Posted on 03/27/2008 7:28:27 PM PDT by neverdem
Capital Bureau
TALLAHASSEE — Gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association won a victory Wednesday with the Florida House's passage of a contentious bill that would allow employees to bring their guns to work.
The measure, (HB 503), is a watered-down version of what the NRA had hoped for but is seen as a compromise that the Senate is also expected to approve.
Under the proposal, employees and visitors who have state-issued concealed-weapons licenses would be able to bring their weapons to work and leave them locked up in their vehicles.
Exempt would be certain businesses from having to allow the guns, including schools, prisons and nuclear power plants, as well as defense-related businesses and those that deal with explosive materials. Also exempted would be company-owned or leased cars.
The House approved the measure by a 72-42 vote, with four Republicans voting against the bill and three Democrats supporting it.
"People have a right to have a firearm in their vehicle to protect themselves and their families no matter where they park their car," said Marion Hammer, a lobbyist for the NRA who formerly served as its president.
"The House has made clear that they want to uphold the Constitution like they swore to protect."
The business community has objected vigorously to the measure, saying it pits the property rights of employers against the Second Amendment rights permitting guns.
"We don't think we need a big government solution to a problem that doesn't exist," said Mark Wilson, executive vice president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce. "We wish the rifle association would join the chamber and focus on getting our economy moving instead of taking rights away."
Getting this past the FL Senate will not be easy.
Target those up for re-election. Target in a political sense of course.
Who knows what Gov. Crist will do?
“Exempt would be certain businesses from having to allow the guns, including schools, prisons ...”
Will this include college parking lots? Hope not.
I love this state. At least the gun rights part of it!
‘The business community has objected vigorously to the measure, saying it pits the property rights of employers against the Second Amendment rights permitting guns.’
No kidding.
My husband’s workplace will be one of the exceptions, so this doesn’t help us any. I think they should ditch the exceptions.
There will be a bloodbath if this is passed. Just like when they passed the castle doctrine. /s
What property rights does an employer have to an employees private vehicle?
I’m for gun rights and property rights. Aren’t they interwined though? Guns are property. Interesting situation.
We have shootouts at every four-way stop, several times a day. People with CCWs just can’t control themeselves.
Tough one.
Private land enables someone to limits on rights all the time.
You can’t assemble on my land. Curse on my land. Businesses can search people if they think they are stealing. No free speech..etc. This isn’t the local park we are talking about.
You consent to these standards and understand that once you enter private property.
Stat said. I can’t imagine a safer place than a bunch of gun CCP guys hanging out.
If I start searching the vehicles that park in my driveway I can be arrested for breaking and entering and/or theft.
And you should be. If someone is parking illegally in your driveway, call the police.
If the employer owns the parking lot then he should be able to set conditions for the use of that parking lot.
Then again the author may have been referring to a "contact freedom" right. That is, an employer should generally be able to set the conditions for employment. If you want to get the employer's money you have to agree to perform under the conditions he sets. For some employers, one of those conditions may be that employees can't bring a gun to the work site.
Personally, I think a no-gun condition would be stupid. But I also believe employers should be free to set stupid conditions for employment, if that's how they want to run their business. If employees don't like the idea of working under those conditions then they can take a job somewhere else. They shouldn't go to the government to force an employer to give them a job under favorable conditions.
However, any employer who is going to choose this policy should make it known to employees BEFORE they take the job. If the business is open to the public, they should also let potential customers know that they are about to enter a "gun-free" (i.e. criminal friendly) environment.
“Tough one.”
True.
“Private land enables someone to limits on rights all the time.”
But property rights have limits too.
Someone’s property rights do not in and of themselves include prohibting me from yelling for help if the property owner assaults me or mine, nor from saying “No” to a sexual proposition.
Someone’s property rights do not in and of themselves include prohibting me from leaving the property if I choose.
My idea of a good compromise would be to allow private property owners the power to ban all guns on their property.
THEN, as part of the same bill, make those private property owners liable for the safety of everyone on their property, and civilly liable if something happened.
Yes, the first few times would be after-the-fact.
THEN, as part of the same bill, make those private property owners liable for the safety of everyone on their property, and civilly liable if something happened.
I would also make explicit that property owners do not have any duty of care that would require them to disarm CCW holders, and that property owners cannot be held liable for not performing such non-existent duty.
“They shouldn’t go to the government...”
Bearing in mind “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,...”, what would you have them do?
