FL gun law upheld by courts

It's pretty uncommon for there to be public parking within miles of a theme park. Especially one the size of Disneyworld.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just poorly traveled, but I've been to several theme parks including all the one's here in CA and there are plenty of places to park along the streets that border the park.


Perhaps some people here have just not had to work a "regular" job in a while (either self employed or employed in fields where things aren't quite the same), but in most cities in this country you are pretty much just going to have to drive to work.
Click to expand...

Sure you have to drive to work. However if we are going to talk about "averages" here, an overwhelming majority of people work in areas that have accessible parking available to them. This is guaranteed if you work in a downtown area. Its also very easy to find if your business is in a more suburban setting and probably free to boot.

No doubt that there will be people that face greater hardships than others. However thats just the nature of rights. They are obstructions to the actions of others.
 
Maybe I'm just poorly traveled, but I've been to several theme parks including all the one's here in CA and there are plenty of places to park along the streets that border the park.
Click to expand...

Walt Disney World is not like any other theme park. There are no public streets near it that you can park on. It is located in a huge expanse of undeveloped land owned by Disney.
 
Walt Disney World is not like any other theme park. There are no public streets near it that you can park on. It is located in a huge expanse of undeveloped land owned by Disney.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Then I suppose a job change is in order for someone who finds that having a gun in their car is a priority.
 
First, about the parking. There are NO public streets to park on anywhere near Disney. The Disney property that is the recreation area in central Florida is over 47 square miles, roughly double the size of Manhattan Island.

There is no comparison to DisneyLand in Claifornia. Disney World Florida comprises 4 theme parks, a race track, 3 water parks, dozens of hotels, recreation areas, golf courses, lakes, and a large support complex, as well as over 100 square miles of undeveloped property. DisneyLand California is so much smaller, that all of the property at the California facility can fit inside of the parking lot of just one of the Florida parks, with room left over for several thousand cars.

Just getting another job is not a realistic option. Over one half of the jobs in the Central Florida area are created by the largest 6 employers, all of whom happen to be anti-gun. That does not include all of the jobs that are contracted to those employers, who must abide by Disney's rules. A good example is many of the hotels, movie theaters, and restaurants in the area are on property owned by Disney, and the employees there must follow the same rules as the Disney employees.

You have made my main point for me: If you are not even aware of whether or not you can find a place to park that is off Disney property, you obviously have no idea of the issues facing voters in this state. If you don't like the way we run our state, then don't come here. The people who live here have a saying that was spawned out of having to listen to the constant whining of people who moved here to flee the poorly run areas up north. That saying is:

We don't care how you did it up north, go home if you don't like the way we do it down here.
 
I'm a licensed Florida security officer. I work an industrial property that has two companies on it. We work for only 1 of the 2 companies but have to deal with the traffic for the other company also. We might have as many as 130 entries to the property on a typical morning shift alone. The company I work for has people on the property 24 hours/day.

This new law will give me another tool to control and protect people/property.
 
Just getting another job is not a realistic option. Over one half of the jobs in the Central Florida area are created by the largest 6 employers, all of whom happen to be anti-gun.
Click to expand...

I'd wager if you expand it to 20-30 employers who hold similar policies you could say the same for all of Florida. Though STAGE 2 is correct and in a large number of those cases there are other viable options...but not even close to all of them.
 
A whole other ball of wax is this: I work for a local government, and they have a 'no guns on city property' rule. What about my ability to have a gun in my car?

My g/f used to work at night in a medical office by herself. This office was in a bad part of town. Her boss knew for over a year that she had a firearm on her person and didn't have a problem with it. That is, until my g/f got tired of being forced to work unpaid overtime and asked them to pay her for the over 1,000 hours in unpaid overtime that she had accrued over the last year, and threatened to complain to the wage and hour division if she didn't get her money. So, they fired her, using the gun as their excuse.

She sued them and won damages AND back pay. I guess to some of you that is government intrusion and should be illegal, but to me that is the only way the little guy has a shot at anything approaching fair.
 
