Florida members: the guns in parking lot bill heads to governor!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Florida close to allowing guns at work...

Florida is pretty close now to just needing the Governor's signature
to allow citizens to bring their guns to work to allow them to protect
themselves coming and going to work. He has said he will sign it.

You have to leave the gun locked in your car while at work.
I don't think many states allow this yet.

The only twist is that Florida is requiring you to have a concealed weapons
license to bring a gun to work, the other states don't.

No problem there, I have a concealed carry license.

My only concern is that workplaces that don't have well patrolled
parking lots leave workers at risk of having their guns stolen.
(My workplace is pretty paranoid about security so I am not really worried
about the safety of my gun).

There was originally some talk of "check your gun at the door", but that
didn't fly.
 
Yup! And thankfully, this is one of those laws that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this board can get behind.

From what I've seen, there is 100% support for it!

Isn't there? :D:D
 
I do not think that a court challenge under 15USC1910 will prevail. I have read the decision by Kern (a Clinton appointee- that should tell you a lot about this law and why it is not about property rights) in the OK case, ands I do not think it will fly.
Click to expand...

And why is that?
 
Employers will be able to get around this law fairly easily. All they have to do is lease or sell their parking lots to a dummy corporation. Then require employees to lease parking places from the dummy corporation. Since they are not employees of the company that has the parking lot, this law would not apply. As part of the lease agreement, the employee would agree to abide by parking lot rules, one of which could be no guns allowed. If they break the rules, their lease payment is forfeited (make them pay a year up front), and they are no longer allowed to park in the lot.

It is a shame to have to scheme like that, and it will cost workers money. But it is the natural consequence of unnecessary government regulations of private business.
 
Funny, but down here I know people on both sides of the fence, all of which are gun owners. Some say it's about time, others say it should be the employers choice. Personally, I say it's about time, but of course, I moved down here from Illinois. Up there, don't hold you're breath.
 
If nothing else, you are funny!
Click to expand...

Well ... Sir ... I hope you are not implying in some manner that I am posting for the purpose of humor and/or to stir the pot and cause others to post in response. :D:D

I just think that from other discussions on this board ALL MEMBERS agree and there is virtually no dissent that such a law will not be a violation of property rights, legal precedent, or any any way put a burden on the property owner.;)

Am I wrong in that assertion?
 
I just think that from other discussions on this board ALL MEMBERS agree and there is virtually no dissent that such a law will deny property owners their right to determine the use of the property.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya, bud!:D:p
 
Had to add a little something to it ... (gettin' all serious here):

I just think that from other discussions on this board ALL MEMBERS agree and there is virtually no dissent that such a law will deny property owners their right to determine the use of the property. There is, however, some disagreement to the legality of this denial and as whether or not it is morally justifiable to enforce these rules on employers/property owners.
Click to expand...
 
As I recall ... in Oklahoma they did it by insisting they be allowed to search cars (at least of peopel they suspected). If you refused, you were fired. If they looked in and found a gun, you were fired.

There's no way an employer can insist on searching your car, but if they make that a condition of parking there/working there they can fire you for refusing a search. At least in most states, from what I know.
 
For many here in central florida, there is no better choice.


The 10 largest employers are anti gun, and I suspect many others are as well.
 
Claims about the sanctity of business property rights are silly. Business property rights are already massively controlled by zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and safety regulations, to name only the major categories. The parking lot bills are nothing more than a pebble compared to the existing mountain of government intervention.
 
Claims about the sanctity of business property rights are silly. Business property rights are already massively controlled by zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and safety regulations, to name only the major categories. The parking lot bills are nothing more than a pebble compared to the existing mountain of government intervention.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite fallacies....

Claims about the sanctity of gun rights are silly. Guns are already massively controlled by background checks, waiting periods, age limits, lock requirments, restrictions on suppressors and machine guns, limits to the monthly amount you can purchase and outright bans in some areas. Further legislation would be nothing more than a pebble compared to the existing mountain of government intervention.


