The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on April 11, 2008, 07:34:40 AM
-
Published Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Rifle Association owns the Florida Republican Party lock, stock and barrel. That is the only way to explain the Legislature's party-line votes to allow gun owners to secretly take their weapons to work and shopping. (note: This ONLY applies to CCW holders!) It is an outrageous infringement on private property rights and further puts Floridians at risk in an already dangerous world.
The third time was the charm for the NRA, which uncharacteristically failed to get its way the past two years. This time, the legislation passed with two significant changes. It specifically applies to gun owners with concealed weapons permits, and it shields employers from liability in civil lawsuits. That may have been enough for Republican legislators, but it is no comfort for the business community gearing up to lobby Gov. Charlie Crist to veto the bill.
Property owners ought to be able to determine how they will provide a secure environment for their workers and customers. They should be able to decide for themselves whether they are comfortable with easily accessible guns stored in cars out in their parking lots. If this bill becomes law, property owners won't just be unable to keep guns off their property. They won't even be able to find out how many guns are out there.
The identities of the roughly 487,000 concealed weapons permit holders in Florida already have been removed from the public record. Now this legislation prevents employers from asking employees or customers whether they have guns locked in their cars. They can't search the vehicles. They can't take action against employees or customers who volunteer they have a gun in their car. Employers and employees cannot even mutually agree that the worker will not bring a gun to work. This is a full-scale assault on property rights and the rights of all Floridians to choose to work and shop in a safe environment.
Take this extreme approach by gun zealots to its logical conclusion. If concealed weapons are fine in private parking lots, it won't be long before the argument is made that guns should be allowed inside. Large employers and retail outlets will reconsider whether they should hire armed security to be on equal footing with their workers and customers. Criminals will see parking lots as even more attractive targets because of the likelihood that they will find guns.
Is this the Wild West image Florida wants to promote as it tries to lure tourists and new business?
Crist has indicated he is inclined to go along with his fellow Republicans and sign this offensive bill into law. But the governor is a reasonable man, and he has demonstrated before that he is willing to listen to other views and reconsider his position. He should be as open-minded now and listen to the serious concerns of businesses and Floridians whose constitutional rights and safety would be violated by this NRA power play.
You can leave comments at the link
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article451761.ece
-
BTW this law is ONLY for CCW holders.
-
I almost hate to say this, but I agree with the property rights angle. I don't want government telling me what I have to allow on my property. They reach far enough into my life already.
Ironically, we used the property rights angle to defeat a carry ban in the state legislature this past session. A ban on carry in our casinos and racetracks was hidden in a big omnibus funding bill. I testified in a judiciary committee hearing in favor of an amendment to strike the ban. My angle was pretty much the standard "why gun control is silly." But the president of the WVCDL, he had felt out some of the legislators prior to the hearing. And the property rights angle was what won the day. This would've been the first ban in state history (to our knowledge) where the legislature reached into private property to prohibit carry. We fought hard against it because of the legislative precedent that would've been set.
While I see that this is a victory for gun owners, and I'm glad for the citizens of Florida, I generally dislike legislative intrusion into property rights. Because it is a double-edged sword.
Imagine the hypothetical, where the legislature MANDATES, under force of law, that you must allow flag-burning in your parking lot on first amendment grounds. It'd be a lot harder to celebrate the advocacy of property rights infringement in that case, no?
-
Aaaaaah Yes ... The property rights angle :-\
Never thought of that one before ::)
You would think that Florida was the first State in the Union to allow trained individuals to carry a gun. This property rights angle is why I like Minnesota's new wording - Businesses and individuals can post their property, and if they know you are carrying they can ask you to leave. If they ask you to not carry on their property (because they know you are carrying) you must comply by law. If they just ask you not to carry not knowing if you are or not does not force you to comply (they must know you are carrying when they ask). The whole basis behind conceal carry in Minnesota is in the word CONCEAL. In other words "Don't ask don't tell" and everything is just fine :-X
-
Here we are talking about leaving guns in your car at work and allowing carry in places of PUBLIC business (stores, etc.).
I do not see this a a property rights thing as you have already chosen to open your property to the public.
