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
The owner of the property has a responsibility to 'invitees' to make the property safe. If you disarm people on your property, then it's a very small stretch to say that you are responsible for their safety. If some nut job opens up at Disney World, because he knows all the employees, and the guests are disarmed, then Disney deserves to be sued into bankruptcy for creating the situation that invites multiple deaths.No he shouldn't. That would mean that the is somehow responsible for the intentional acts of third parties not under his control. The law has never made people responsible for this.
That is the irony of all this. I would much rather be around a group of armed employees, then be in a free fire zone like certain colleges, etc. that ban carrying firearms.
When firearms are removed from a persons immediate control, i.e. on their person, all kinds of stuff may happen.
Theft, liability resulting from that, etc. It's a much safer world if the parking lot for employees at Disney World isn't
a shopping mall for stealing guns from employees cars.
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.
The Florida law specifically relieves the employer/property owner from any liability resulting from this law.
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.
Ok Batman, riddle me this. Does a parking lot owned by a city, open to the public and doubling as an employee parking lot for city employees meet the "private property" you regard so dearly? Can the city prohibit their employees from possessing a firearm on otherwise "public" property?
BTW, notice no one mentioned railroad property. Does not the railroad own all property on which they have tracks? As a property owner/supreme rights person, would you support a ban by the railroad against taking a firearm through any railroad crossing? Tis their property!
Is this discussion really about property rights, or is that just the smokescreen for employer rights?
Both. If the employer is the property owner then you can't really separate the two.
Sure, we can.
A property owner can issue an edict prohibiting guns in cars parked on a parking lot. Two cars park on the lot - one an employee's car and the other a customer's car. The edit against guns is meaningless if the property owner can't search the cars for guns, so let's consider searches.
A property owner could set up a security perimeter around a parking lot and require a search of every car entering the lot as a condition of entrance. Such an approach would be based solely on property rights. However, such an approach is only used in high-security areas because it is both costly to the property owner and typically ticks off customers.
A property owner could also allow unrestricted entry to the lot and selectively attempt to search certain cars after they were on the lot. No aspect of property ownership gives the owner power to compel a customer to permit a search of the customer's car. However, the contract of employment gives the owner the power to compel the employee to permit a search of the employee's car. The differentiating factor is not property rights, but the employment contract.
Unregistered
Moderator
Couldn't an employer create a subsidiary company, sell its parking lot off to the subsidiary, and then have the subsidiary ban firearms on the lot and charge a monthly fee for parking? They could stipulate in the lease of the parking space that no guns are allowed, and violation of the terms would result in immediate dissolution of the lease agreement, and forfeiture of the fees paid.
They could stipulate in the lease of the parking space that no guns are allowed, and violation of the terms would result in immediate dissolution of the lease agreement, and forfeiture of the fees paid.
The lease contract had better provide for searches or the banned guns will never be discovered. Also note that property rights still do not compel searches, that function is provided by the lease contract.
Unregistered
Moderator
Oh yes, if there was reason to suspect a gun in a vehicle, then the employee would have to voluntarily agree to a search, but it would strictly be voluntary. If he exercised his right to not be searched, he would simply lose his lease money and parking priviledges.
He would of course get to keep his job.
He would of course get to keep his job.
Couldn't an employer create a subsidiary company, sell its parking lot off to the subsidiary, and then have the subsidiary ban firearms on the lot and charge a monthly fee for parking? They could stipulate in the lease of the parking space that no guns are allowed, and violation of the terms would result in immediate dissolution of the lease agreement, and forfeiture of the fees paid.
Except that the fees and other terms of the lease would also apply to customers. Good way to run off your business.
Unregistered
Moderator
There would be no reason to make customers pay. They could park for free in the same lot.
Employees have taken free parking for granted for a long time. But there is no reason an employer should provide this free, especially if the government wants to nit pick how the gift is given. It really chaps me when the govt wants to tell me, as a business owner, what I need to do. As I have said, I have no policy regarding guns on my property, and could not care less if an employee carries a gun in their car or on their person, as long as they get the job done.
