NRA pushes 'guns-at-work' bill in Florida

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When you open a business you create a different set of expectations than you have for your home. You have the expectation of people coming and going in a business. Your home is a different matter. For example your home and your business will have different zoning. You will have different insurance requirements on your home and your business. There are a lot of differences.

Further corporations are legal entities treated as persons for matters of convenience on a legal basis, but they aren't really persons with rights. When did you ever hear of a corporation exercising a right to vote? Or a corporation exercising it's 5th amendment rights. Corporations don't have those rights. To have the same expectation of rights for a corporation as a person is somewhat unrealistic.

As an example suppose you're a employee/stockholder (as are most employees of corporations with 401k plans), then you are at least in part an owner of the corporation, so if you carry a firearm in your car onto the corporate parking lot you're actually carrying it onto (part) of your own property.

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.

Your opinions & asides do not counter my comments.

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.

Officials functioning AS GOVERNMENT. What do you think government is, a machine? No, it is people given power by the remainder of the people.

Exactly, we give individuals power, with the understanding that they will obey the law of the land, the same law that we all must support & defend as citizens.

The remaining rights belong to the states, or the people, under the 10th.

Yep, although States are prohibited some powers by the Constitution.

Go ahead, I challenge you. You are saying the Bill of Rights constrains individuals from exercising rights such as property rights.

Simply not true. I'm defending our right to have a gun in our locked cars in a parking lot.
Get a grip on your straw man rhetoric.

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.

The 2nd Amendment is the writing that proves -my- case. No google necessary.

You'll have to prove your own straw man 'case'.

Sam Cree said: "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."

Yes.

And for a real PERSON such taxation would be a violation of that persons equal treatment under the law. Corporate law permits this multiple taxation as a benefit to the public in exchange for the benefits of corporation. The tremendous success of such laws reflects the wisdom of the law. To the extent that there are any "private property" rights conveyed to corporations, that too is completely subject to corporate law. I see no problem whatever in changing corporate law so as to prohibit the widespread infringement of the right to keep and bear arms which has been occurring as a result of corporate action.

Consider the Supreme Court decision in Brown versus Board of Education. This landmark case struck down a legislatively created scheme which established "separate but equal" public accomodations for blacks and whites.

The justification for striking down such laws is that the "separate" treatment ALWAYS resulted in an "unequal" treatment. That was the true effect of the laws and nothing was ever going to change that.

Similarly, the effect of corporate law is to create legal entities with enormous financial power and absolutely no incentive to respect the right to keep and bear arms. The "effect" of corporate laws is disarmament. Can you name even half a dozen of the many tens of thousands of US corporations which permit firearms in their parking lots? Corporations do not NEED Second Amendment protection because they are a creature of the very government whose tyrannical tendencies is the object of the Second Amendment. If the government ceases to exist, the corporations cease to exist.

Here is the entire problem I have with the corporate-as-less-than-human argument here.

I actually agree that a corporation should not be viewed to have rights equivalent to a person.

However, a corporation, whether publicly or privately owned, is still owned by individuals through stock (and to some extent there is government ownership through state retirement funds, but I will exclude that for sake of argument, because the strong majority of stocks are still individually-owned).

Individual owners, in turn, elected officers and a board of directors to represent them. So if a company sets a policy regarding use of their property that is countered by government action, then that is still affecting private property rights.

The 2nd Amendment is the writing that proves -my- case. No google necessary.

I won't bother with you any further, since you make a novel argument unsupported by history, writing or precedent. You have no case for your position that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on individuals instead of government.

Thus, I'm obligated to defend our 2nd amendment right to have guns in our cars. -- No tricks, just the facts.

Sam Cree said: "It [a corporation] was not created by the government, ..."

My argument concerning how to address the possession of firearms depends on a distinction which I don't see you making. That distinction is between a "corporation" and a "private company".

People are free to pool their resources and conduct business as partnerships and to control their private property in so doing. All of the individuals maintain their rights in the business and they are individually responsible for meeting the obligations of the business. Each of their entire fortunes are at risk in the business.

"Corporations" are a government created mechanism for permitting the pooling of resources with the benefit of limited liability. In exchange for this benefit, corporations are taxed differently than real persons and there are considerable legal requirements for properly running a corporation. The purpose of corporate law is to encourage business for the benefit of the public at large.

It is a totally government created mechanism. There is absolutely no moral, ethical, legal, or other constraint which should prevent us from modifying corporate law so that the right to keep and bear arms is not denied to the people because of the success of corporations.

Such modification of corporate law would NOT effect companies which rely on partnerships that do not derive benefits from corporate law. Such private businesses could continue to exercise their private property rights without government interference.

If this is truly about whether employees of a company can keep guns locked in their cars while on company property, then its a moot issue. Shall Issue CCW is the law in Florida. Unless these companies want to install guards and gates and then engage in [and pay for] car searching of each employee each and every day, then they cannot control who carries what onto company property. In effect, these companies would become little police states. Not good business. The only companies that could do such things are those involved in serious DOD work. I imagine they already have high security levels and they probably employ armed guards. Disney sure doesn't fit that bill.

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;

I will respond one more time because you keep repeating this claim, and IMO you are spewing dangerous nonsense here.

The 2nd Amendment was not enacted so we can hunt deer. And although self-defense was a key consideration, it was not the primary consideration.

The 2nd Amendment was meant first and foremost as a bulwhark against tyranny - and especially against a usurping government.

You say that we are all obligated to support and defend the law - when that runs counter to the most CRITICAL argument in favor of the 2nd by the Founders - that it gives individuals the power to stand against the law when government usurps power.

So why, then, would the Founders say such about the right to bear arms if they in turn said individuals were obligated to follow the law as you claim?

Answer? They didn't. The contradiction is yours. The Constitution was written as a constraint on government. YOUR reading is activist and historically wrong - that WE are constrained, instead of the government being restrained. And most of the usupration of power over the last century has come from taking YOUR position - that WE are constrained - and using that to usurp power.

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.