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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-271 next last
To: Eagle Eye
Can you also tell your employees that they can't have religious or political material in their cars? Can you tell them how they should vote if they want to work for you?

That's a different situation: Federal law specifically prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee or potential employee based upon the person's race, gender, national origin, age (I think), disability, or religious practices. Congress passed the laws allegedly under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress could (and perhaps it should) also pass a law to prohibit employers from discriminating against lawful gun owners. My point is that the prohibitions that you refer to come from a statute passed by Congress, not directly from the Constitution itself, and that's because the Constition is a social contract between the people and the government, and not a private contract regulating the relationship between private employers and employees.

101 posted on 10/10/2005 6:10:10 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rahbert

Case law in the state of Montana my friend, allows me to wear a .45 strapped to my hip in full view, unconcealed into any business I choose to visit.

Now, the owner does have the right to ask me to leave, or to take it off before I come in. But he cannot dictate what is in my car whether I work there or not.

Case law is relative to where you live.

A person's car is their property, and unless that business owner wants to be charged with breaking and entering, they would have no other way of knowing whether or not that person has a weapon in their vehicle.

Ban all cars and get rid of your parking lot, or not. But you do not have the right, under any circumstances, to dictate what I carry in my vehicle.

Period.


102 posted on 10/10/2005 6:15:32 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
You have Zero right to tell a person what they can or cannot carry in their car so long as that item, whatever it is, is a lawful product. You don't want someone parking their car in your lot, that's fine. But YOUR rights end at my bumper bud.

I wish I was wrong, but I'm not, pal, at least not under Federal law. I don't know whether your state law protects the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon in the private workplace, but I am absolutely certain that neither the Constitution nor federal statute offer such protection.

103 posted on 10/10/2005 6:16:50 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
Sorry, it's true--people can freak out and make a lifetime mistake in five minutes that they would never do if they had to drive 20 minutes home and back to the office in which to calm down and think it over.

Sorry, it's false -- what you're advocating is a "cooling off period" verbatim from the pages of Sara Brady's HCI handbook. Totally bogus as shown by the crime states from states with waiting periods and states without. States with easier firearms access have less crime, not more. Or are you now saying that the Brady bunch are not loons and that we should pay attention to them on matters of gun control.

If you don't think proximity matters, imagine what firings would be like if there was a gun in the hallway outside the HR director's office Oh, and an open bar. Do you think that would increase violence, or have no effect

More totally irrelevant stuff - this is about having a firearm in your car, not drinking or having a free one sitting in the hallway. Please stick to the subject.

104 posted on 10/10/2005 6:18:20 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: rahbert
when it involves the safety and well being of their employees

I understand this better than you can possibly realize.

HOWEVER...can you show me any evidence than a firearm in a car is an increased safety or health risk to the work force?

I can't quantify this right now, but I'll bet there are more lost workdays due to people 'toughing out' colds and flu than there are from firearm related incidents amongst co workers.

So is it really about the safety and well being of their employees?

105 posted on 10/10/2005 6:19:58 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Carrying a weapon in a workplace is far different from carrying a weapon and leaving it locked in your vehicle.

Federal Law (i.e. the Constitution) does protect that right.

Nobody has challenged these jackass corporations yet is the problem.

Now they are and the spineless bastards don't like it. Problem is, seems like some of the "Leaders" in the Republican party don't like it either.

No surprise there anymore. They have no interest in the Constitution OR the Country. They are only interested in "The Party".


106 posted on 10/10/2005 6:21:32 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
Your right to set the rules, as I see it, stops when it infringes on my Constitutional rights.

Constitutional right are rights that are protected from interference by the government. That's basic constitutional law. Another citizen can take action against you because they don't like the content of your speech, for example. They can kick you out of their home, place of business, or whatever. It's the government that can't do that.

I personally think it is stupid for businesses to bad weapons from private vehicles if they are locked in the trunk. But, I also think its their property, and they have the right to set their own rules. If you don't like them, you are free to find another job or patronize a different business.

107 posted on 10/10/2005 6:21:40 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
The First Amendment stops at the boundary of company property. Why should the Second Amendment be any different?

I think that you're incorrect and that there are probably many court cases that would suggest that employees must be permitted accomodation for their religious practices.

Additionall I think that if any employer tried to ban me from having my Bible, Koran, Book of Morman, etc in my car that they'd be in trouble.

So why should the Second Amendment be any different?