Employees have taken free parking for granted for a long time. But there is no reason an employer should provide this free, especially if the government wants to nit pick how the gift is given. It really chaps me when the govt wants to tell me, as a business owner, what I need to do. As I have said, I have no policy regarding guns on my property, and could not care less if an employee carries a gun in their car or on their person, as long as they get the job done.
I am not sure such a contract would be legal. The subsidiary would be a different entity, and as such could not enforce such a contract. After all, employees of the store would not be employees of the subsidiary that owned the lot.
It chaps me that a business thinks that because they are my employer that they somehow own me. You pay for my services, not to be my mother. Don't like it? Don't open a business.
ETA- Yet, you do not think it is hypocritical when that same government grants you and your money and property immunity from lawsuits by allowing you to form a corporation to shield those assets from liability when you (as a corporate entity) make poor decisions? Perhaps corporations should be made illegal. Then people would personally be liable for their poor decisions, instead of allowing them to hide behind the fictional corporate entity.
It really chaps me when the govt wants to tell me, as a business owner, what I need to do.
It chaps me that a business thinks that because they are my employer that they somehow own me. You pay for my services, not to be my mother. Don't like it? Don't open a business.
ETA- Yet, you do not think it is hypocritical when that same government grants you and your money and property immunity from lawsuits by allowing you to form a corporation to shield those assets from liability when you (as a corporate entity) make poor decisions? Perhaps corporations should be made illegal. Then people would personally be liable for their poor decisions, instead of allowing them to hide behind the fictional corporate entity.
Unregistered
Moderator
I agree that an employer shouldnt care if you have a gun in your car. But why would you want to work for someone who thinks no more of your rights than to ban you from carrying a gun in your car? If its because you say you can't find a job anywhere else, I say baloney. Most smaller companies will not have a policy like that, and unless you are highly specialized, there is always someplace else to work. The Pilgrims sailed across an ocean because of their rights... certainly you could just change your job? If everyone who was opposed to this policy would quit and refuse to work for an employer like this, then I assure you the policy would rapidly go away. We are an accomplice in the removal of our own rights if we tolerate such policies. There is no reason why this has to be regulated by the government. Problems like this are best handled privately, without the need for government interference.
Whether it is cloaked in a parking lot 'lease' or claims of proprty rights, it is still a matter of the employment contract. The same theory (submit or be terminated) that an employer would use to force an employee to submit to a vehicle search in a company parking lot could equally be used to require an employee to submit to a residence inspection. Both are abhorant because they are unrelated to the employee's job performance.
Unregistered
Moderator
No its not a matter of the employment contract.
If an employer does not provide parking (and many in downtown areas do not, so it is not unheard of), then it is up to the employee to find his own parking. The employer has no responsibility to provide parking.
If an employer does not provide parking (and many in downtown areas do not, so it is not unheard of), then it is up to the employee to find his own parking. The employer has no responsibility to provide parking.
No its not a matter of the employment contract.
Then please define the property right that gives a property owner power to forcibly search 'invitees' and their personal property.
The employer has no responsibility to provide parking.
Bravo. Of course, that reasoning is not very useful in cases such as DisneyWorld, in which the employer own tens of thousands of acres.
Unregistered
Moderator
Then please define the property right that gives a property owner power to forcibly search 'invitees' and their personal property.
The parking lot would be owned by a seperate company, which charges a fee for the driver to park. In return, the driver would agree to allow the parking lot company to search their car for weapons, at the discretion of the parking lot company. This would work much like a bag search before you enter a theme park such as Disney. The person would agree to the search as a condition to enter. No one is forcibly searched, and of course they could refuse the search, no questions asked. They would just not be able to use the parking space, and forfeit their lease money.
Bravo. Of course, that reasoning is not very useful in cases such as DisneyWorld, in which the employer own tens of thousands of acres.
If the employee chooses not to drive, that would be a personal decision. So is where to park. They could take a taxi, or have a family member drop them off, just like they can now.
How the hell do you come up with it being voluntary when he is being threatened with retaliatory action??!! It sounds like coercion to me.Unregistered: Oh yes, if there was reason to suspect a gun in a vehicle, then the employee would have to voluntarily agree to a search, but it would strictly be voluntary. If he exercised his right to not be searched, he would simply lose his lease money and parking priviledges.
