FL gun law upheld by courts

[divemedic]

Why dont you post something useful like the language in the opinion.

Dicta means little at the district court level, and the decision is 95 pages long.

You just won't admit you are wrong. The law and constitution are what they are, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. This law is just as constitutional as handicapped parking, laws requiring businesses to admit seeing eye dogs, and fire codes, all of which have stood up to multiple court challenges.

 

[STAGE 2]

Dicta means little at the district court level, and the decision is 95 pages long.

Are you really going to use the length of the opinion as an excuse? Thats just weak. As far as dicta, I don't care about it. I want you to post the holding, you know, the part where they say that they are forced to rule against conoco because they did not present any evidence as to harm.

You just won't admit you are wrong. The law and constitution are what they are, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. This law is just as constitutional as handicapped parking, laws requiring businesses to admit seeing eye dogs, and fire codes, all of which have stood up to multiple court challenges.

Of course I won't, because the law is on my side. Your refusal to post the pertinent parts of the opinion highlight this.

Nor are these other comparisons relevant. Things like seeing eye dogs, handicapped parking and fire codes are not "items" or personal property. Furthermore the reasoning that justifies these types of concessions isnt applicable to those who want to keep a firearm in their car. Thats why these things will pass a taking scrutiny but a law forcing private property owners to allow firearms onto their property won't.

 

[STAGE 2]

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.

In the OK case they did make the property rights argument.

 

[Socrates]

First: Did anyone actually read the case?
Did anyone read the conclusion?

Under the current Supreme Court framework, the Amendments do not effect an
unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation. Nor do the Amendments
effect an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right,” as that term is used for purposes of
a substantive due process analysis. Therefore, the Amendments are subject only to rational basis
review.

First off, Heller may very well overturn this. By changing the standard of review, things will change.

Second: The case was decided on a conflict of law, between Federal and state law. Now, the can of worms opens, because, if the Heller judgment gives a fundamental individual right, then all past Federal and state laws will be evaluated under a different standard, probably strict scrutiny, and, will require a COMPELLING
state or federal interest to limit that freedom.

Also, one of these days, the issue will be addressed which body, state or Federal, has the right to limit firearms, now, a fundamental personal right, under Heller. Somehow the answer should not be both.

There is no evidence I've found that indicates the policy of no gun at work is safer. If Orlando is to be used as an example, it creates a 'free crime zone' and, the criminals are having a LOT of fun in Orlando.

This case was rather strange, since both the governor and AG did NOT do their job, and argue for the statutes in court. The case was pulled up from a lower court, on a conflict of law, or diversity jurisdiction, since the two parties are in different states. The case found it's way to Federal court, but, the federal issue was NOT argued by the Oklahoma Gov, or AG, only their exemption from being named as a party, an argument rejected twice by the first judge in the case.

My argument would be that this case is moot, since Heller changed the standard of scrutiny. I suspect this would be a good case for remand, since the Gov of OKL. did not argue for the Constitutional 11th amendment right of his state, and, that since the issue was never fully litigated, a default judgment on a Constitutional issue is not legal.

The problem is, the AG and Gov. don't seem to care, and, it's unlikely they would file an appeal.

This could also be a great case to use by another plaintiff, on the same issue, who gets a favorable result, such as Florida. The conflict of law issue would just about assure
SCOTUS review.

 

[divemedic]

Of course I won't, because the law is on my side. Your refusal to post the pertinent parts of the opinion highlight this.

I posted the ENTIRE conclusion- you know the holding, the part that matters. Do you even know what dicta is?

 

[STAGE 2]

I posted the ENTIRE conclusion- you know the holding, the part that matters. Do you even know what dicta is?

I'm fully aware what dicta is. However the holding isn't the final inquiry, or even the first inquiry. The ratio decidendi is.

The conclusion is useless for purposes of arguing precedent. Other courts aren't going to look at the conclusion and say "oh well, it says no right has been broken so thats it". They are going to look at the test the court used and they are going to compare the factual inquiry under that test. In other words, they are going to look at the "why" to see whether they should follow precedent, or if the issue before them is distinct.

They aren't going to get this by looking at a single conclusory statement.