-
Aaaaaah Yes ... The property rights angle :-\
Never thought of that one before ::)
You would think that Florida was the first State in the Union to allow trained individuals to carry a gun. This property rights angle is why I like Minnesota's new wording - Businesses and individuals can post their property, and if they know you are carrying they can ask you to leave. If they ask you to not carry on their property (because they know you are carrying) you must comply by law. If they just ask you not to carry not knowing if you are or not does not force you to comply (they must know you are carrying when they ask). The whole basis behind conceal carry in Minnesota is in the word CONCEAL. In other words "Don't ask don't tell" and everything is just fine :-X
West Virginia's wording is very similar. It's not intrusive into property rights, and it allows the market to operate freely regarding where you do business, where you work, etc...
-
Here we are talking about leaving guns in your car at work and allowing carry in places of PUBLIC business (stores, etc.).
I do not see this a a property rights thing as you have already chosen to open your property to the public.
I'm no lawyer, but I think the courts have really gone both ways on that definition of private property. It's like there are three definitions. There's public property (owned by the state), there's pseudo-public property (owned by private entities but open to the public), and then there's private property (such as your home). What I have a hard time with, is if I own a business, I own the property. I pay the utilities. But the government has the right to step in and say who or what I MUST allow on property that I pay for.
There are copious examples of intrusive reach like this on other matters, that's for sure. I believe the ADA is a prime example. As well as various state laws and local ordinances requiring handicapped access, etc.. I believe those things are probably reasonable and good. But what I take issue with is the state mandate. I know we screamed bloody murder when the shoe was on the other foot here. And I felt we had the moral high ground from which to scream. If this were turned around upside down, and the legislature were prohibiting, for example, carry on private property for any business which is patronized by children, (It's always for the chilluns, no?) we'd be screaming pretty loud about property rights.
-
It is basically the same way here EXCEPT that employers can search you vehicle while park in their lot. This law really on changes one very small thing. You can keep a gun locked in your car at work if you have a CCW permit.
That's it, that's the only change.
-
Why are Floridians, even businesses afraid of CCW holders? (http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/crybaby2.gif)
-
Most aren't, but there are ALWAYS anti-gunners and lefties who keep trying to control our lives.
In fact FL was the leader in CCW and Stand your ground law.
-
I almost hate to say this, but I agree with the property rights angle. I don't want government telling me what I have to allow on my property. They reach far enough into my life already.
Ironically, we used the property rights angle to defeat a carry ban in the state legislature this past session. A ban on carry in our casinos and racetracks was hidden in a big omnibus funding bill. I testified in a judiciary committee hearing in favor of an amendment to strike the ban. My angle was pretty much the standard "why gun control is silly." But the president of the WVCDL, he had felt out some of the legislators prior to the hearing. And the property rights angle was what won the day. This would've been the first ban in state history (to our knowledge) where the legislature reached into private property to prohibit carry. We fought hard against it because of the legislative precedent that would've been set.
While I see that this is a victory for gun owners, and I'm glad for the citizens of Florida, I generally dislike legislative intrusion into property rights. Because it is a double-edged sword.
Imagine the hypothetical, where the legislature MANDATES, under force of law, that you must allow flag-burning in your parking lot on first amendment grounds. It'd be a lot harder to celebrate the advocacy of property rights infringement in that case, no?
What about pocket knives? Can I (or my car) be searched to determine if you are "safe" on your own (publicly) accessible privete property from my Swiss Army knife? What about underwear? Does the employer or property owner have the right to declare whether or not you are permitted to wear underwear on "their" property? Should they search YOU first? Can I videotape it and post it on YouTube?
Curious,
George
-
What about pocket knives? Can I (or my car) be searched to determine if you are "safe" on your own (publicly) accessible privete property from my Swiss Army knife? What about underwear? Does the employer or property owner have the right to declare whether or not you are permitted to wear underwear on "their" property? Should they search YOU first? Can I videotape it and post it on YouTube?
While this is clearly a straw man argument, I'll indulge it briefly. Some employers do exactly that. There are defense contractors that absolutely search your PERSON let alone your car. And, since we live in a free country, those employees are not forced to work for that employer. They can always seek employment somewhere else.
The thing everyone seems to forget, is that where these searches are conducted, the employee has agreed to the searches as a condition of employment. No one was coerced or forced to enter into that agreement at (ironically) gunpoint. Friends of mine in defense agreed to those conditions as well. Years ago, when I was working with sensitive materials, I also agreed to those conditions. I didn't have to. No one forced me to agree to them. With (at the time) 4.5 % unemployment, I could've worked about anywhere I wanted.