By your….logic(?)….. if a mugger puts a knife to my throat and demands my money I’m not being robbed. I’m giving him my money voluntarily because I have a choice.
God in Heaven! And people wonder why there is an adversarial relationship between management and the workers in this country.
The parking lot would be owned by a seperate company, which charges a fee for the driver to park.
A business can own a parking lot, sell it to a subsidiary or affiliate, deed it to a charity, or have it named a World Landmark Site... and NO property right exists, or is created, to compel a search of a person (customer or employee) or their property. The power to compel a search arises from a contractual relationship, whether it is through employment, a lease, or some other creative twist.
In return, the driver would agree to allow the parking lot company to search their car for weapons, at the discretion of the parking lot company.
A property owner does not need anyone to 'agree' to the exercise of property rights. However, a contractual relationship does require one party to 'agree' to something (i.e. paying a fee and permiting a search) 'in return' for something (i.e. permission to park) from another party.
It is a contract issue, and not an assault on the sanctity of property rights as some wish to portray it.
lol, everyone here is all "pro rights" right until it no longer benifits them, then they just say screw it and support enfringment on other people.
I support CCW, I don't support taking control of personal property away from its owner.
CCW is good, but somone should not be able to take their firearm into an establishment the expliciledly states no firearms, going directly aginst the owners wishes.
I support CCW, I don't support taking control of personal property away from its owner.
CCW is good, but somone should not be able to take their firearm into an establishment the expliciledly states no firearms, going directly aginst the owners wishes.
The law being discussed allows people to leave firearms in their own locked vehicles.
This has been discussed as if it's a property rights issue but in reality it is NOT. Here's why.
1. A property owner can't go out and search cars in his lot just because the lot belongs to him. He can only search his employees' cars because if they don't comply he can fire them. It's not about property, it's about retaining the ability to force employees to knuckle under.
2. The control affects far more than just what happens in the company owned parking lot, it affects employees from the time they walk out their door until the time they walk back into their home that evening. It actually begins to affect them while they're on their OWN private property as they walk to their driveway.
3. Vehicles are private property, in fact, for many purposes they are considered to be an extension of the home. A vehicle does not become the company's property because it's parked in the company parking lot. If this were REALLY about property rights then the interior of private vehicles would clearly be off limits to the employer since the vehicles are someone else's private property.
The bottom line is that this law is all about what level of control is reasonable for an employer to exert on employees. It's NOT about property rights, that's just a smokescreen. If employers were really concerned about property rights, this whole issue would disappear since the issue is really about what goes on in employees' private property (i.e. their vehicles).
Now, when it comes to controlling whether or not a person can carry a gun into your business/home/etc. that's another story. In my opinion the judge got it right. If you want to keep a person from carrying a gun into your business/home/etc. then you should have that right. You should NOT, however, have the right to force him to leave his gun at home, essentially denying him the right to effective self-defense on the way to and from your business/home/etc.
This has been discussed as if it's a property rights issue but in reality it is NOT. Here's why.
1. A property owner can't go out and search cars in his lot just because the lot belongs to him. He can only search his employees' cars because if they don't comply he can fire them. It's not about property, it's about retaining the ability to force employees to knuckle under.
2. The control affects far more than just what happens in the company owned parking lot, it affects employees from the time they walk out their door until the time they walk back into their home that evening. It actually begins to affect them while they're on their OWN private property as they walk to their driveway.
3. Vehicles are private property, in fact, for many purposes they are considered to be an extension of the home. A vehicle does not become the company's property because it's parked in the company parking lot. If this were REALLY about property rights then the interior of private vehicles would clearly be off limits to the employer since the vehicles are someone else's private property.
The bottom line is that this law is all about what level of control is reasonable for an employer to exert on employees. It's NOT about property rights, that's just a smokescreen. If employers were really concerned about property rights, this whole issue would disappear since the issue is really about what goes on in employees' private property (i.e. their vehicles).
Now, when it comes to controlling whether or not a person can carry a gun into your business/home/etc. that's another story. In my opinion the judge got it right. If you want to keep a person from carrying a gun into your business/home/etc. then you should have that right. You should NOT, however, have the right to force him to leave his gun at home, essentially denying him the right to effective self-defense on the way to and from your business/home/etc.