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

Florida Times-Uion ^ | 10/08/2005 | J. Taylor Rushing

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[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.

[ExSoldier]

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.

[Clintonfatigued]

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.

[Cobra64]

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

Should I buy a Winnebago mobile home? /sarcasm

[William Tell]

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.

[Tax-chick]

Or "commuter safety."

[10mm]

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"?

[faireturn]

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

[William Tell]

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.

[kAcknor]

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.

[faireturn]

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?

[surely_you_jest]

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.

[surely_you_jest]

"These two" should read these three.

[gooleyman]

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.

[William Tell]

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.

[Sam Cree]

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.

[gooleyman]

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.

[Sam Cree]

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

[William Tell]

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.