Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRA pushes 'guns-at-work' bill in Florida
Florida Times-Uion ^ | 10/08/2005 | J. Taylor Rushing

Posted on 10/09/2005 9:09:28 AM PDT by RightDemocrat

TALLAHASSEE -- A rare and spectacular showdown may be coming in Florida's Republican Party: Big Business vs. Big Guns. And the stakes couldn't be higher. To critics, it's about the safety of workplaces, including hospitals and churches, throughout the Sunshine State. To supporters, it's about the safety of employees who travel to and from those workplaces.

The dust-up is over the "guns-at-work" bill, which the National Rifle Association began pushing last month in Tallahassee to force all Florida businesses to allow firearms in the vehicles of any employee or visitor. Companies could keep policies banning guns from their buildings themselves but could no longer apply those policies to their parking lots.

Many businesses are either wary of or leaning against the proposal, including heavy-hitters such as Disney and local giants such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, CSX and Baptist Health System.

But the NRA is insistent. The group, which has donated nearly $1 million in Florida over the past decade, mostly to Republicans, is led in Tallahassee by former national President Marion Hammer. Hammer said the rights of gun owners should be intact in their vehicles, and the proposed law already gives businesses immunity from liability lawsuits in cases of workplace shootings.

"Your home is a slam dunk, but bridging that into the private property of an organization doesn't hold," said Mike Hightower, chairman of the Duval County Republican Party and lobbyist for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. "I don't think people are going to want to cross that line."

In a telling sign of wariness, neither Gov. Jeb Bush, Senate President Tom Lee nor House Speaker Allan Bense are taking positions on the bill yet.

(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: bang; bigbusiness; florida; gunrights; nra; secondamendment; workers; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-271 next last
Workers often have to travel through dangerous areas to get to work. If a company bans guns locked in a car of their parking lot, they are in effective prohibiting the employee from having a gun while traveling to and from work. It's a classic case of the rights of workers versus big business interests. I would love to see the NRA win this one. I hope that Governor Jeb Bush will grow a spine and support this proposal. Bush claims to support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. I know that he caved into the illegal aliens on the driver's license issue and the gay lobby on the state gay marriage amendment, but let's hope that Bush will take a stand for the safety of Florida's workers by allowing them to travel to and from work with guns. If a company is worried about potential workplace violence, hire more security guards - the cost can come out the absurd salaries being paid to corporate CEO's.
1 posted on 10/09/2005 9:09:30 AM PDT by RightDemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

I assume the term "guns-at-work" was selected by opponents of the bill? It certainly gives a different impression from "guns locked in your car."


2 posted on 10/09/2005 9:16:34 AM PDT by Tax-chick (When bad things happen, conservatives get over it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Yeah, I assume that the person writing the headline at the Florida Times-Union doesn't like the idea. "Guns at work" is deceptive. It's more like the employee self defense act.


3 posted on 10/09/2005 9:24:16 AM PDT by RightDemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

GOOD! My Life Membership fee is being put to good use. Thank you, and I AM THE NRA!


4 posted on 10/09/2005 9:37:00 AM PDT by ExpatGator (Progressivism: A polyp on the colon politic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; The Old Hoosier; xrp; freedomlover; ...

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
5 posted on 10/09/2005 9:38:29 AM PDT by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat
TALLAHASSEE -- A rare and spectacular showdown may be coming in Florida's Republican Party: Big Business vs. Big Guns

Ugh....can they at least get past the very first line before they try to, IMHO,scare the uninformed?

6 posted on 10/09/2005 9:42:31 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

An Armed Citizen
Is A Safe Citizen!


7 posted on 10/09/2005 9:48:14 AM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat
Many businesses are either wary of or leaning against the proposal, including heavy-hitters such as Disney and local giants such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, CSX and Baptist Health System.

Disney is not a Republican company. That's one of the reasons this law is needed.

8 posted on 10/09/2005 9:48:47 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (France is an example of retrograde chordate evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

From the quantity of ridiculous headlines we see, you are giving quite a bit of praise to the MSM journalists. I don't think they are that smart.


9 posted on 10/09/2005 9:50:37 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Reality: By the time you get your head together, your body's shot to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

...In a telling sign of wariness, neither Gov. Jeb Bush, Senate President Tom Lee nor House Speaker Allan Bense are taking positions on the bill yet....