Given a disagreement over such things with no recourse to government, to rule of law, how are or were they settled?
I would think that those property owners would not have any “no Guns Allowed” signs.
Your comment caused me to wonder. Are there any places where it is the legal duty of the property owner to disarm CCW holders? I’ve never heard of that.
The way to settle disagreement with employment conditions is to take a job elsewhere with more favorable conditions.
Here, I think an exception exists when an employee initially has a reasonable understanding that guns are allowed, and then is told that guns are not allowed. In that case I think some government involvement may be legitimate. When one party breaches the terms of a contract, or if a contract is silent on a disputed manner, then a government resolution is valid.
What isn't valid is trying to get the government to change terms of employment simply because you don't like them. If I'm applying for a job and the manager tells me I can't bring a gun/talk politics/have a tattoo/smoke cigarettes, I'll tell him "Thanks anyway" and then I'll try somewhere else.
Many businesses put up "No guns" signs for fears that they will be held liable if they don't forbid guns and someone shoots up the place. Although I can't imagine any legal basis for such liability, having legislation that explicitly states that a business shall not be held liable in such cases would pretty well nullify corporate lawyers' the perception of such liability.
One difficulty is that for one to receive unemployment compensation one must be willing to accept a job that is offered. I see no good way to avoid having the government determine what employer demands would be fair reasons for refusing to take a particular job (without losing unemployment compensation) and what demands would not.
Dont forget to add that if an employer prohibits a gun in in your car then they are liable of you are harmed by someone who perpetrates violence in the workplace. Minimum payout is 500 thousand per person harmed. regardless of injury.
So if you take the train or bus to work, or, god forbid, live close by and do the healthy and environmentally-sound thing and walk, you can't bring a gun?
Anyone with a license should be able to carry the gun, even on their person. The government has no business stopping them.
"No kidding."
No, actually it doesn't. All it does is clarify two competing sets of property rights. Those of the owner of the car, and those of the business whose land the car might happen to be parked on. The rights of the owner of the land terminate at the bottom of the tires of the car. The interior of the car should be completely off limits as included in the property rights of the cars owner.
Of course there is not a perfect direct comparison between my examples and the matter under discussion, I am merely pointing out that business properties are not necessarily exempt from laws and regulations to the same extent that private property such as homes, land, and vehicles are. IMO an employee's right to control the contents of his/her private vehicle takes precedence over the employer's right to control what is contained in the private vehicles on his/her property, provided of course that the item in question is legally owned and/or legally possessed by the owner or lessor of the the vehicle. OTOH, if an employee's vehicle contains a controlled substance such as a narcotic drug or a prohibited item such as an unregistered firearm in a jurisdiction where registration is required, then that's another kettle of fish entirely.
There is a lot of confusion and just plan BS about private property. Meanwhile there is a Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.
The notion that because you own property you have the absolute right to do anything you please is just nonsense. There are plenty of common sense examples and you cannot find it anywhere in the Constitution. One major factor is that if you own private property and you invite in the public you are going to be regulated.
” LEO or any other government agent must have my consent or a search warrant to legally enter and search my car or truck’
or probably cause that a crime was committed.
Yep, exactly like what the talking heads and editorial writers predicted would happen if FL's CCW law was signed into law by Republican Governor and future Senator Martinez back in 1987 after it had been vetoed the year before by Democrat Governor and future Senator Bob Graham.
21 years later I still haven't heard of any wild west type shootouts on FL's main streets or at traffic lights in Tampa or Miami, nor any street gutters flowing with blood from gunfights at the FL version of the OK Corral as the FL media predicted would take place. But just you wait, it's only a matter of time until civilization as we know it breaks down in FL and survival of the fittest becomes the rule, and that situation will be entirely due to the passage of that insane CCW law that at least partially restored the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear those awful killer guns.
Unless I'm misinformed, even with probable cause the LEO still needs a warrant to search a private vehicle unless a contraband item or substance is in plain view within the vehicle. Maybe a lawyer reading this thread can provide the right answer.
Hi Matt ~ are you writing a new book?
I loved your first two!
Blackie
Yes...another mover for freedom!
“If the employer owns the parking lot then he should be able to set conditions for the use of that parking lot.