So once again are you going to post the relevant part of the opinion?

 

[divemedic]

What does it matter? No matter what, you are obviously not going to admit that you are wrong, so just stay in whatever state you live in and be happy with your laws, and I will stay in mine. You can believe in your fantasy all you want.

Be sure to get rid of those handicapped parking spaces, and those fire exits!! No one can trample on your constitutional rights!

This conversation has officially wearied me. You can't teach a pig to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pig.

 

[S832]

I see no reason why handi-cap parking spaces are required by law, or most of these other laws. Its their choice to enter on your property, no one is forcing them on it.

As long as the people have an alternative to your business I see no reason why you should be forced to do anything special for them.

Not to mention the vast majority of people with handi-cap spaces are just obese.

 

[STAGE 2]

What does it matter? No matter what, you are obviously not going to admit that you are wrong, so just stay in whatever state you live in and be happy with your laws, and I will stay in mine. You can believe in your fantasy all you want.

It matters because both you and I know that you are being dishonest in your argument. You are trying to paint this as if the court struck down the property rights argument because it didn't merit any consideration or that no such right exist. Rather, the argument was struck down because conoco didn't present any evidence to the element of harm, and the judge was tripping over himself to make it clear how he would have ruled if he did.

Hell, he even devoted a paragraph as to how it seemed ridiculous to think that a private property owner shouldn't be able to keep firearms off their property.

Be sure to get rid of those handicapped parking spaces, and those fire exits!! No one can trample on your constitutional rights!

Fallacious argument that I've already addressed.

This conversation has officially wearied me. You can't teach a pig to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pig.

The battle cry of those with a losing argument. "You're stupid so I'm going home".

This is quite simple. If the court's reasoning supported your assertion that the business did not have a legitimate property rights argument, then you would be johnny on the spot with posting it. You know it doesn't which is why you won't post it.

 

[Socrates]

The sad part is you both wasted all this energy on a case that has no value, or cases. The Florida case was decided after Heller. It was decided considerably after the other cases you cited.

Florida and Oklahoma are in different federal districts, so they only real value the CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
))
NORRIS, )
DP MANUFACTURING, INC., )
TULSA WINCH, INC., )
RAMSEY WINCH, INC., )
AUTO CRANE COMPANY, )
)
Intervening Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) Case No. 04-CV-820-TCK-SAJ
)
C. BRAD HENRY,
has is to show there is a conflict of law, an excellent basis for a review by the SCOTUS. However, since niether the AG or the Gov. defended the case on the merits, it has no value. The winners aren't going to appeal, and, it's clear the gov and ag don't care, so they aren't going to appeal.

What a waste...

 

[STAGE 2]

The sad part is you both wasted all this energy on a case that has no value, or cases. The Florida case was decided after Heller. It was decided considerably after the other cases you cited.

Heller is not controlling, or even binding. Heller as I'm sure you know was a state actor depriving a citizen of their 2nd amendment rights. A private entity cannot violate your 2nd amendment rights, especially when they are acting to assert their own rights.

And while you are correct, that they are in different districts, both the florida and OK constitutions are very similar on this issue. Therefore the analysis is going to be similar if not the same.

This is a takings clause issue, not a 2nd amendment issue.

 

[STAGE 2]

Well, since it seems no one elses here wants to have an honest debate about this I suppose I'll post the pertinent parts of the decision. Beginning on page 53...

In this case, plaintiffs have not made any allegations or presented any evidence of economic harm or interference with their investment-backed expectations. The court is not aware of any cause outside the per se context finding a regulatory taking in the absence of some allegation or showing of economic harm...

The court expands on this in the footnote...

Although plaintiffs have not done so in this case other business or property owners may be able to show that forced entry of firearms onto their property causes economic harm... costs linked to workplace violence have skyrocked in recent years from 4.2 billion... to 36 billion... to 121 billion

Clearly unhappy with the result he must reach, the judge finished with this...