Just getting another job is not a realistic option. Over one half of the jobs in the Central Florida area are created by the largest 6 employers, all of whom happen to be anti-gun.
Click to expand...

So go somewhere else besides central florida.


That does not include all of the jobs that are contracted to those employers, who must abide by Disney's rules. A good example is many of the hotels, movie theaters, and restaurants in the area are on property owned by Disney, and the employees there must follow the same rules as the Disney employees.
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but if these businesses are not within the theme park then employes will have the option of parking off site.

The people who live here have a saying that was spawned out of having to listen to the constant whining of people who moved here to flee the poorly run areas up north. That saying is:

We don't care how you did it up north, go home if you don't like the way we do it down here.
Click to expand...

And I have no doubt the mayor of DC feels the same way. Unfortunately there are certian rights that cannot or should not be legislated away.
 
I'd wager if you expand it to 20-30 employers who hold similar policies you could say the same for all of Florida.
Click to expand...

But these people are not going to face the same problem as a disney employee given what seems to be the special nature of this particular park. And from what it seems, this problem is only limited to disney world as disney land and other theme parks (6 flags, universal studios, water parks) don't have these issues.

On top of this, people seeking a job for disney are made very much aware that it is far different from a regular job and incredibly regulated. My brother in law is a former disney employee so I've had many first hand accounts of what goes on and what they require from their employees beginning with disney university (yes you go to "college" in order to be able to work there) and continuing with the daily stuff.

So it should be painfully obvious to people who work there that having a firearm won't be allowed since things that you and I would think are perfectly fine such as having a water bottle while working aren't allowed.
 
Instead, I propose that I do what I, as an American citizen, am constitutionally allowed to do- I contact my state Legislator for a redress of my grievances, who the passes a law in conjunction with the other Legislative representatives, that prevents my employer from controlling my life.

So go somewhere else besides central florida.
Click to expand...

I say the same to you: Don't like what the voters have done, don't come here.

And I have no doubt the mayor of DC feels the same way. Unfortunately there are certian rights that cannot or should not be legislated away.
Click to expand...

and this is not one of them. The courts have repeatedly ruled that. Get over it.
 
Instead, I propose that I do what I, as an American citizen, am constitutionally allowed to do- I contact my state Legislator for a redress of my grievances, who the passes a law in conjunction with the other Legislative representatives, that prevents my employer from controlling my life.
Click to expand...

Except that such legislation violates the property rights of the property owner and thus is invalid. And then there is the problem with OSHA which is even worse as it is federal law.

and this is not one of them. The courts have repeatedly ruled that. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Then I defer you to the OK decision. The court clearly stated that the business had a valid and winning property right argument. It failed because of a procedural issue, not a substantive one.
 
What kind of crime rate does Disney have on their property? What kind of crime rate does Orlando have in general?
Well, I can answer the last part. VERY HIGH. You compare, with Oakland California,
actually higher in the following areas, per capitia:

Higher Violent crime about 18%, 50% less murders then Oakland, rape about the same, robbery just a little less, about 28% more assaults then Oakland, about 50% MORE property crime than Oakland, about 25% more Burglary(great idea to leave a gun home) Larceny is WAY off the hook: about 3 times that of Oakland:eek: Oakland has about 250% more car theft.

In other words, those wonderful companies have provided one of the most dangerous cities in the United states, with their anti-gun policies according to FBI data.

Miami has nearly the same property crime, robbery, Burglary, and larceny as Orlando, but, Miami has nearly TWICE the population...

Typical elitest bull. The rich drive around in limos, inside safe compounds, and, the rest of us get to work and live in fear...

By the way, You've pretty much made sure Disney World comes off my list of places to vacation...
 
Stage- if you are referring to CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY v C. BRAD HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, this case, the quote is this:

The Court grants in part and denies in part the motions for permanent injunction. In summary, the Court concludes: (1) the Amendments do not result in an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ private property rights or an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right”; (2) Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a facial vagueness challenge; and (3) the Amendments are preempted as in conflict with the OSH Act. The Court enjoins enforcement of the challenged laws against Plaintiffs and all employers subject to the OSH Act.