Wariness?

That's a big yellow stripe down their backs that's showing.


10 posted on 10/09/2005 9:56:21 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com ( Welcome to the Canexico Community!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator

"GOOD! My Life Membership fee is being put to good use. Thank you, and I AM THE NRA!" I agree and I'm also a LIFE MEMBER. Your RIGHT WE are the NRA. The Second Amentmand is guarding America and WE are helping.



11 posted on 10/09/2005 9:58:29 AM PDT by JOE43270 (JOE43270 America voted and said we are One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat
I used to subscribe to the Florida Times Union and later the Georgia Times Union which was the same paper for the most part.

It was a pretty conservative paper. Maybe it has changeed or maybe just the writer wanted to create a little controversy with title.

12 posted on 10/09/2005 10:02:06 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat
"Your home is a slam dunk, but bridging that into the private property of an organization doesn't hold,"

Suppose an employer tried to tell it's workers they couldn't keep a bible locked in the trunk of their car while on the job. Would that be acceptable to large numbers of people? How did the first amendment become more important than the 2nd?

13 posted on 10/09/2005 10:05:59 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

A different approach would be to have automobiles declared as an extension of the home. Anything you could lawfully posses in your home would thereby be legal to possess in your vehicle, regardless of it's location.


14 posted on 10/09/2005 10:13:27 AM PDT by P8riot (Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOE43270
I too am a Life Member, but I have been disappointed with the NRA recently as I perceived the organization to be more re-active, than pro-active when it came to gun rights legislation. But with thiseffort and the recent court order banning confiscations in Louisianna, I am holding out hope that the NRA has finally grown some cojones. They still have a long way to go to catch up with the grassroots effectiveness of organizations like the VCDL in Virginia.
15 posted on 10/09/2005 10:20:29 AM PDT by P8riot (Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat
I think that they should write the law so that it only applies to "corporations". These are legal entities which are granted privileges including limited liability. It should not be unreasonable for such entities to conduct themselves in ways which do not infringe rights.

In this way, the rights of private proprietorships to control their parking areas would be preserved, but corporations would be required to be "good citizens" who do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

This would seem to be a small price to pay for the substantial benefits which incorporation provides and it is completely consistent for the legislature to dictate what benefits and requirements attach to incorporation.

If a privately run hardware store wishes to disarm me in their parking lot but Home Depot is forbidden to do so, I know where I will choose to shop.

16 posted on 10/09/2005 10:21:55 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot; everyone

P8riot wrote:

A different approach would be to have automobiles declared as an extension of the home. Anything you could lawfully posses in your home would thereby be legal to possess in your vehicle, regardless of it's location.






That is exactly the approach that will win in this issue.



Property rights vs Self-defense rights
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1499080/posts

" -- There's a good bit of case law establishing the principle that an automobile is a traveling property zone of its owner, not the entity who owns the roads and parking lots on which the vehicle rests.
  The owner of a road may prohibit a vehicle from driving on the road, and the owner of a parking lot may insist that the vehicle be removed, but neither is justified in arbitrarily searching the vehicle or removing what it contains, insofar as the cargo is lawful. 

Firearms carried properly in a vehicle are, of course, lawful.  That means that their mere presence does not justify the road or parking lot owner violating the property rights of the vehicle owner.  In effect, the firearm is not in the parking lot or roadway; it is in the vehicle. -- "


17 posted on 10/09/2005 10:23:50 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
the rights of private proprietorships to control their parking areas would be preserved,

What is being "preserved"?
What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?

18 posted on 10/09/2005 10:32:36 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; ExpatGator; Tax-chick; RightDemocrat; Puppage; blackie; Paleo Conservative; B4Ranch; ...

Combine this issue with the argument about illegal aliens, open borders, crime and homeland security. Then you might have a way to cut the country club RINOs down to size.


19 posted on 10/09/2005 10:54:55 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Combine this issue with the argument about illegal aliens, open borders, crime and homeland security. Then you might have a way to cut the country club RINOs down to size.

The first conservative republican with national stature to do so, -- will become a real contender.
To me it's amazing that none of them realize that fact. -- There are millions of us calling for some real leadership, but not an honest man is to be found.

