Whose rights are right?

M

Mycle

New member
I’m a Florida resident. Over the past several months I have followed with great interest the legal battle in this state to force business owners to allow guns on their property. The new law which was pushed by the NRA would allow gun owners to keep guns in their cars at their place of work regardless of how the business owner may feel about having guns on their property. Florida’s Governor has signed the legislation and I believe it will take affect beginning in July.

The NRA has applauded this legislation and from what I can see most gun owners here in Florida support the measure. Maybe I’m way out of line here, but is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea that the Government and the NRA have just trampled on the rights of other Floridians.

Before I go any further let me tell you a little about myself. I am a 58 year old retiree from Long Island New York. I enjoy shooting and owning handguns and since moving to Florida I have a modest but growing collection of guns and a license to carry. My wife, a retired RN also owns a 38 snubbie for self defense, and I get to the range at least once a week My point is this. I am not anti-gun.

However, my right to own a hand gun does not trump the rights of those who for whatever reason do not care to have guns around. This controversy here in Florida began when an employee of Disney was dismissed for bringing a gun to work despite Disney’s condition of employment that prohibits guns on their property. In a recent interview the young man stated that, “Disney was interfering with his God given right to bear arms”. I guess my pastor has been selling the congregation short all these years because he never mentioned this God given right.

Here’s the bottom line. Whether the business is a giant like Disney or a small auto repair shop it is their property and they have the right to set the rules for conduct while on their property. This reinforces my belief that the NRA doesn’t lobby for the rights of Americans but rather the bottom line of the gun manufacturers.

This legislation represents a dangerous precedent and a very slippery slope for all of us. American liberties are a very difficult balancing act. We try to protect our rights without infringing on the rights of other Americans. Unfortunately that balance can fall out of kilter when lobbyists play a role in writing the laws and regulations of our country.

I’m sure my point of view will not be a popular one but you don’t have to be a student of history to realize what can happen when we stand by quietly while the rights of other Americans are swept aside.
 
Funny you should mention knowing history.

Historically, one of the reasons European peasants were denied the right to own or carry around weaponry was because other people owned the land upon which they lived and worked. Peasants owning weapons would violate the property rights of the landowning nobility.

Seems to me that America has been headed that direction for awhile now. Poor people rent their dwellings from one company, ride to work on buses or trains owned by another company (or drive on toll roads owned by another company), and work inside office buildings owned by yet a third company.

We are slowly drifting toward a situation in which we agree with the royalty and nobility of a bygone era: the lower classes should never be allowed to exercise any human rights that their betters don't want them to have.

pax
 
It's an interesting way to look at the issue. Before I retired (for the second time) I worked for a company that did not allow guns in the office. I kept my gun locked in my glovebox, in my locked car. the company never said anything about the parking lot, which in any case they didn't own. I guess my feeling is that not allowing guns in parking lots is like every other prohibition on guns, it hinges on how you view the law. Law-abiding citizens will probably leave their guns home or try and change the law; criminals will do what they do, break the law. Thus, when I pull up to the building at odark30 for my shift, I'm defenseless because I can't carry in the building and I can't have a gun in my car for self-defense. the gun in my car never bothered anybody, was never used and is still there, tho my car now spends a lot of time in the garage ... it's a stupid idea, and I'm glad Florida lawmakers saw fit to legislate it out of existence.
 
It seems to me that regulations/company policy/gun laws, never stopped anyone with criminal intent anyway. Murder is already against the law, do you really think a bad guy cares if he breaks company policy?
Like most gun laws, they only restrict those who choose to follow them. But im betting you already know that.
 
For liability reasons many employers some years back began to say no one could have a gun on any piece of company property, even locked in their vehicle in the parking lot. They knew and know that it won't stop a employee who wants to from shooting the joint up but it does prevent any one from suing them if they are injured in a shootout. That is the point of these rules. Liability. It has nothing to do with rights. It's important to understand and remember that. It does have a lot to do with a company sidestepping lawsuits.