108 posted on 10/10/2005 6:23:18 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

You're arguing from wishful thinking. You'd like to extend your 2nd Amendment rights, so you're not going to listen to people who provide common sense reasons why it would expose companies to risks they don't want to take.

You can believe what you like, but people who make it their business to run companies smoothly and make firings as painless as possible have their own experiences and knowledge to draw upon. I suspect you'll lose in the legislature, and rightly so.


109 posted on 10/10/2005 6:34:49 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
so you're not going to listen to people who provide common sense reasons why it would expose companies to risks they don't want to take

I'm listening. I just don't agree with you or Sara Brady on waiting periods.

110 posted on 10/10/2005 6:36:27 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Because there are safety issues involved.

Private property restrictions on the First Amendment aren't really threatened by something someone keeps in their car. If an employee, fired or otherwise, retaliates by going to his car and bringing in his issues of Hustler or the Watchtower it won't be very hard for HR to clean up the mess quickly and undo the violation of their policies.

A gun in the car has the potential for exponentially greater damage. Yes, most everyone who keeps a gun in the car is a good gun-owner, but the liability caused by the exceptions is what private property owners have to consider. And it's unfortunate, but getting fired, particularly under bad circumstances, can turn a really large percentage of otherwise sane people into exceptions. Companies don't want to risk it.


111 posted on 10/10/2005 6:37:59 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
Carrying a weapon in a workplace is far different from carrying a weapon and leaving it locked in your vehicle. Federal Law (i.e. the Constitution) does protect that right.

Maybe it should, but it doesn't. There's nothing an employer can do that violates the Constitution because the Constitution is a limitation on governmental actions, not private actions.

112 posted on 10/10/2005 6:38:15 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Like I said, I'm not the one you have to convince. I don't work in state government or human resources.

"But you agree with Sarah Brady" isn't going to convince anyone who disagrees with you that having guns on company property is a good idea. It may make you feel better, and I think that's worth something, but it's not really an argument.


113 posted on 10/10/2005 6:40:08 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
I am absolutely certain that neither the Constitution nor federal statute offer such protection.

That's whe re you got it wrong, Pal. The second ammendment enumerates that right. There are no exceptions or conditions to it.

You really are an arrogant SOB aren't you? Assuming that you have the right to tell me I cannot leave my home with a weapon in my vehicle just because it might spend a few hours in your precious parking lot. No wonder you New Yorkers end up with the Chuck Schumers, and Hillary Clintons that try to ram their socialist agendas down the throats of the rest of the nation. Do us a favor and don't do us any favors.

114 posted on 10/10/2005 6:45:48 AM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

You can't be serious. As others have pointed out, a firearm
on the premises (including a locked vehicle but available to the owner) is a risk to others when that owner is involved in disputes, including with the employer. I recall
the shootings in Sunnyvale (Silicon Valley), at DEC in
Hudson Mass, the various incidents at post offices (genesis
of the "going postal" syndrome)..

My wife carries out terminations as part of her job. Its
stressful enough without the danger of a fired employee coming into mahogany row and offing the management. Ultimately this issue will lose on the grounds of common sense and liability.


115 posted on 10/10/2005 6:46:42 AM PDT by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

Bogus argument and insulting to gun owners.

Employee safety is not threatened by guns inside cars.

Those who are likely to take hostages and commit murder are not likely to be deterred by company policies against having a firearm in the parking lot or in the workplace proper.


Now your argument works both ways; that copy of Hustler (Odd how you threw pornography into the mix!) or Watchtower won't protect the car's owner once that car leaves the parking lot.

So if this is really about safety, your argument misses the mark.

You'd disarm all because you think that maybe one might some how someday commit a criminal act.

Are you also going to ban scissors and pocket knives and hatchets from cars?


116 posted on 10/10/2005 6:48:28 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

This is also true here in Texas. None of the large employers
in the Metroplex I know of permit firearms on the premises (including employee vehicles). The smaller employers may
vary.

And there are no Schumers here that I am aware of...


117 posted on 10/10/2005 6:50:25 AM PDT by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
That's whe re you got it wrong, Pal. The second ammendment enumerates that right. There are no exceptions or conditions to it.

Yes, the Constitution enumerates that right, but it only applies to the government. ARE YOU THAT NAIVE ABOUT THE CONSTITUION? (Obvioulsy you are.)

118 posted on 10/10/2005 6:51:16 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: rahbert
A firearm is zero risk. Criminal behaviors are the risk.

I'd be willing to bet that your company had more lost days from comunicable diseases and from the tools at work than from firearm incidents between co workers.