The court spent considerable time analyzing the taking issue because plaintiffs arguments have visceral appeal. It does not seem logical that a state can force a property owner to allow the invasion of firearms into his property... This court however must interpret the law as it exists and does not find precedential support for the proposition that the amendments result in a regulatory taking... in the absence of economic harm

So there you have it. The court not only validated that the property rights argument exists, he gave advise to future plaintiffs as well as called the proposition that property owners have to allow guns onto their property "illogical".

Of course the gunny crowd doesn't want you to read this because it shoots their argument full of holes... pun intended.

 

[divemedic]

OK, you can't use ellipses to cut out the parts of the decision you don't like. You even removed one section of the decision, and pasted it onto the end of your cite, to make it into something it was not. This is what you put:

The court spent considerable time analyzing the taking issue because plaintiffs arguments have visceral appeal. It does not seem logical that a state can force a property owner to allow the invasion of firearms into his property... This court however must interpret the law as it exists and does not find precedential support for the proposition that the amendments result in a regulatory taking... in the absence of economic harm

What the quote actually says is this:

It does not seem logical that a state can force a property owner to allow the invasion of firearms onto his property. However, the Supreme Court has carefully carved out categories of takings that are deserving of per se treatment, and the invasion in this case does not fit neatly into these categories. Further, the Supreme Court has never sanctioned a finding of a Penn Central taking in the absence of allegations of economic harm. The Tenth Circuit or the Supreme Court may expand the per se categories to include some types of temporary invasions that involve a particularly onerous activity, or may determine that a Penn Central taking can occur in the absence of economic harm if the character of the government intrusion is sufficiently severe. This Court, however, must interpret the law as it exists and does not find precedential support for the proposition that the Amendments result in a regulatory taking under any of the possible theories.

Of course, it is so much easier to make your point when you cut out key parts of the cite and reword others to fit your warped view of reality. The District court judge was inserting his personal opinion into the decision, but notice that he also points out that the SCOTUS is in opposition to that personal (as opposed to judicial) opinion. In this case, it is the SCOTUS opinion that counts, which is why the court found in it's conclusion that:

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”;

This decision is obviously (to me) an anti gun judge looking for a reason to overturn this law. He had to work at it. You, in my opinion, are dishonestly bending the facts to fit your distorted view of reality.

 

[STAGE 2]

Read what you just posted...

The Tenth Circuit or the Supreme Court may expand the per se categories to include some types of temporary invasions that involve a particularly onerous activity, or may determine that a Penn Central taking can occur in the absence of economic harm if the character of the government intrusion is sufficiently severe. This Court, however, must interpret the law as it exists and does not find precedential support for the proposition that the Amendments result in a regulatory taking under any of the possible theories.

He is saying that the appellate court may very well change the current standard eliminating the harm requirement. HOwever since they havent, he is bound by the current test and can't fudge it because one party makes an incomplete argument. I fully agree with him. However I'm not going to sit here and pretend that this means there is not property rights argument. You just cant win by making an incomplete argument. No shocker there.

Of course this doesn't address this quote...

Although plaintiffs have not done so in this case other business or property owners may be able to show that forced entry of firearms onto their property causes economic harm... costs linked to workplace violence have skyrocked in recent years from 4.2 billion... to 36 billion... to 121 billion

Does this not say that people in the future will be successful if they make this showing? Sure sounds like it.

Of course, it is so much easier to make your point when you cut out key parts of the cite and reword others to fit your warped view of reality. The District court judge was inserting his personal opinion into the decision, but notice that he also points out that the SCOTUS is in opposition to that personal (as opposed to judicial) opinion. In this case, it is the SCOTUS opinion that counts

Unlike you who refused to post ANYTHING but the conclusion? Pot meet kettle.

Dont get me wrong, I give kudos to the judge for not being some activist and butchering the law for what is a good result. However this doesnt change the simple fact that the plaintiffs failed in this case, not because they had a losing argument, but because they had an incomplete one. Thats two totally different things. Future plaintiffs won't make this mistake thanks to the efforts of this judge.

This decision is obviously (to me) an anti gun judge looking for a reason to overturn this law. He had to work at it. You, in my opinion, are dishonestly bending the facts to fit your distorted view of reality.