Then again the author may have been referring to a “contact freedom” right. That is, an employer should generally be able to set the conditions for employment. If you want to get the employer’s money you have to agree to perform under the conditions he sets. For some employers, one of those conditions may be that employees can’t bring a gun to the work site”
I agbree as long as the business owner also understands his decision on his parking lot gives the responsibility for that employees fundimental right to self protection to that business owner, so, if an attack occurs, the owner is 100% liable for the resulting damage.
Folk claiming a private property right seem to forget that that right comes with responsibilities for security and responsibility for failures of that security.
Exempt would be certain businesses from having to allow the guns, including schools, prisons ...”
I agree in most instances, but a business property is subject to regulations and laws that don't apply to private property not used for commercial purposes. Regulations on commercial property that don't apply to non-commercial private property include licensing by federal, state, county, and municipality authorities, worker and customer safety regulations, fire department rules, business taxes, emissions regulations, waterway pollution regs, noise prevention regs, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
In all situations involving private, non-commercial property I would definitely support the owner's or lessor's right to control what comes onto his/her property no matter what it might be, and without the owner/lessor having to give a reason for denial of entrance. But in those difficult situations where a commercial property owner's rights conflict with a private property owner's rights I believe that other factors that bear on the respective rights of both involved parties must be taken into careful consideration, and when in doubt the private property owner's rights should be given a certain degree of precedence over the commercial property owner's rights. That is basically the same situation as when the property rights of a restaurant or hotel owner conflict with the right of a minority customer to be accepted at a licensed public accommodation.
According to federal and many state laws that have been upheld by the courts, any commercial enterprise that normally serves the public is a public accommodation facility and is subject to laws against discrimination for reason of race, religion, skin color, etc. That indicates to me that no property rights are absolute, and that commercial property rights are not immune to government regulation as some private property rights are.
Nope, probable cause is sufficient to look inside a car. LEO does not need a warrant. Toss out a baggy of crack or have a missing license plate or one that does not match, blood spatters, etc. Visible contraban is probable cause.
If there is no probable cause to determine a crime you have to give permission but if probable cause they can look.
Illinois vs Gates; Terry vs Ohio.
There are lots of Idaho types on the Free Republic especially on the smoker threads with all kinds of dopey ideas on what the Constitution says about private property.
“Private property owners should be able to decide what to allow and what to forbid on their property without the government interference.”
Based on what authority?
Oh, one other issue some radical freepers conflate is “private property” and “real estate” and “business open to the public”. They are not the same thing. My jock strap is private property. My home is private property. But my farm, open to FPL, FL Dept. of Ag, tradesman, etc., is a business and subject to regulation - as are ALL restaurants in the State of FL.
In those cases I would definitely support the employer's right to set the conditions for employment, and the employer's right to terminate or otherwise penalize the employee if he/she violates the conditions that were jointly agreed upon at the time of hiring. The conditions that I would insist on placing on the employer's and employee's right would be that the employee be informed in writing of all the employer's rules that apply to him/her, and that the employee agrees in writing to obey those rules as one of the conditions for employment.
Maybe my post wasn't clear on that matter. If not, I intended it to say pretty much the same as what you say in yours, basically that if there is evidence of illegal items or substances or evidence of any other unlawful activity that is visible to the LEO from outside the vehicle he or she has probable cause to search the vehicle and it's occupants.
I don't know if evasive or excessively hostile behavior on the part of the vehicle's occupants would also constitute probable cause, but IMHO it probably should.
No argument from me on that matter. By accepting the terms on which a license or permit to operate a commercial enterprise is granted, the operator or owner agrees to abide by the rules set by the grantor.
Plus the question, as defined by the Constitution, is can the result of an “illegal” search be used in prosecution or seizure, There may be a case but I don’t know where the penalty for illegal search is anything more than the items or total case being tossed out of court.
In our society, some rights may be subject to partial or complete curtailment by contract, employment or otherwise, and some rights are not subject to such curtailment at all. Much but not all of that is settled and we as a society have laid out in law much of what can be contracted and what can not. Government involvement starts way earlier than your post indicates.
In terms of employment contracts, the question would be: Where does the "right to bear arms" fall in the spectrum of what can be contracted: no, partial or complete curtailment of the right?
That still leaves my previous question open: Given a disagreement over such things with no recourse to government, to rule of law, how are or were they settled?
“There is a lot of confusion ...”
I’d say that’s a fact.
“All it does is clarify two competing sets of property rights. “
I’d call it a conflict of rights.
“Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” fails to account for “My right to locate my nose ends where your fist begins” and requires clarification about “begins”.
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.