"But but but Stage these are my guns you're talking about" :rolleyes:
 
Claims about the sanctity of gun rights are silly. Guns are already massively controlled by background checks, waiting periods, age limits, lock requirments, restrictions on suppressors and machine guns, limits to the monthly amount you can purchase and outright bans in some areas. Further legislation would be nothing more than a pebble compared to the existing mountain of government intervention.
Click to expand...

Stage continues his fallacious posts, desperate to prove those sacred property rights that he lies in bed weeping about every night because these laws keep getting passed and the property rights argument against them has failed.

First off, stage 2, the argument you were supposedly countering was very simple:

Claims about the sanctity of business property rights are silly. Business property rights are already massively controlled by zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and safety regulations, to name only the major categories. The parking lot bills are nothing more than a pebble compared to the existing mountain of government intervention.
Today 05:22 PM
Click to expand...

There is not one single word in there about the 2nd amendment or even gun rights. He doesn't mention his guns, or even self defense. The poster is simply very correctly pointing out that to date every level of government (listed on other threads) has withstood the test of the courts. So the argument you call a fallacy was not one he even made.

You actually were correct when you said:

Guns are already massively controlled by background checks, waiting periods, age limits, lock requirments, restrictions on suppressors and machine guns, limits to the monthly amount you can purchase and outright bans in some areas.
Click to expand...

That is true. Although most of us here know what the 2nd amendment reads, before Heller there is little meaningful precedent for gun rights at the Federal level, as the AWB and the NYC laws and the Chicago ban etc. have stood up thus far to review.

So both of you made true statements, basically:

Property rights are not sacred in our judicial system. All levels of government can make laws that impose and restrict those rights -- to the point there seems to be very little right at all.

Gun rights (and hopefully this will change after Heller) are not sacred in our judicial system. All levels of government can currently make laws that impose or restrict those rights -- to the point there seems to be very little right at all.

So given those true statements above, the Florida law is just one more law passed by legislatures restricting property owners/employers. Unless it's cancelled out by the OSHA ruling in Okalahoma (another Federal law infringing on property rights/employer contracts) it will be upheld and property right arguments will not affect it.

Just a fact there ... like it or not.

So set it up again, bubba. These debates are kind of like playing T-ball ... sure, I can hit it out of the park every time ... but is it really worth taking the field for this level of competition?:cool:
 
There is not one single word in there about the 2nd amendment or even gun rights. He doesn't mention his guns, or even self defense. The poster is simply very correctly pointing out that to date every level of government (listed on other threads) has withstood the test of the courts. So the argument you call a fallacy was not one he even made.
Click to expand...

Sure it was. The argument that he made was that becasue there are already regulations on private property, one more isn't going to hurt. Thats completely fallacious.

And your statement that every single governmental intrusion onto private property has been upheld by the courts is yet another lie. I gave you no less than 6 court cases in which the courts have sided with private property owners over governmental regulation/individual rights.


Property rights are not sacred in our judicial system. All levels of government can make laws that impose and restrict those rights -- to the point there seems to be very little right at all.
Click to expand...

Thats easily the dumbest and most ignorant statement I've heard on this forum.


So set it up again, bubba. These debates are kind of like playing T-ball ... sure, I can hit it out of the park every time ... but is it really worth taking the field for this level of competition?
Click to expand...

You're a legend in your own mind no doubt. However I'd hardly call making conclusory statements and completely fabricating the law "knocking it out of the park".

If you want to actually talk about this issue with some intelligence by referencing case law than I'm all for it. Of course you won't because it doesn't support your argument. There isn't a single decision ANYWHERE that says property rights aren't sacred or that there is very little right at all.

You'd rather sit here with your laymans experience and hurl fallacies and distort information. You do this because you know that there are enough people here who have enough of a freudian fixation with their firearms that they will support any pro gun law no matter what.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top