20 posted on 10/09/2005 11:06:44 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
21 posted on 10/09/2005 11:08:44 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

If I own the business, I ought to be able to set the rules, even stupid rules like no guns in the workplace including vehicles parked on my lot. If you don't like the rules, then go find another job, or better yet, start your own business with your own rules.


22 posted on 10/09/2005 11:13:12 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Still not sure how passage of this Bill will affect me as a public school teacher! Be great to be able to keep it in the car, however, I'm afraid the liberals will still push their mandate that their policy trumps state law and if they find a teacher with a firearm in the car, they'll simply fire him. I knew somebody a few years ago that was terminated for this reason.
23 posted on 10/09/2005 11:19:41 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

It is absurd to ban commuters from having guns in their glove compartments. Especially when busiensses are already shielded from legal liability should those guns be misuesd.

About Allen Bense, it's too bad he decided to not run for the U.S. Senate next year.


24 posted on 10/09/2005 11:21:39 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Jeanine Pirro for Senate, Hillary Clinton for Weight Watchers Spokeswoman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
A different approach would be to have automobiles declared as an extension of the home.

Should I buy a Winnebago mobile home? /sarcasm

25 posted on 10/09/2005 11:34:10 AM PDT by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
faireturn asks: "What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed? "

They gain the right to be secure in their private property. I believe that few will choose to take a stand against firearms in the face of competition from corporations which are not allowed to infringe the right. You may not carry on my private property even if I choose to carry on business on that property.

There is no right to incorporate and be granted limited liability. That is a legal privilege granted by legislatures based on expected benefits to the whole people. One of the benefits can be the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to corporate parking lots.

26 posted on 10/09/2005 11:40:04 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

Or "commuter safety."


27 posted on 10/09/2005 11:40:13 AM PDT by Tax-chick (When bad things happen, conservatives get over it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
If I own the business, I ought to be able to set the rules, even stupid rules like no guns in the workplace including vehicles parked on my lot.

How about a sign stating "No Blacks or Jews Allowed"?

28 posted on 10/09/2005 11:44:14 AM PDT by 10mm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos


Labyrinthos wrote:

If I own the business, I ought to be able to set the rules, even stupid rules like no guns in the workplace including vehicles parked on my lot. If you don't like the rules, then go find another job, or better yet, start your own business with your own rules.






You don't have the power to "set rules" that infringe on my rights.

" -- There's a good bit of case law establishing the principle that an automobile is a traveling property zone of its owner, not the entity who owns the roads and parking lots on which the vehicle rests.
  The owner of a road may prohibit a vehicle from driving on the road, and the owner of a parking lot may insist that the vehicle be removed, but neither is justified in arbitrarily searching the vehicle or removing what it contains, insofar as the cargo is lawful. 

Firearms carried properly in a vehicle are, of course, lawful.  That means that their mere presence does not justify the road or parking lot owner violating the property rights of the vehicle owner.  In effect, the firearm is not in the parking lot or roadway; it is in the vehicle. -- "

Property rights vs Self-defense rights
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1499080/posts


29 posted on 10/09/2005 11:44:25 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Labyrinthos said: "If I own the business, I ought to be able to set the rules, even stupid rules like no guns in the workplace including vehicles parked on my lot. "

I agree. But if your "business" incorporates under state law in order to be granted the privilege of limited liability, then that privilege could be accompanied by an obligation to accomodate the right to keep and bear arms by employees.

30 posted on 10/09/2005 11:47:30 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat
It's more like the employee self defense act.

Can't disagree about the headline. It's about as bias as bias gets. My quibble is in the real meaning. This isn't about company private property rights. It's about individual rights. The right to be secure in your papers and possessions and that right being extended into your own private vehicle while you are out and about.

Its' already been done in limited areas.

The police must treat your car as part of your personal property when they are forced to get a warrant to search. If they must get a warrant it is not a public place to be search willy nilly by anyone, even your boss.

31 posted on 10/09/2005 11:49:43 AM PDT by kAcknor (Don't flatter yourself.... It is a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
William Tell wrote:

the rights of private proprietorships to control their parking areas would be preserved,

What is being "preserved"?

What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?

They gain the right to be secure in their private property.

My gun locked in my car is not a security threat to their property. Can you agree?

I believe that few will choose to take a stand against firearms in the face of competition from corporations which are not allowed to infringe the right.
You may not carry on my private property even if I choose to carry on business on that property.