And as for the youtube comment, I fail to see how acting like a smartass brings any value to the discussion.
-
I was attempting to illlustrate the absurd by being absurd. But try this: Can you search for a crucifix worn concealed? Why not? How about trying to bar a woman wearing a burka from your place of employment? Why is the second ammendment less than the first? Why can you discriminate against me on the basis that I am exercising my inalienable second amendment rights, when you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
I am an absolute believer in private property, but that right begins with my person, and extends to my car and other personal property. If you want to make the case that a property owner can set standards for access to their property, I completely support you. But I expect it to be an equally enforced right. I have also worked in defense environments where you were subject to search for weapons, and I now refuse to do any more work for the government for just exactly that reason.
-
Keithm,
Why should it be OK to force me to choose between my basic right of self defense or employment?
-
Cry me a river, fellers. I can't carry a gun in my car unless it's in a box with the ammo in a separate part of the car and I have to be on the way or coming from a licensed range or FFL. Keep fighting though...maybe you'll eventually make it better for everyone.
-
Keithm,
Why should it be OK to force me to choose between my basic right of self defense or employment?
Oh, I'm not saying it's "ok" to do that. Far from it. The delineation you're missing though would require me to rephrase your question. "Why should it be ok to force me to choose between my basic right of self defense at the company you own."
Are you legally prohibited from working elsewhere? Are you legally required to work for our hypothetical employer?
Keep in mind that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't condone businesses posting their property nor disarming their employees. Though, I support their RIGHT to do so. It's like free speech. I consider some free speech deplorable. But I support the right to speak it. Likewise, I believe in property rights. I believe that it is my right to control what happens on my property. Anyone who disagrees with my policies is free to be somewhere else.
-
Cry me a river, fellers. I can't carry a gun in my car unless it's in a box with the ammo in a separate part of the car and I have to be on the way or coming from a licensed range or FFL. Keep fighting though...maybe you'll eventually make it better for everyone.
Jay, We are only talking about gun rights in this country! ( You live in New Jersey!) ;D
-
Kiethm,
I realized the 'devils advocate' stance from the beginning. It makes for lively and thought provoking discussions.
OK, you say your property. I will (for the moment) concede the point if you are strictly a private business (no public contact on premises). But how about a public venues such as a mall or other business with a parking lot used by both the public and the employees. A grocery store would be another example. Or how about I am using my conveyance to deliver your product for which I receive no specific remuneration?
Are you in these cases allowed to state that I cannot have a gun locked in my car on your property or while delivering your product?
-
I was attempting to illlustrate the absurd by being absurd. But try this: Can you search for a crucifix worn concealed? Why not? How about trying to bar a woman wearing a burka from your place of employment?
Indeed, why not? You advocate the state reaching into private property. So would you advocate laws prohibiting the wearing or display of crucifixes because it might offend a muslim, a jew, a bhuddist? You're opening that can of worms. This is my point. You're just failing to see the other edge of the blade. I think intentionally.
Why is the second ammendment less than the first? Why can you discriminate against me on the basis that I am exercising my inalienable second amendment rights, when you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
At no point have I claimed that one is better than the other. I feel, that on my property, I should be able to discriminate for whatever reason I see fit. No blue shirts allowed. No purple hair allowed. No <whatever arbitrary qualifier here> allowed. Why? Because it's MY property. Not the governments. It is a socialist government and society where the government owns and controls all private property. You advocate such governmental control in this instance because you agree with it. I feel it is shortsighted. You may not agree so much with the next law the legislature passes concerning what you can, cannot, or must allow on your property.
I am an absolute believer in private property...
All evidence to the contrary....
but that right begins with my person, and extends to my car and other personal property. If you want to make the case that a property owner can set standards for access to their property, I completely support you. But I expect it to be an equally enforced right.
And this is where I must concede that I feel it is a "gray" area. Yes, your car is indeed your property. But it, and it's contents would (hypothetically, of course) be parked on my property. Thus, the government is forcing someone, somewhere, to allow firearms on their property against their will.
I have also worked in defense environments where you were subject to search for weapons, and I now refuse to do any more work for the government for just exactly that reason.
Then we have at least this in common. Why wouldn't the choices we both made here be available to the residents of Florida?