But let's not let facts get in the way of fearful perceptions!

You'll also have to consider that people with GUNS IN CARS have helped stop school shooting sprees.

But you act as if policies against guns in the parking lots keep people from returning after a termination to commit crimes.

119 posted on 10/10/2005 6:55:52 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
Like I said, I'm not the one you have to convince.

I'm not trying to convince. We're just having a friendly discussion.

but it's not really an argument

Neither is your unsupported claim that people "go postal" if they have ready access to guns. The evidence is to the contrary if you look at the crime stats from states with and without waiting periods.

120 posted on 10/10/2005 7:00:27 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead

Possibly not, but the Federal Government is in place to protect our rights period.

Be that against an employer or another government entity, it is the job of our Government to secure our rights.

An Employers rights end where my (and your) bumper begins.

Anything other than that is a matter for the courts to decide.

Semper Fi


121 posted on 10/10/2005 7:04:31 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

The difference between 5 minutes and ready accessibility vs. 30+ minutes and a drive home and back is not the same as whatever is involved with waiting periods. The former also means the difference between a company preparing for a p-o'd employee who might return and not having time.


122 posted on 10/10/2005 7:08:57 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
The difference between 5 minutes and ready accessibility vs. 30+ minutes and a drive home and back is not the same as whatever is involved with waiting periods

Your unsupported opinion again. In most of the stuff (granted anectdotal only) I've read about workplace shooting the shooter comes back days or weeks later and shoots up the place. Presumable having had time to cool off.

123 posted on 10/10/2005 7:18:22 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Don't you know that if people are allowed to have guns in their cars at work we'll see the Wild West replayed for us?

Imagine the bloodshed; imagine the horror.

Imagine Whirled Peas.

Stop the Violins!


124 posted on 10/10/2005 7:22:06 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Don't you know that if people are allowed to have guns in their cars at work we'll see the Wild West replayed for us?

Save the whales. You've got to wonder where the people who support firearms restrictions come from. New York, Ma, Md DU :-)?

125 posted on 10/10/2005 7:40:05 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

bump. Meanwhile, in NJ, we still have to ask the government's permission to purchase a pistol.


126 posted on 10/10/2005 7:51:25 AM PDT by jjm2111 (99.7 FM Radio Kuwait)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
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.

My problem with banning weapons in the locked cars is a bit more pragmatic. I have worked at such companies, one of which had a force of private security for their facility. Unfortunately, the pricate security was not armed, nor licensed to be armed as part of their job. So, the employees were not allowed to be armed for self defense, and the security was not allowed to be armed.

The question is: How does this enforce safety? It doesn't - there is no "force deterrent" to the looney who violates company policy and starts shooting up the place.

Worse yet, the company admitted no liability if this happened. In other words, the company was allowed to disarm its employees without having to guarantee their safety from such incidents.

It's really a private-property (parking lot) versus private-property (car) issue, IMO. As such, it should be adjudicated toward the least intrusive solution as possible - as long as the weapons stay inside the vehicle, no infraction has occurred.

Just my $.02

127 posted on 10/10/2005 7:53:28 AM PDT by MortMan (Eschew Obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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

Look at what you just said here. It shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution.

Let's say you own a store. And some ANSWER types come into your store and start chanting anti-American slogans.

Using your logic, if you kick them out of the store, private property, you would be acting against our Constitutional mandate that freedom of speech shall not be outlawed.

The Bill of Rights is a prohibition against government action - not individual action. Private individuals and companies have the right to dictate who can use their property and how it can be used. If you don't like their terms, don't work for them and don't give them business. But you cannot take your rights and force them down someone else's throats at the expense of their Constitutional property rights.

128 posted on 10/10/2005 8:08:51 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

I pretty much agree with your thoughts except that the company was really not disarming its employees except when they were on company property, which should be its right, even if ill advised.

BTW, even though police forces *are* armed, they also accept no liability to protect the public.

Yeah, I agree, what good are unarmed security guards?

As for the private property vs private property, car owner vs parking lot owner, the corporation is not under a legal obligation to provide parking at all. I just think that if chooses to do so, it ought to have the right to impose whatever conditions it sees fit for those who choose (and choose is the operative word) to use those lots.


129 posted on 10/10/2005 8:55:56 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

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

What is being "preserved"?

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

Look at what you just said here. It shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution.

Hardly. You cannot deny the 2nd is an individual right, to be protected by our Constitution.