A gun locked in my car is not being "carried" on your property. Can you agree?

There is no right to incorporate and be granted limited liability. That is a legal privilege granted by legislatures based on expected benefits to the whole people. One of the benefits can be the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to corporate parking lots.

You are making part of my argument for me. Thanks. Are we in agreement then on the other parts above?

32 posted on 10/09/2005 11:56:34 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat
In a telling sign of wariness, neither Gov. Jeb Bush, Senate President Tom Lee nor House Speaker Allan Bense are taking positions on the bill yet.

I interpret this to mean that these two are inclined to support their heavy contributors (who are concerned about their insurance premiums and little else), and the voters who put them into office be damned. They're just looking for a way to do it that doesn't draw a lot of attention. We're going to have keep the heat on, and their feet to the fire, or we'll be sold out.

33 posted on 10/09/2005 12:03:30 PM PDT by surely_you_jest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: surely_you_jest

"These two" should read these three.


34 posted on 10/09/2005 12:04:13 PM PDT by surely_you_jest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I think that they should write the law so that it only applies to "corporations".

-----
That's the problem with our laws and tax code today. Too many exceptions. You saying that just because the company I work for isn't a certain type of Legal Entity, my rights aren't as good as others? The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" and there are no exceptions in there.

If I have a "right to carry" permit (which is unconstitutional in itself) where am I going to put my gun when I get to the driveway of my company's parking lot? I've never understood that. I gotta throw it in the ditch across the street and go pick it up when I get off this evening? Liberals are absurd.
35 posted on 10/09/2005 12:16:16 PM PDT by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
faireturn asks: "What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?"

You are asking the wrong question. A person doesn't have to gain anything to have rights. I predict that any law which forces private property owners to tolerate firearms owned by others on their property could be struck down by the US Supreme Court.

A law which requires someone to tolerate your bearing arms on another's property, in effect, prohibits that person from excluding you because you are bearing arms. Similar laws do exist in some circumstances with regard to racial discrimination. If you are suggesting that a law prohibiting discrimination against a person bearing arms, then that is much broader than a law concerning what people may have in their parked cars.

I would support laws which prohibit discrimination against those who bear arms, but I think that practicality concerns dictate that private property rights take precedence.

I still maintain that mandating that arms be allowed in corporate parking lots would achieve 99 percent of the benefit with virtually NO legitimate private property concerns.

36 posted on 10/09/2005 12:20:04 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

Your points are well taken, but IMO, the NRA, of which I am a life member, is coming down against the side of property rights on this matter.

The premises of "big businesses" are private property and thus, what is allowed on those premises should, in a free country, be at the discretion of the owners. The NRA is falling into the liberal trap of thinking that the existence of businesses is justified by the fact that they fulfill a public service of some kind when in fact their existence is justified by the fact that they make money for their stockholders.

It may be the "right" decision in this case to allow workers to bring firearms onto private property, but it's not a good idea, in a free country, to give great power to government in order that it force everyone to do what for the moment strikes politicians as "right." Once it can force employers to allow employees to bring guns in, it could equally well force employers to prohibit such.

The point is that such things should be at the discretion of the property owner, not the government.


37 posted on 10/09/2005 12:23:20 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
If I own the business, I ought to be able to set the rules, even stupid rules like no guns in the workplace including vehicles parked on my lot. If you don't like the rules, then go find another job, or better yet, start your own business with your own rules.

-----
Go ahead prohibit them from your building. But my car is not your building. I have a "permit to carry" from my house to your parking lot. What do I do with my gun before entering your parking lot? Throw it in the ditch across the street and go pick it up when I get off??? My car is just that MY car and what I have in it is none of your business...ah, SIR.
38 posted on 10/09/2005 12:24:33 PM PDT by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: faireturn

RKBA applies to public property and your own private property, not the private property of others. Same goes for the entire BOR.


39 posted on 10/09/2005 12:24:55 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman
gooleyman said: "The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" and there are no exceptions in there."

Most legal interpretations read that as a prohibition against government action. The Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" under the Fourteenth Amendment by the US Supreme Court. "Incorporation" in this case being an invented process suggesting that the Supreme Court shall determine which of our rights can be infringed by the states and which shall not.