-
Hazcat,
Very interesting hypotheticals. I'm going to split your question and inject responses where appropriate.
OK, you say your property. I will (for the moment) concede the point if you are strictly a private business (no public contact on premises). But how about a public venues such as a mall or other business with a parking lot used by both the public and the employees. A grocery store would be another example.
In these cases, I feel it is the property owner's right to set the policies about what is and is not acceptable on the property they own. Likewise, I feel it is my (and your) right to choose employment and patronage (as a member of the public) elsewhere. Isn't this the very reason we would complain about a ban? States with bans on restaurants with ABC licenses for example. Is that not private property? Shouldn't the restaurant itself be able to set their own policies (as property owners) for their customers and employees? And if we disagree, could we not eat somewhere else?
Or how about I am using my conveyance to deliver your product for which I no specific remuneration?
This is a pretty interesting question in light of the Pizza Hut delivery guy who was recently fired for defending himself. A decision by Pizza Hut that I vehemently disagree with. However, it is my suspicion that the driver signed an agreement to not carry during the commission of his duties as a driver. He could've chosen to work somewhere else.
As you and I can.
-
Keithm,
As much as I hate being told what I can do on/with my property I still have a problem with this.
1st. In Florida the law concerning weapons and CCW starts out the "The State is occupying the entire field" meaning no one else gets to make any laws about it.
2nd There is a state law here concerning smoking in public places that are on private property (restaurants for one). Smoking is not a right but I have been forced to withdraw that option from my patrons (were I to own a restaurant). Then there is the ADA that says I must accommodate a particular segment of the population. Neither of these even have the power of rights but I have been forced to comply with them as a property owner.
3rd Is it possible for me to agree to wave inalienable rights? Think Dr Kevorkian. I wave my right to life but he goes to jail for helping me end my life.
What would your thoughts be if the law was to state that you can deny weapons on your property BUT that you must then provide a secure place to store such items while I am in your employ or on your property and that you therefore are held responsible for my well being while on your property?
-
Keithm,
As much as I hate being told what I can do on/with my property I still have a problem with this.
1st. In Florida the law concerning weapons and CCW starts out the "The State is occupying the entire field" meaning no one else gets to make any laws about it.
We have preemption here too. But it's sort of broken. It grandfathered ordinances in effect before the preemption. We're working on fixing that, though. ;)
2nd There is a state law here concerning smoking in public places that are on private property (restaurants for one). Smoking is not a right but I have been forced to withdraw that option from my patrons (were I to own a restaurant). Then there is the ADA that says I must accommodate a particular segment of the population. Neither of these even have the power of rights but I have been forced to comply with them as a property owner.
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're agreeing with me here. It sounds like you have a general distaste for the government telling you what to do, and how to act on your property.
3rd Is it possible for me to agree to wave inalienable rights? Think Dr Kevorkian. I wave my right to life but he goes to jail for helping me end my life.
It seems that people waive inalienable rights all the time. Look at our troops. They waive all kinds of rights when they join up. I know I sure did. Sort-of knowingly. (What can I say, I was an ignorant but reasonably patriotic kid full of piss and vinegar :D)
What would your thoughts be if the law was to state that you can deny weapons on your property BUT that you must then provide a secure place to store such items while I am in your employ or on your property and that you therefore are held responsible for my well being while on your property?
Oh man, I view that as a very reasonable compromise. In fact, we're going to be working on similar legislation here in WV real soon now.
-
The thing that I find so interesting about this article is the unabashed left wing agenda that it is promoting. Liberal biased media.... What liberal biased media?!?!?!?
-
Gun free zones don't stop criminals, Legally armed citizens do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
-
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're agreeing with me here. It sounds like you have a general distaste for the government telling you what to do, and how to act on your property.
I am in a way, but I am also pointing out that I have been forced to do follow other laws concerning my property that have nothing to do with some ones right.
Oh man, I view that as a very reasonable compromise. In fact, we're going to be working on similar legislation here in WV real soon now.
Yeah, but there we go thinking logically. Never works with a politician. ;)
-
The thing that I find so interesting about this article is the unabashed left wing agenda that it is promoting. Liberal biased media.... What liberal biased media?!?!?!?
Here in FL the St Pete Times is kown as Pravda East.
-
I just never considered my self a zealot. You?
Mac.