Baloney. There isn't anything in the opinion to suggest this judge is anti gun. I challeng you to point out a single sentence that suggests this bias. And I have bended no facts. Do you deny that the judge made his decision because the plaintiffs did not put on any evidence of harm?

Sorry, but you are the dishonest one. You have painted this opinion to mean there is no such thing as a successful property rights argument, when the judge himself said the exact opposite. Thats why you refused to post the relevant parts of the opinion.

 

[Socrates]

Quote:
Under the current Supreme Court framework, the Amendments do not effect an
unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation. Nor do the Amendments
effect an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right,” as that term is used for purposes of
a substantive due process analysis. Therefore, the Amendments are subject only to rational basis
review.

What will be argued is this was changed by Heller. Again, the only real value this case has is the conflict of law issue, with Florida's. It is, however, useless, because only one side argued.

 

[divemedic]

Sorry, but you are the dishonest one. You have painted this opinion to mean there is no such thing as a successful property rights argument, when the judge himself said the exact opposite. Thats why you refused to post the relevant parts of the opinion.

No, I said there never HAD been a successful property rights argument UNLESS you can prove that a regulation deprives a landowner of ALL economic benefit of his property. YOU said this ruling proved otherwise. This case HAS EXACTLY NOTHING to do with property rights. The fact that the judge states someone MIGHT prove such a case in the future is irrelevant. We MIGHT have a nuclear war tomorrow, but that does not mean that we will.

The fact is, the courts (including SCOTUS) have universally and consistently held that in order for a regulation to be considered a taking the requires compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment (in addition to outright appropriation of property) the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as "regulatory taking". see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).

In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. The court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

Now, since the law in question is not a permanent physical invasion (a business may not ever, or may only occasionally, have a person with a CCW on their premises), and this law does not dedicate an easement, the only standard left is whether or not the law deprives the owner of all economically beneficial uses of the property.

This law (790.251) does not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but does result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto an employers property is unwelcome if they have corporate policies preventing weapons on property. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419(1982)

Since this law does not meet any of the Lingle tests, it is unlikely that this law will be overturned on constitutional grounds. Sure, it MIGHT happen, but it is not likely.

 

[STAGE 2]

What will be argued is this was changed by Heller. Again, the only real value this case has is the conflict of law issue, with Florida's. It is, however, useless, because only one side argued.

What on earth are you talking about. There is no 2nd amendment question in this case. This is a takings issue. Heller has no bearing here

 

[STAGE 2]

Since its clear that you are simply not going to address things that dont jive with your argument I'm going to have to do this the hard way.

1) Please state the passage that supports your assertion that this OK judge is anti gun

2) Please show me the passage that says the plaintiffs did not have a valid property rights argument.

Since this law does not meet any of the Lingle tests, it is unlikely that this law will be overturned on constitutional grounds. Sure, it MIGHT happen, but it is not likely.

Thats all well and good, but we aren't looking at this issue under Lingle. The penn-central analysis is what is applicable here because this does not involve a per se taking or land use exactions.

Under the penn central analysis, the court is going to look at 1) the character of the governmental intrusion and 2) the degree of interference with the reasonable backed expectations of the property owner/the economic impact of the action.

The court here found that all but one of the factors for the first element weighed in favor of the plaintiff. It stated the, "in sum the court finds the character of the governmental intrusion to be severe because the amendments eliminate the plaintiffs right to exclude percieved danger from their corporate property". Element one is more than satisfied.


The second element is the economic impact element. Contrary to what you stated above, the plaintiff does NOT need to show that the regulation deprives the plaintiff of all economic use of the property. Rather, "the Penn central inquiry turns in large part on the magnitude of the regulations economic harm."

The court then lists examples of what would constitute sufficient evidence of economic harm including, lowering their property value, hindering their ability to make profits, (and most importantly) otherwise caused them any economic harm. The court continues in the footnote with several other examples.

The importance of these statements is this. First, the economic harm does NOT have to be crippling or completely interfere with the use of the business. Second, the harm that must be show does not need to be specific to the business. Giving evidence regarding violence in the work place, or increased insurance costs GENERALLY will suffice. That makes the case of the plaintiffs that much easier.

