allows them to ask you to leave if found out.
I dont think so. I can invite you over to my house and violate the hell out of your sirst amendment rights, demand that you allow me to search you before stepping foot onto my property and all sorts of other quaint things. Rights intact my foot.
Nor do I need to. The point is that the employer CAN regulate those things because they have the potential to adversely affect his business... kinda like having firearms on his property could. Especially when the employer isn't necessarily aware that they are there.
Eloquenly stated and yet so irrelevant. State action is not the same as natural market forces. In fact it is the exact opposite because state action artifically adjusts the market. Its inconsistent to support smaller government on one hand but say that its a great thing that the government is sticking its nose in here on the other.
The collective result of individual action and the result of collective action are two sides of one coin.
Telling businesses to abandon a disagreeable community to seek a more favorable environment fits the same mold as telling individuals to abandon a disagreeable business to seek a more favorable environment.
Telling businesses to abandon a disagreeable community to seek a more favorable environment fits the same mold as telling individuals to abandon a disagreeable business to seek a more favorable environment.
Unregistered
Moderator
Nothing wrong with either.
Everyone would be happier.
Look, there is not a constitutional provision that prohibits a state legislature from passing such a law. Since that is the case, it is left to the voters, through their elected representatives, to pass or not pass laws like this. If you don't agree with it or like it, then you have two choices:
1 Don't come here to Florida
2 if you live here in Florida, elect someone who will pass laws more to your liking
If you live somewhere else, it is none of your business- they are our laws, not yours. As long as we are not violating the constitution, the legislature here are OUR representatives, not yours, and they will pass the laws WE want. Just like your legislatures pass the laws YOU want.
1 Don't come here to Florida
2 if you live here in Florida, elect someone who will pass laws more to your liking
If you live somewhere else, it is none of your business- they are our laws, not yours. As long as we are not violating the constitution, the legislature here are OUR representatives, not yours, and they will pass the laws WE want. Just like your legislatures pass the laws YOU want.
Unregistered
Moderator
Divemedic is correct. I will actively vote for politicians who will try to repeal this law.
Most Americans are too stupid to even know that we have a 3 branch government. In a recent survey, only 42% of Americans could name the three branches of government, but 59% could name all 3 stooges.
They are unhappy because gas prices are high and because the MSM is complaining about the war.
Ask the same people who are unhappy WHY they disapprove of the government, and they probably can't tell you. Proof: watch the election. The majority of incumbents will win.
They are unhappy because gas prices are high and because the MSM is complaining about the war.
Ask the same people who are unhappy WHY they disapprove of the government, and they probably can't tell you. Proof: watch the election. The majority of incumbents will win.
So let me get this straight. Those that support "property rights" believe the employer has the right to tell an employee what he may or may not have in his privately owned vehicle in a public parking lot simply because the person works for that property owner?
That would mean you agree an employer could ban spare tires in the vehicles of employees and fire them for non-compliance, right? He could ban trailer hitches, NRA decals, personalized license plates, Goodyear tires, Tinted windows, CD players or any other physical object he desires to prohibit on his property?
Guess you would also agree that the railroad company has the right to ban firearms in vehicles across the country when travelling over railroad owned crossings?
Remember, this law has nothing to do with firearms on private property. It is already perfectly legal to possess a firearm in your vehicle while parked in a public parking lot. The law merely prevents an employer from disciplining an employee for participating in this legal action.
That would mean you agree an employer could ban spare tires in the vehicles of employees and fire them for non-compliance, right? He could ban trailer hitches, NRA decals, personalized license plates, Goodyear tires, Tinted windows, CD players or any other physical object he desires to prohibit on his property?
Guess you would also agree that the railroad company has the right to ban firearms in vehicles across the country when travelling over railroad owned crossings?
Remember, this law has nothing to do with firearms on private property. It is already perfectly legal to possess a firearm in your vehicle while parked in a public parking lot. The law merely prevents an employer from disciplining an employee for participating in this legal action.
It depends, is the parking lot public property, or private property. If public property no. If private property, yes. The singular most important power of private property ownership is the right of control. Inherent in the right to control is the right to exclude.
This idea that if you hide one item of your personal property (a gun) in another item of personal property (your car) means that you really aren't taking it on to my property is ridiculous. Leaving a gun in your car and bringing it on to my property is no different than leaving a gun in your bag and bringing it into my house.
You bet. Of course the flip side is that no one would likely work for company with such stupid policies. Thats the beauty of having the freedom to contract.
Au contraire. Because something is open to the public doesn't mean is not private property. If these parking lots are truly public property, then its no business of the employer what you have in your car. However if you are trying to bring a firearm onto his property REGARDLESS of the manner in which you do it, then it is his business.
Unregistered
Moderator
And if an employee brings a firearm onto an employer's property without permission, the employee should accept any liability an employer may have for misuse of the firearm.
For example, if a Wal Mart employees gun is taken from his car, and the thief goes on a shooting rampage, the victims will likely sue Wal Mart (deep pockets), rather than the gun owner. The gun owner should be willing to cover any liability a civil court places on Wal Mart for the incident.
For example, if a Wal Mart employees gun is taken from his car, and the thief goes on a shooting rampage, the victims will likely sue Wal Mart (deep pockets), rather than the gun owner. The gun owner should be willing to cover any liability a civil court places on Wal Mart for the incident.
Is this discussion really about property rights, or is that just the smokescreen for employer rights?
Does the property owner prohibit any firearms in vehicles on the property? Does the property owner search all vehicles before allowing entry to the property? Or is selective enforcement of the claimed 'property right' the mechanism to pursue the employer's wishes with respect to employees?
Does the property owner prohibit any firearms in vehicles on the property? Does the property owner search all vehicles before allowing entry to the property? Or is selective enforcement of the claimed 'property right' the mechanism to pursue the employer's wishes with respect to employees?