Let's say you own a store. And some ANSWER types come into your store and start chanting anti-American slogans. Using your logic, if you kick them out of the store, private property, you would be acting against our Constitutional mandate that freedom of speech shall not be outlawed.

Get a grip. I'm not using that "logic", I'm defending our 2nd amendment right to have guns in our cars.

The Bill of Rights is a prohibition against government action - not individual action.

Look at what you just said here. It shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution, which is clearly set up to protect individual rights from infringements of any type from any source.

Private individuals and companies have the right to dictate who can use their property and how it can be used.

Within reason, of course, but neither private individuals or companies have the right to violate individual rights while "dictating".

If you don't like their terms, don't work for them and don't give them business.

Paraphrased: 'If you don't like our Constitution, feel free to leave the country.'

But you cannot take your rights and force them down someone else's throats at the expense of their Constitutional property rights.

Nor can you take your property rights and force them down someone else's throats at the expense of their Constitutional right to have arms in their vehicle .


Your claim that The Bill of Rights is not a prohibition on individual action is belied by the fact that we are all obligated to support & defend the law; - the law of the land as in Article VI.
All officials are sworn to defend it, as are all naturalized citizens. Those of us born here have that same obligation.
If anyone disagrees, they are free to leave.

130 posted on 10/10/2005 9:03:47 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
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.

The SC would never go for it. Then again they just might, on the basis that your house could then be searched on the same basis as your car.

131 posted on 10/10/2005 9:10:34 AM PDT by Centurion2000 ((Aubrey, Tx) --- Truth, Justice and the American Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
What does a private proprietorship gain [in a parking lot] by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?

Once again, there is no point debating further as long as you show such disregard for the nature of the Constutution. It is a constraint against government, not individuals. I think liberal viewpoints are wrong. But they have the right to express them, and also exclude them from their property. It's that simple.

132 posted on 10/10/2005 9:10:34 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'm defending our 2nd amendment right to have guns in our cars.

You have a right to do such in your car on public property. If you go on private property, you either need to conform to the wishes of that individual or leave.

It shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution, which is clearly set up to protect individual rights from infringements of any type from any source.

Show me ANY writing by the Founders that said the Bill of Rights was a constraint on individuals. ONE.

133 posted on 10/10/2005 9:22:58 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"Corporations are not PEOPLE. For many legal purposes, they are treated like people. That is one of the advantages of incorporation."

I guess you want to differentiate between the amount of power the government exerts over a "person" and the amount it exerts over a business entity, specifically the corporation. Aside from the weird parallel here (on a conservative forum) in the way leftists view corporations, I have a couple points of disagreement.

First, increase government power over business entities and you risk government taking that same power for use over individuals.

Second, while a corporation may not be a "person," it most certainly is "people," or a group of persons, a group of individuals, the officers and the stockholders. I don't think you can justify saying that just because people band together in an organization, be it business or otherwise, it is OK to grant government more power over them than you would grant it over an individual. I think that's unAmerican.

"It is absolutely unreasonable to believe that EVERYONE could choose not to work for a corporation. Some could, but if everyone tried, the entire economy would fail.

Well, you have just illustrated rather clearly the power ordinary citizens can exert over corporations without resorting to increasing the power of their rulers, should they so decide.

"I find no compelling reason to spare corporations from legal constraints on their abilities to reduce the freedom of the people. If corporations were forbidden to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I see no reason to believe that the economic success of corporations would in any way be negatively impacted."

As Exsoldier so eloquently pointed out, your freedom to swing your fist stops when it reaches my nose. In this case when you enter the property of others. RKBA is not being infringed since it doesn't extend to private property of someone else without their consent. However, I agree with you that a law such as the one this thread discusses would have no adverse effect on economic success. It does, IMO constitute an adverse effect on our freedom.

BTW, the limit to liability for corporations is proper IMO. You can go after the corporation's complete assets in a suit. Remember, that means that you are not going after the assets of an inanimate "entity," but the shares in that company of all the stockholders who have risked their money in investment. A risk that provides those jobs that we were talking about. The limit to liability in suing corporations is that you cannot also sue for assets belonging to the stockholders that are held outside the corporation, such as their shares in other corporations, their homes, etc. Seems pretty reasonable to me. However, there is one way in which corporations are less protected than individuals, that's taxation. Profits made by corporations are taxed 3 times: first, by taxing corporate profits, secondly by taxing those profits again when they are paid out to shareholders as dividends, and thirdly, as capital gains when the shares are sold.