-
There is a differance between the property rights of a home owner and the property rights of someone who REQUIRES, employees or other members of the public to be on their property in the normal course of business.
Even if an employer could justify regulating what is in your car on their property they DO NOT have the right to deprive you of civil rights off their property, That is the practicle result of these parking lot bans.
I just never considered my self a zealot. You?
Mac.
I started considering myself a zealot when I realized that there is only one alternitive to "Oppresive Government"
-
Even if an employer could justify regulating what is in your car on their property they DO NOT have the right to deprive you of civil rights off their property, That is the practicle result of these parking lot bans.
I assume you'd be referring to the commute to/from work there. An angle I hadn't considered. A friend in a similar situation parks off-site to resolve that problem.
-
I assume you'd be referring to the commute to/from work there. An angle I hadn't considered. A friend in a similar situation parks off-site to resolve that problem.
The problem that needs to be resolved is Employers who try to make citizens surrender civil rights as a condition of employment, I went through an FBI background check to purchase my pistol, I went through ANOTHER FBI background check to get my concealed carry permit, and I went through ANOTHER background check before I was hired, and the I'm told that I can't have a fire arm in MY vehicle by some a$$hole who is not trusted with a key to the executive washroom ? In my case, Corprate has a "No Guns" policy but the Facility managment are not butthole liberals and maintain a don't ask, don't tell policy that conforms with Corprates rules but keeps them from being held responsible for anything that happens between home and work.
-
The problem that needs to be resolved is Employers who try to make citizens surrender civil rights as a condition of employment,
Amen. Though, I still believe in the right to control what happens on my property. For example, I believe in the right to ask people on my property to refrain from the distasteful use of the 1st amendment. I don't want Phelps and his ilk protesting from my property, for example. Is that morally wrong of me? Perhaps. After all, Phelps first amendment rights are guaranteed. Is it likewise morally wrong of a property owner to ask an employee or patron to refrain from the exercise of their second amendment rights? Probably. But if the law can prohibit one, can it not prohibit the other?
-
Amen. Though, I still believe in the right to control what happens on my property. For example, I believe in the right to ask people on my property to refrain from the distasteful use of the 1st amendment. I don't want Phelps and his ilk protesting from my property, for example. Is that morally wrong of me? Perhaps. After all, Phelps first amendment rights are guaranteed. Is it likewise morally wrong of a property owner to ask an employee or patron to refrain from the exercise of their second amendment rights? Probably. But if the law can prohibit one, can it not prohibit the other?
Phelps would be on your property by HIS choice, and presumably without your invitation. We are on our employers property because we were INVITED to work there. (BTW Phelps on my property would be beaten, By rejecting the wars that gained them he rejects the rights granted by the Constitution, and therefore is fair game ;D )
-
I found a lot of the comments here interesting. One thing that I've heard debated after the Utah mall shooting in a "gun free zone" was the property owner's liability for lack of security. If the employer wished to deny a gun owner the right to carry on the employer's property, the employer would then be responisble for the employee's well being. That well being would have to extend past the employer's property to the commute to and from work. When approached from this viewpoint, few employers would be willing to take up that much responsibility and the car gun ban would seem a lot less of an option. The private property argument has two edges: Yes, you have the right to do as you wish (with the above exceptions duely noted) with and on your property, however you have the liabiity also.
-
I fully believe in the liability aspect for those who choose to strip 2nd amendment rights from employees and patrons. I want to see lawsuits pouring out of these shootings where victims were rendered defenseless. Unfortunately, we're dealing with 50 years of socialist brainwashing telling the ... "people" ... that the tools used in the attacks are to blame. And that's likely where the plaintiff's attorneys will focus. Because those same brainwashed people sit in jury boxes.
-
I fully believe in the liability aspect for those who choose to strip 2nd amendment rights from employees and patrons. I want to see lawsuits pouring out of these shootings where victims were rendered defenseless. Unfortunately, we're dealing with 50 years of socialist brainwashing telling the ... "people" ... that the tools used in the attacks are to blame. And that's likely where the plaintiff's attorneys will focus. Because those same brainwashed people sit in jury boxes.
Yes, a flood of lawsuits would be great. The more times a company, government body etc. had to defend themselves in court, the more chance of reality striking even with jury boxes of the brainwashed. Even a win would cost them. So the more the better. Hit the pocketbook.