Some things are a slippery slope. A company has a right to fire someone who shows up to work drunk or high. But what about random drug testing? I don't think so. Should they have a right to keep guns off their property? I don't think they should. Should they have a right to fire some one who flashes a gun at another employee? Yeah they should. Truth is these questions only arose once liability was factored in.

I do agree with you on the "God Given" part though. Seems God gave me the right to walk anywhere I like wearing nothing but a Speedo but you folks keep trampling on it:)

tipoc
 
It's a liability thing. Unfortunately, what would be needed is something that specifically banned lawsuits against companies for allowing anybody to exercise their CCW on company property, and the same would apply to universities. If that happened, I suspect many of the businesses and universities that ban the bringing of firearms onto their property would change their tune. In the meantime, as much I hate to say it, schools like Virginia Tech will continue to ban weapons on school property because they'd rather have students get killed by a gunman than get sued over an accidental discharge.

BTW, this might be something that should be moved to legal and political.
 
A company has a right to fire someone who shows up to work drunk or high. But what about random drug testing? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I am used to random drug testing (military), so don't get why it is a big deal. And I dang sure want the person driving my kids school bus to 1) not be impaired and 2) Have enough respect for the law to not be doing drugs on thier free time.

I am not OK with the logic that "I am only a criminal in my free time".
 
I think that the law in this case would be misguided and prone to legitimate backlash. A private owner of a private business rightly ought to be able to refuse service to anyone, with or without cause. Our right is to take our money elsewhere, but our rights end where those of another begin.

In the case of historical England, I respectfully submit that our laws could and should account for a person's primary or actual residence, even if rented.

The transportation issue doesn't float, though, because typically bus services and other 'public' transportation are THE government, or are the direct contractor OF the government.

At any rate, the law in question is unwise. As another poster pointed out, though, concealed carry is by its definition not detected, and therefore both the lawful and the lawless obey at their discretion.
 
If a business owner says no guns in their store, then that's their right, I suppose. I do think we need limits though. Your residence (whether you rent it or own it) and your vehicle should be considered your property and not subject to such laws. If the diner down the street doesn't want guns inside their shop that's fine, but they won't find me inside either.
 
"However my right to own a handgun does not trump the rights of those who for whatever reason do not want handguns around."

Actually it does.

That is the point of the legislation.

You are to be presumed adult enough and respondsible enough to own a handgun and carry it for your protection whereever you deem it necessary within the law.
 
If you restrict my right to defend myself, you, as the land/property owner, should then be charged with my safety and well being.

How do you plan on doing that if you deny me the right to protect myself?
 
It's a liability thing.
Click to expand...

The Florida law specifically relieves the property owner of any and all liability relating to this law.

It comes down to whether a employer has the right to prohibit objects in an employees vehicle. Can he ban cigarettes in your car at work? Can he ban the Bible? Can he ban bumper stickers? Perhaps he doesn't like your air freshener. Why not ban red cars if he hates that color?

What is inside your vehicle is your business and no one elses. It is already legal to have a firearm in your vehicle at in a parking lot. The law does not change that. It merely prevents the employer, should you happen to work there, from disciplining you in the event they should discover that firearm.

I also find it highly amusing that my employer's parking lot is covered with "Park at your own risk" signs, yet company policy prohibits possessing a firearm in your vehicle. Based on their opinion, I am responsible for my own protection, even on THEIR property, but I am not allowed the means to defend myself.
 
I work for a LARGE corporation that deny's me the right to leave my firearm in my vehicle in the company lot. Or have one in the vehicle while traveling on company business etc...Which means that I can neither defend myself (I have fewer options at least...) nor can I hunt before or after my work day without first returning home to retrieve the proper firearm.

On the other hand, they have a drug free workplace policy (usually a good idea) that requires SOME of the employees to submit to pre-employment, post-accident, random, and reasonable cause drug testing. Engineers and designers do not have to submit....Employees residing in the state of the home office do not need to submit...Employees residing in the states that do not allow for testing...you get the point

Also, they are trying to institute a new policy that allows them constant access to your driving record whether you have a company vehicle or not...but I digress...