134 posted on 10/10/2005 9:31:50 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I pretty much agree with your thoughts except that the company was really not disarming its employees except when they were on company property, which should be its right, even if ill advised.

They 'really' are attempting to disarm their employees, and it's obviously their intent. -- And that is "ill advised" by the clear words of our 2nd. And at least 2 state legislatures plus the Georgia supreme court agree that it is not a company power or 'right' to search private vehicles.

As for the private property vs private property, car owner vs parking lot owner, the corporation is not under a legal obligation to provide parking at all.

Local law says otherwise. Most larger companies are required to provide off street parking to employees & visitors as part of the business license/use permit process.

I just think that if chooses to do so, it ought to have the right to impose whatever conditions it sees fit for those who choose (and choose is the operative word) to use those lots.

You say above such a choice is "ill advised", yet you argue they ought to have that power "even if ill advised." Can you explain why?

Why should we allow companies to ban guns in parking lots? It makes no constitutional sense.

135 posted on 10/10/2005 9:32:25 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

I don't see how you can make a distinction between our *rights* to control what happens on our private residential property vs our private business property.

Again, I think that mindset falls into the liberal trap of thinking that businesses are public, not private entities, that their existence is justified by their benefit to the public, as decreed by the state.


136 posted on 10/10/2005 9:36:34 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
First, increase government power over business entities and you risk government taking that same power for use over individuals.

Now, come on now. I can't imagine the federal government ever ignoring Fifth Amendment restrictions about the sanctity of private property for individuals.

Oh, wait a minute, they did just that with Kelo.

But I'm SURE that was just an isolated incident! Government would NEVER abuse the power to dictate private property rights, other than that!

137 posted on 10/10/2005 9:38:29 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
Get a grip. I'm not using that "logic", I'm defending our 2nd amendment right to have guns in our cars.

That is EXACTLY the logic you are using - the right to exercise YOUR rights at the expense of someone ELSE'S rights.

138 posted on 10/10/2005 9:39:53 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

A corporation is a group of people banded together in a specific type of business organization. It was not created by the government, but follows rules imposed by the government, as do individual citizens. I don't agree with your premise that an individual loses his rights and intrinsic value just because he works in concert with other individuals.


139 posted on 10/10/2005 9:40:27 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
Constitutional right are rights that are protected from interference by the government. That's basic constitutional law. Another citizen can take action against you because they don't like the content of your speech, for example. They can kick you out of their home, place of business, or whatever. It's the government that can't do that.

Know what? You are absolutely correct. But you knew that. I stand corrected. But that takes us right back to the public schools and my right to have a gun in my car on school property. I teach 7 hours a day and stay on campus to grade (on my own time) for 2-3 hours more each day. I teach in the inner city. I should be able to protect myself on those streets when I roll out of the parking lot....

140 posted on 10/10/2005 9:40:33 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 107 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Your claim that The Bill of Rights is not a prohibition on individual action is belied by the fact that we are all obligated to support & defend the law; - the law of the land as in Article VI.
All officials are sworn to defend it, as are all naturalized citizens. Those of us born here have that same obligation.

Once again, there is no point debating further as long as you show such disregard for the nature of the Constutution.

My regard for our constitution is shown in my argument, one you cannot refute.

It is a constraint against government, not individuals.

Repeating your unsupported opinion does not make it so.

I think liberal viewpoints are wrong.

So do I -- Many liberals think that the 2nd does not apply to individuals.

But they have the right to express them, and also exclude them from their property. It's that simple.

Yep, the liberals are using property rights as an excuse to ban guns. How sad that some conservatives can't understand that simple fact.

141 posted on 10/10/2005 9:47:14 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
Your claim that The Bill of Rights is not a prohibition on individual action is belied by the fact that we are all obligated to support & defend the law; - the law of the land as in Article VI.

Gawd, you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Read the writings of the Founders. The Bill of Rights - even the entire Constitution - as meant as a check on FEDERAL power. Not even state or local power, let alone individual power.

To say that the 2nd Amendment trumps conditions on the terms someone can set for someone else using their private property is absurd. It is a serious affront both to the 5th Amednment AND the right of association implied in the First. Your way is NO DIFFERENT than groups trying to force the Boy Scouts to accept gays in that you would trump a right to enforce a right.

My regard for our constitution is shown in my argument, one you cannot refute.

You are a legend in your own mind.

I have the writings of the Founders on my side.

You have your opinion.

My guyz win.

Repeating your unsupported opinion does not make it so.