Hmmmm- the case you cite contradicts you. Oklahoma's law was struck down on the OSHA ruling.

Fail.

The judge in the Florida case addressed the OSH Act. I said at the time of the OK decision that the OSH thing would not withstand an appeal. I still don't think it will, but that has nothing to do with your imagined property rights.
 
Hmmmm- the case you cite contradicts you. Oklahoma's law was struck down on the OSHA ruling.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Read the case, not the cites. The judge stated that he could not rule in favor of conoco because they did not present any evidence of harm. He explained that is didn't even need to be a specific harm, it could be a harm thats faced by businesses generally. He made it quite obvious that had they presented any evidence on this point, conoco would have won the property rights argument.

However because they did not, the judge could not rule in their favor therefore there not an unconstitutional taking.

Thats massively different than simply saying the argument is a failure.
 
The judge in Oklahoma suggested he wished the businesses had presented property rights arguments, but that is far from:

The court clearly stated that the business had a valid and winning property right argument.
Click to expand...

Maybe the businesses in the Oklahoma case should have been represented by someone other their dumb lawyers who apparently did not think it was worth the effort to even make a property rights argument.
 
OK, I will post the entire conclusion AND the link (thanks Brady Campaign):

Plaintiffs offer three constitutional bases for their request for permanent declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting enforcement of the Amendments. (See Br. in Support of Request for Perm. Inj. and Declaratory Relief 7-18.) First, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments result in an unconstitutional deprivation of private property interests. Plaintiffs’ argument related to their property rights takes two forms: (a) Plaintiffs allege an unconstitutional “taking” of private property in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution (“Takings Clause challenge”); and (b) Plaintiffs allege an unconstitutional deprivation of their “fundamental right” to exclude others from private property, in violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution (“Substantive Due
Process Clause challenge”). Second, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments are unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution (“vagueness challenge”).22 Third, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments are preempted by various federal statutes in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (“Supremacy Clause challenge”).
Click to expand...

and here is the conclusion:

The Court grants in part and denies in part the motions for permanent injunction. In summary, the Court concludes: (1) the Amendments do not result in an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ private property rights or an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right”; (2)Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a facial vagueness challenge; and (3) the Amendments are preempted as in conflict with the OSH Act. The Court enjoins enforcement of the challenged laws against Plaintiffs and all employers subject to the OSH Act.
Click to expand...
 
The judge in Oklahoma suggested he wished the businesses had presented property rights arguments, but that is far from
Click to expand...

No its not. The language the court used is legal speak for "if you'da dunnit you'da won". Courts like things that are nice and neat and states would rather make rulings on state grounds than federal grounds. Thats why this judge made a massive effort to try and avoid getting into OSHA.


Maybe the businesses in the Oklahoma case should have been represented by someone other their dumb lawyers who apparently did not think it was worth the effort to even make a property rights argument.
Click to expand...

So you've argued an appellate case I take it. Because it would be kind of silly for you to make judgments on the actions of the attorneys when you don't have a single point of reference.

As far as what actually happened, its not surprising why the attorneys did what they did. There are several different types of analysis for a takings clause challenge. The predominant one is what conoco prepared for and it does not require a showing a harm. The court said that this one was not applicable and then looked at the law from a takings analysis that conoco did not prepare for and is not predominately used.

So while they should have taken the kitchen sink approach and offered evidence for all of the tests, their failure wasn't one of negligence, it was one of the court going to an area in which conoco did not because it desparately wanted to find for conoco.
 
So you've argued an appellate case I take it. Because it would be kind of silly for you to make judgments on the actions of the attorneys when you don't have a single point of reference.
Click to expand...

My point of reference is your statements. :o If the property rights argument is as clear and strong as you state, the business' attorneys were pretty sorry to not make and support that argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top