Now I know you are going to be tempted to say that "oh this is just the opinion of some half cocked judge". Well that may be so, but federal courts are one big happy family and generally like to remain that way. Unless there is some direct conflicting point, another court is going to give a great deal of deference to what has already been issued. Since the constitutions of the two states are very similar on this issue, the analysis isn't going to change.


So as I said before, had conoco presented evidence of costs caused by workplace violence, increased insurance costs, or other liability costs, they would have won the argument. You can keep spinning, but that wont change this.

 

[Socrates]

Well that may be so, but federal courts are one big happy family and generally like to remain that way. Unless there is some direct conflicting point, another court is going to give a great deal of deference to what has already been issued. Since the constitutions of the two states are very similar on this issue, the analysis isn't going to change.

Federal judges are appointed by Presidents, that pick people that support their political positions, or, at least they appear to, at the time of appointment.

You do make one valid, sort of point. The 'deference' is only the rules of appellate procedure. That is, that the review of the lower court ruling can only be based on an error in law, gross misconduct of the judge, jury instructions, jury tampering, conflict of interest by the judge, etc.

Also, the appellate panel can only review the evidence presented in the lower court trial.

Saying the federal bench is one big happy family is as accurate as saying the SCOTUS is...

Here's the judges ruling, and footnotes:

VI. Conclusion
The Court has serious concerns about these criminal laws, which deprive Oklahoma property
owners of the right to exclude those individuals carrying and transporting firearms in their vehicles.
However, this Court’s protection of Oklahoma citizens’ property rights is limited by U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Takings Clause and the Substantive Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Under the current Supreme Court framework, the Amendments do not effect an
unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation. Nor do the Amendments
effect an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right,” as that term is used for purposes of
a substantive due process analysis. Therefore, the Amendments are subject only to rational basis
review. Although it is a close question, the Court cannot conclude the Amendments are wholly
arbitrary or irrational methods of promoting safety and deterring crime. It is not this Court’s
province to invalidate state law because the Court disagrees with the Legislature’s chosen method
of achieving its objectives.
It is, however, this Court’s province to determine if a state law impermissibly conflicts with
federal law. The Court concludes the Amendments conflict with and are preempted by the OSH Act,
which requires employers to abate hazards in their workplaces that could lead to death or serious
bodily harm and which encourages employers to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.
They cannot coexist with federal obligations and objectives. The Amendments are therefore enjoined to
the extent they are preempted by the OSH Act.
Plaintiff ConocoPhillips Company’s Motion and Brief in Support of Request for Permanent
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 93) and Intervenors Norris, DP Manufacturing Inc., Tulsa
Winch, Inc., Auto Crane Company and Ramsey Winch, Inc.’s Motion and Brief in Support of
Request for Permanent Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 94) are hereby GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART, and Defendants’ Objections to Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. 91 and 92) are hereby DENIED.64 Defendants, along with their agents and assigns, are permanently enjoined from enforcing OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, §§ 1289.7a and
1290.22(B) against Plaintiff ConocoPhillips, against all Intervening Plaintiffs, and against any other
entity that is an “employer” as that term is defined in the OSH Act.65
SO ORDERED this 4th day of OCTOBER, 2007.
_________________________________
TERENCE KERN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

64 The only arguments raised by Defendants in the currently pending motions to dismiss are
(1) that the changes made to § 1289.7a of the OSDA in June of 2005 cure any vagueness problems
raised by Plaintiffs, and (2) that the Amendments do not amount to an unconstitutional taking in
light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
(See Defs.’ Obj. to Jurisdiction and Mot. to Dismiss TRO.) The Court has addressed both arguments
in ruling on Plaintiffs’ motions for permanent injunction.
65 “Employer” is defined under the OSH Act, as “a person engaged in a business affecting
commerce who has employees, but does not include the United States or any State or political
subdivision of a State.” 29 U.S.C. § 652(5).
93

 

[gc70]

So as I said before, had conoco presented evidence of costs caused by workplace violence, increased insurance costs, or other liability costs, they would have won the argument.

Yes, you have previously stated this opinion, but you have not explained why you defend Conoco's lawyers for failing to present evidence to support their argument.