This from someone staking a position supported by neither intent nor subsequent ruling.

Yep, the liberals are using property rights as an excuse to ban guns. How sad that some conservatives can't understand that simple fact.

You still have the right to have guns on your property and on public property except places such as courtrooms. However, your 2nd Amendment rights stop at my property line if I so decree. As do all your other rights within the rule of law. You want YOUR rights to subsume mine, and that is the most dangerous viewpoint in this country towards the Constitution.

142 posted on 10/10/2005 9:54:17 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Your claim that The Bill of Rights is not a prohibition on individual action is belied by the fact that we are all obligated to support & defend the law; - the law of the land as in Article VI.
All officials are sworn to defend it, as are all naturalized citizens. Those of us born here have that same obligation.

I'm defending our 2nd amendment right to have guns in our cars.

You have a right to do such in your car on public property. If you go on private property, you either need to conform to the wishes of that individual or leave.

Nope. the company [and local government] requires me to use the parking lot while working. They have no power to search my car for 'banned' items.
-- To claim they do shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution, which is clearly set up to protect individual rights from infringements of any type from any source.

Show me ANY writing by the Founders that said the Bill of Rights was a constraint on individuals. ONE.

Article VI clearly says that all officials [who are individuals] are bound by oath to support the Constitution. That's one.

143 posted on 10/10/2005 10:05:23 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

You obviously misread what I said, and if you do not think that a corporation is a created person, then go read the laws governing the creation of a corporation.

They are in all legal respects, a person.

They are a created person, created by a government law.

Again, that which is created cannot be greater than the creator.

That is a simple law of nature.

My Rights as a sovereign citizen of this State and the country that I live in, is greater than ANY created Corporation.

But this is getting off the point. The point remains that NOBODY has the right to prevent me from carrying a weapon in my vehicle if it is legal to do so.

You have the right to keep my car and ALL of it's contents off of your property, but you cannot pick and choose unless you want to make a voluntary vehicle search be the conditions under which you allow me on your property.

But I dare say you won't be in business very long because people won't put up with it.


144 posted on 10/10/2005 10:08:34 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
Nope. the company [and local government] requires me to use the parking lot while working. They have no power to search my car for 'banned' items.

IMO they do as a term of employment. If you don't like those terms, don't work there. Plenty of other organizations don't have such restrictions. I've taken a gun into one job to show to another worker, with the blessings of the owner. BUT i STILL GOT HIS PERMISSION.

-- To claim they do shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the Constitution, which is clearly set up to protect individual rights from infringements of any type from any source.

Wrong again.

Article VI clearly says that all officials [who are individuals] are bound by oath to support the Constitution. That's one.

Officials functioning AS GOVERNMENT. What do you think government is, a machine? No, it is people given power by the remainder of the people. The remaining rights belong to the states, or the people, under the 10th.

Go ahead, I challenge you. You are saying the Bill of Rights constrains individuals from exercising rights such as property rights. Show me ONE WRITING from the Founders that such is the case. If it is as obvious as you claim, a Google Search should have you deciding which quote to post.

145 posted on 10/10/2005 10:12:33 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; faireturn
That is EXACTLY the logic you are using - the right to exercise YOUR rights at the expense of someone ELSE'S rights.

Doesn't the pendulum swing both ways? The same argument can be made in the reverse.

146 posted on 10/10/2005 10:17:39 AM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
But I'm SURE that was just an isolated incident! Government would NEVER abuse the power to dictate private property rights, other than that!

What property rights? Just try not paying your property taxes and see who comes to take your property. The SCOTUS just codified what was already common knowledge.

147 posted on 10/10/2005 10:22:27 AM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
Doesn't the pendulum swing both ways? The same argument can be made in the reverse.

Look at what is happening here. Which side is resorting to force of government? The property owners? Or those who want to take a gun onto someone else's property against the will of the owner? I tend to look at the side which is resorting to government force to see whose rights are being infringed - and it's usually the other side's.

In addition, look at recourse. If you don't like an employer's terms, don't work there. But if you cannot use your property in the manner you see fit, you don't have recourse.

148 posted on 10/10/2005 10:22:32 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
What property rights? Just try not paying your property taxes and see who comes to take your property. The SCOTUS just codified what was already common knowledge.

I guess I should have used the sarcasm tag. I thought that was obvious with the reference to Kelo.

149 posted on 10/10/2005 10:23:24 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

No. I was just agreeing with you.


150 posted on 10/10/2005 10:24:28 AM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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