To extend the protections of such prohibition to every person would suggest that it would be permissible to outlaw discrimination based upon all of the factors which today are still legal. Do you wish to give up the right to discriminate against Democrats? Even though Democrats have a right to freely choose their political party?

I am not opposed to a law which prohibits discrimination based upon bearing arms. I just think that politically, the chances of passing a law constraining only corporations would be so much greater.

40 posted on 10/09/2005 12:37:14 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
William Tell wrote:

the rights of private proprietorships to control their parking areas would be preserved,

What is being "preserved"?

What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?

You are asking the wrong question. A person doesn't have to gain anything to have rights.

You claimed something is "preserved" by infringing on my right to have a gun in my car.

They gain the right to be secure in their private property.

My gun locked in my car is not a security threat to their property. Can you agree?

I believe that few will choose to take a stand against firearms in the face of competition from corporations which are not allowed to infringe the right.
You may not carry on my private property even if I choose to carry on business on that property.

A gun locked in my car is not being "carried" on your property. Can you agree?

There is no right to incorporate and be granted limited liability. That is a legal privilege granted by legislatures based on expected benefits to the whole people. One of the benefits can be the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to corporate parking lots.

You are making part of my argument for me. Thanks. Are we in agreement then on the other parts above?

I predict that any law which forces private property owners to tolerate firearms owned by others on their property could be struck down by the US Supreme Court.
A law which requires someone to tolerate your bearing arms on another's property, in effect, prohibits that person from excluding you because you are bearing arms.

Having a gun locked in my car while at work is not "bearing arms on another's property". Can you agree?

Similar laws do exist in some circumstances with regard to racial discrimination. If you are suggesting that a law prohibiting discrimination against a person bearing arms, then that is much broader than a law concerning what people may have in their parked cars. I would support laws which prohibit discrimination against those who bear arms, but I think that practicality concerns dictate that private property rights take precedence.

And I ask why parking lot property rights should take precedence over our right to keep a gun in our cars. Can you explain?

I still maintain that mandating that arms be allowed in corporate parking lots would achieve 99 percent of the benefit with virtually NO legitimate private property concerns.

There are lots of privately held companies in the USA. Why do you want them to have the power to ban guns in employees vehicles?

41 posted on 10/09/2005 12:45:37 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

Sam Cree wrote:
RKBA applies to public property and your own private property, not the private property of others. Same goes for the entire BOR.






You don't have the power to "set rules" that infringe on my rights.

" -- There's a good bit of case law establishing the principle that an automobile is a traveling property zone of its owner, not the entity who owns the roads and parking lots on which the vehicle rests.

  The owner of a road may prohibit a vehicle from driving on the road, and the owner of a parking lot may insist that the vehicle be removed, but neither is justified in arbitrarily searching the vehicle or removing what it contains, insofar as the cargo is lawful. 

Firearms carried properly in a vehicle are, of course, lawful. 

That means that their mere presence does not justify the road or parking lot owner violating the property rights of the vehicle owner.  In effect, the firearm is not in the parking lot or roadway; it is in the vehicle. -- "



Property rights vs Self-defense rights
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1499080/posts
29


42 posted on 10/09/2005 12:51:43 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I just think that politically, the chances of passing a law constraining only corporations would be so much greater.

-----
Ah, incrementalism at its best. I'll take that as a first step if I can't do any better. I still want to know what to do with my pistol when I get to the driveway of that little mom and pop store I may be working at.

By the way, you'd make a good candidate for a Supreme Court Justice. With all that legalese in there, this lowly Engineer had to read and re-read your reply. I hope I got it...smile.

And I refuse to stop discriminating against DemocRATS.
43 posted on 10/09/2005 12:54:15 PM PDT by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
"You don't have the power to "set rules" that infringe on my rights."

As I said before, your rights don't include bringing arms onto the private property of someone else. If the Courts have ruled that arms in a car are not really on that property, then the Courts are every bit as guilty of parsing the language as was Bill Clinton.

44 posted on 10/09/2005 1:01:51 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

I still want to know what to do with my pistol which I have the "right to carry" when I get to the front gate of the parking lot.

I understand you may prohibit me form bringing it into the building, but my car is my home away from home. Why should you be able to dictate to me what I keep in it.