Do I support laws that will allow me to protect myself and my loved ones. You bet I do. Do I support drug free workplaces? Of course, I don't want to get injured by some freak while on the job, nor do I want my coworkers injured.
 
BTW, this might be something that should be moved to legal and political.
Click to expand...

I agree. By the way the Supreme court just ruled in Heller's favor. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The fuedal nobility's denial of weapons to the peasantry was explained by the nobility openly. They wanted to deny the peasantry of weapons with which to defend themselves. The nobility had the "God Given" right to exploit the peasants and periodically rob them.

The question of when, where and how weapons and what type are carried, stored or transported has been debated in modern society for 200 years and will continue to be. Laws were passed in Boston in the late 1700's limiting how much black powder could be stored in a home. Wyatt Earp banned open carry in Dodge City. Laws were passed in Texas (and other states) in the 1880s banning open carry in towns and cities. Handguns are banned at most baseball and football games, etc. There always has been and will continue to be limitations on the 2nd amendment and these will be debated and fought out. That ain't a bad thing.

tipoc
 
The law will be challenged and hopefully overturned, but it will be allowed to go into effect on July 1.

Property rights are being totally ignored.

Advocates of the law are getting what they want, but I believe reasonable gun rights like CCW could be negatively impacted, long term.

Laws like this make reasonable gun rights' advocates look unreasonable and shortsighted.
 
but I believe reasonable gun rights like CCW could be negatively impacted, long term.
Click to expand...

Please define "reasonable gun rights" and how they could be negatively impacted by this law.

Brady believes the DC ban was "reasonable gun rights" and the SCOTUS ruling violates property rights of the entire district.

You will never convince me that a property owner's ability to discipline employees legally possessing a firearm in a public parking lot, the exact same parking lot that non-employees can freely carry firearms without repercussion, is a violation of property rights.
 
Pax,
So private ownership is a bad thing?? What would be your alternative? Socialism or Communism in which everything is controlled by a Central Government? Do the poor visit your web-site? In what other country do the poor have a better chance of succeeding than right here?
Since Human's started to populate the earth, there have been strata, and a profound difference between those that have and the have nots. It not about to change in my lifetime or yours!
 
"Property rights", or more accurately the right of property owners to do what they like with their own property (since a thing, property, has no rights) are routinely curtailed in a number of ways and most of us believe this is a mighty good thing.

Should an employer have the right to tell an employee what they can or can't have in their personal vehicles while parked on company property? Within reason I think so. Explosives I think can be reasonably banned. But a .22 rifle or a box of .44 Mag ammo I find unreasonable to ban these latter two things. Where I work they are.

Where I work it was only 4 years ago that they enacted a ban on firearms, or even a few rounds of ammo, in the company parking lot. For 78 years at my plant no such rule was in place. It was enacted due to liability concerns. The lack of such a paper rule increased their insurance rates.

I don't have a problem with a nightclub that posts a no weapons rule and searches bags at the door. If the local McDonald's did the same I'd have a problem. One is reasonable the latter an unreasonable infringement.

A local restaurant can refuse service to a rowdy drunk but they cannot refuse service to a Sikh man wearing a turban.

I can paint my house whatever color I want. But to build a new garage I need a permit. I also can't burn it down and threaten the neighborhood in the conflagration.

Some restrictions on "property rights" are reasonable others must be fought out. Same thing with some restrictions on firearms. Reasonable folk will disagree on what and when and how much. Those things can be debated out in the public arena.

This is the capitalist nation par excellence, the government is based on that, it is not about to destroy "property rights", at least not for the rich. For the working class it does it when it feels the need and when it can get away with it.

tipoc
 
Property rights are being totally ignored.
Click to expand...

Actually they are being restored. An individual's car is not the property of the owner of a parking lot.

To the OP... would it be right for an apartment complex to make the same demands of renters?

The illustration by Pax is excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top