45 posted on 10/09/2005 1:16:05 PM PDT by gooleyman ( What about the baby's "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"?????? I bet the baby would chose LIFE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
One of the first things I learned about the law is that your right to swing your fist freely stops at the end of my nose. Your right to set the rules, as I see it, stops when it infringes on my Constitutional rights....which as we all know, are given of God and can only be taken by him no matter what any government or private business may think, say or do. At least in theory. The real test is what happens after infringement occurs? If the government or business gets away with it, then defacto, the right has been curtailed. Unjustly and unlawfully.
46 posted on 10/09/2005 1:20:58 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman
gooleyman said: "Ah, incrementalism at its best. ... By the way, you'd make a good candidate for a Supreme Court Justice. With all that legalese in there, this lowly Engineer had to read and re-read your reply."

I am, in fact, an engineer. But perhaps I missed my calling.

My approach is not so much based on "incrementalism" though there may be good legal reasons to do so.

Rather, my thinking is very much influenced by a couple of principles that liberals never seem to consider. One principle is that "that government is best which governs least". Thus, if 99 percent of a benefit can be derived by a change in corporate powers, I prefer that to changing private property laws.

The other principle, and perhaps it has a name that I don't know, is that laws should be as simple, clear, and straightforward to enforce as possible. That is why the War on Some Drugs is an abomination and has led to restrictions on carrying cash or buying cold medicines. Violations of this principle are also responsible for filling our courtrooms with cases which should have been decided outside of courtrooms. In an attempt to be "fair" about everything, liberal laws create spider's nests of special cases and exceptions.

For that reason, I would prefer a broad change which outlaws all discrimination based upon bearing arms, rather than a "firearm in parking lot" exception to private property rights.

47 posted on 10/09/2005 1:27:48 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman
"Why should you be able to dictate to me what I keep in it."

I don't really want to be able to dictate what you keep in your car. I just want to retain the right to be able to dictate what comes onto my own property, which includes cars and their contents.

FWIW, my opinion is that if as a society we are actually going to trust ourselves to keep and bear arms, and so far, we do, it's still in the BOR, then as employers, we shouldn't worry about our employees being armed. I personally let my (very few) employees bring arms onto my property. If there was one I didn't trust with a gun, I'd let him go rather than tell him to leave the gun at home. Because then trust would be the issue.

More to the point, I worry that large companies who prohibit arms on their property are doing it out of a desire to be politically correct, which is reprehensible. Or maybe they fear lawsuits, which is a comment on the legal profession.

In spite of all that, I don't think government should be given the power to direct property owners in what their employees may bring on the property. Make that strongly don't think.

48 posted on 10/09/2005 1:35:26 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier; Sam Cree
" -- There's a good bit of case law establishing the principle that an automobile is a traveling property zone of its owner, not the entity who owns the roads and parking lots on which the vehicle rests.
  The owner of a road may prohibit a vehicle from driving on the road, and the owner of a parking lot may insist that the vehicle be removed, but neither is justified in arbitrarily searching the vehicle or removing what it contains, insofar as the cargo is lawful. 
Firearms carried properly in a vehicle are, of course, lawful. 
That means that their mere presence does not justify the road or parking lot owner violating the property rights of the vehicle owner.  In effect, the firearm is not in the parking lot or roadway; it is in the vehicle. -- "
Property rights vs Self-defense rights
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1499080/posts
29
42 faireturn






As I said before, your rights don't include bringing arms onto the private property of someone else. If the Courts have ruled that arms in a car are not really on that property, then the Courts are every bit as guilty of parsing the language as was Bill Clinton.
44 sam cree






ExSoldier wrote:

One of the first things I learned about the law is that your right to swing your fist freely stops at the end of my nose. Your right to set the rules, as I see it, stops when it infringes on my Constitutional rights....which as we all know, are given of God and can only be taken by him no matter what any government or private business may think, say or do. At least in theory. The real test is what happens after infringement occurs? If the government or business gets away with it, then defacto, the right has been curtailed. Unjustly and unlawfully.






Sam, meet another ex-soldier, one I agree with, and who just framed the issue very well.

The question remains, why do you think you need the power to keep me from having a gun in my car?
49 posted on 10/09/2005 1:40:21 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
Property rights vs Self-defense rights....

Unfortunately, our very own US Supreme Court just trumped that right by an act of judicial activism, thus creating systemic abortion.

50 posted on 10/09/2005 1:50:21 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-271 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson