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

Skip to comments.

State Senate OK's guns-at-work bill (Florida)
The Miami Herald ^ | April 9, 2008 | MONICA HATCHER

Posted on 04/09/2008 8:56:14 AM PDT by King of Florida

In the three-year duel over whether citizens should be allowed to conceal their firearms in locked vehicles at work, state lawmakers have decided Florida business owners will have to bite the bullet.

Siding with the influential gun lobby, the state Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a compromise measure allowing employees to stash firearms in their parked cars, despite the objections or policies of their employers -- as long as they have concealed-weapons permits.

''This is about a legal person that owns a legal firearm parked in a car that is legal, out of sight and locked up in a parking lot. Not anything else. It is a preservation of rights,'' said Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, who sponsored the bill backed by the National Rifle Association. Already passed by the House, the bill now heads to the governor, who will decide whether to enact it into law.

Over the last three years, lawmakers have grappled with the so-called guns-at-work issue in which the Second Amendment right to bear arms has bumped up against private property rights, setting the powerful gun and business lobbies against each other.

In the end, the watered down version of the bill was crafted to deny either side an unmitigated victory or inconsolable defeat. Employers would be banned from prohibiting workers from concealing guns in their locked vehicles on company property, but employees must now carry a concealed-weapons permit to do so.

The provision means only some 490,760 current permit holders could legally keep their guns at work, of an estimated six million gun owners in Florida, according to numbers from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and estimates from the NRA.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: guns; righttocarry
The concealed-weapon permit compromise was but a bump. This is a victory.
1 posted on 04/09/2008 8:56:15 AM PDT by King of Florida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: King of Florida
Its not perfect. One shouldn't have to choose between their livelihood and their lawful right of self defense. No employer should have to fear their workers who carry concealed to work. If someone is intent on breaking the law, whether they have a gun or not isn't going to be an issue when they do so.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

2 posted on 04/09/2008 8:59:29 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida
Siding with the influential gun lobby, ...

They still have to put their little spin on it don't they? To these hacks the Constitution and its Bill of Rights mean less than nothing .. until someone comes to Gore their Ox. (Puns intended)

3 posted on 04/09/2008 9:00:37 AM PDT by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

Heck yeah, this is a victory!


4 posted on 04/09/2008 9:05:17 AM PDT by PeterFinn (Charlton Heston & Ronald Reagan - my two favorite Presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Two of my past employers actually *asked* me to carry at work.


5 posted on 04/09/2008 9:06:06 AM PDT by PeterFinn (Charlton Heston & Ronald Reagan - my two favorite Presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

Will your Guv sign it?


6 posted on 04/09/2008 9:07:37 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida
I think they got it wrong. While I've always believed strongly in the Second Amendment, it's the employers' property and their decision on whether or not to allow firearms on their premises.

That said, any employer who would object to an employee having a gun is a moron.

7 posted on 04/09/2008 9:07:41 AM PDT by lesser_satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

since when can a company policy trump a constitutional right?


8 posted on 04/09/2008 9:09:54 AM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Stats show clearly that permit holders are not the ones you need to fear about going postal. Besides, NO law will prevent someone from taking a weapon to the office.


9 posted on 04/09/2008 9:10:10 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
The MSM would never declare civil liberties to be a matter of partisan controversy. But it does just that towards Second Amendment rights.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

10 posted on 04/09/2008 9:10:23 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

Does anyone know if they kept the exceptions?


11 posted on 04/09/2008 9:10:26 AM PDT by aberaussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The other side of the coin is that business owners have the right to say what is on their property. The vehicle is the employee's property and the business owner has no more say about what is IN the car than they have the right to authorize a police search of the car.

I am also of the opinion, that if a business owner prohibits a person from exercising their right to self-defense, the the owner AUTOMATICLY ASSUMES LIABILITY for any injury that could have been prevented by self defense.

12 posted on 04/09/2008 9:11:41 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
since when can a company policy trump a constitutional right?

While I am definitely in favour of gun rights (in fact, I pretty much think that the term "reasonable restriction" is an oxymoron, where 2nd amendment rights are concerned), let's also not forget that the Bill of Rights applies to government interference with the natural rights of the citizens. It doesn't apply on private property or private space. While I think it's idiotic for a company to prevent its law-abiding workers from carrying onsite (especially if they have a CCW and its in a locked vehicle), that is also the company's choice, as a private entity.

If a moonbat comes onto your front lawn and wants to hold an assembly in support of some political position diametrically opposed to your own, are you violating their 1st amendment rights to free speech and free assembly if you run them off? No, of course not, since the Constitution doesn't apply to the exercise of one person's rights on another person's property, if the other person has said they can't.

13 posted on 04/09/2008 9:22:51 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Men fight well when they know that no prisoners will be taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
The vehicle is the employee's property and the business owner has no more say about what is IN the car than they have the right to authorize a police search of the car.

So, is a company violating your Constitutional right if it bans you from bringing your vehicle onto its property if you're going to carry concealed weapons in it?

14 posted on 04/09/2008 9:25:47 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Men fight well when they know that no prisoners will be taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Actually, the company is EXERCISING it’s Constitutional private property rights. Just like you have the right to say who is allowed on your property and how they are to behave themselves, so does the corporation have the right to say the same with their property.

If the corporation does not want firearms on their property, fine. But they now assume the liability for denying the rights of others while on their property. If they do not want your vehicle on their property, they have a right to say so. Just as you have the right to not work for a place that does not provide reasonable transportation / parking to meet your needs.


15 posted on 04/09/2008 9:35:13 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
Will your Guv sign it?

Being a Toy Republican, probably not. I'm sure he'll say that as the "People's Governor" he has to look out for the liberals too. And since they don't believe in the 2d, or are just scared of locked-up guns, he won't sign.

16 posted on 04/09/2008 9:36:52 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Benedict Arnold, the Rosenbergs and Joe Kennedy were all against the Terrorist Surveillance Program)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
Stats show clearly that permit holders are not the ones you need to fear about going postal.

Unless if the permit holder happens to be a postal worker.

17 posted on 04/09/2008 9:50:33 AM PDT by lesser_satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici; Lord_Calvinus

He’s a wimpy spineless thing who chooses the path of least resistance. Least resistance here is signing the bill.


18 posted on 04/09/2008 10:06:44 AM PDT by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The problem is that the employer/store owner policy restricts the right of the employee/customer to carry between their residence and their place of work/a store.

The compromise here is that an employee's car is an extension of their home and not subject to the employer's whims, provided the employee has a concealed carry permit.

Every mass murder in the last 20 years occurred or started in a “gun free” zone. IMNSHO: Any employer/retailer/government agency that establishes a “gun free” zone should assume all liability for the person's safety from the last place they could have carried.

19 posted on 04/09/2008 10:16:10 AM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan
...it's the employers' property and their decision on whether or not to allow firearms on their premises.

I must disagree. I contend that this is a primarily a property rights issue being used as a wedge to restrict the RTKBA. Specifically, I maintain that an employer's property rights do not overrule an individual's "castle" rights.

A vehicle is an extension of an individual's home and castle. What is in it is nobody's business except the "king of the castle". Additionally, the Second Amendment is an individual right. Therefore, the employer has absolutely no say over what an employee has in his vehicle. And that is especially true when it comes to "arms" and the right to keep and bear arms.

What the employer does legitimately control is access to his property. He may deny or permit access to parking lots, grounds, and facilities to units, i.e. people, vehicles, etc. This denial can be based on a broad range of criteria but stops short of interfering with an individual exercising his Second Amendment Right in his "castle" (vehicle).

An employer may allow or restrict the individual's "castle" (vehicle) access to his property. But the employer has no access to nor control of what is in that "castle".

Basically, within his "castle", be it home or vehicle, the individual answers only to God and the law, not to an employer. Remember, our founding fathers did not create the Constitution to ensure freedom from risk but to define risks to ensure freedom.

20 posted on 04/09/2008 11:07:13 AM PDT by DakotaGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
Will your Guv sign it?

Yes, he will.
21 posted on 04/09/2008 12:14:51 PM PDT by Happy Valley Dude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect

I don’t disagree, I just wonder how the nasty entanglement of cross-relevant rights will end up playing out.


22 posted on 04/09/2008 1:40:42 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Men fight well when they know that no prisoners will be taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DakotaGator

That’s a good point.


23 posted on 04/09/2008 3:22:39 PM PDT by lesser_satan (Vote McCain - The Choice who Sucks Less!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan
Thank you.

I understand many will legitimately disagree with my viewpoint. But I believe the issues are fundamental. How we resolve it will be basic to the American evolution of Western Civilization.

24 posted on 04/09/2008 4:13:34 PM PDT by DakotaGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
Stats show clearly that permit holders are not the ones you need to fear about going postal. Besides, NO law will prevent someone from taking a weapon to the office.

Needs to be hollered to the heavens..!!!

25 posted on 04/09/2008 4:16:46 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DakotaGator
An employer may allow or restrict the individual's "castle" (vehicle) access to his property. But the employer has no access to nor control of what is in that "castle".

I presume that the "castle" includes one's person, right? So in other words, even if an employer closed off his parking lot, he couldn't require people to check in their guns at the entrance? [Absent exceptional circumstances, of course, like work in an explosive gas plant or something]

Should employers also be restricted in infringing our other fundamental rights at work, like freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches?

26 posted on 04/09/2008 4:55:47 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: timm22; DakotaGator
Oops, I meant to write:

Should employers also be restricted in from infringing our other fundamental rights at work, like freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches?

Sorry about that.

27 posted on 04/09/2008 4:58:15 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: timm22
I presume that the "castle" includes one's person, right?

Not to my way of thinking. One's "castle" is a structure with rights of ownership attached.

One's person is another matter. It is inviolate. No one may legitimately lay a hand on one's person or restrain one without permission/authority. Specifically; agents of the state may do so under restricted conditions which are the subject of law...the authority "We, The People" have allowed them. An employer may only do so to the extent the employee agrees to.

But we all must remember, the employer's buildings are his "castle". The employer may set up any rules he desires in his "castle" which do not violate the law. Employees and visitors must decide for themselves if these rules are tolerable.

If the employer's rules in his "castle" are intolerable, the employee/visitor either does not enter the "castle" or immediately leaves. If "We, The People" feel these rules are uniformly excessive; then "We, The People" correct it through establishing additional law.

This is what "The People" of Florida have done. They found that employers were routinely violating a fundamental principle of our civilization, the "castle" principle as applied to one's vehicle. So, "The People" of Florida corrected it through legislation.

Should employers also be restricted from infringing our other fundamental rights at work, like freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches?

The short answer is: No. The longer answer is more complex.

The Constitution and amendments not only spells out the limits of federal government, but it specifies the rights of "The People" (individual rights) and reserves all other rights not specified to the States and "The People" (the ultimate authority and source of power).

Notice Constitutional limits were only placed on government. State and local government can only do what "The People" authorize through legislation (except for those items granted by the Constitution to the federal government). The federal government is constrained in the same fashion but also is not allowed any action outside that specifically enumerated in the Constitution (this is being grossly violated every day). And finally, no government can deny in any way "The People" their rights spelled out in the Constitution (also grossly violated every day).

But employers and business owners are not government. They are also "The People". In their "castles" they can make any rules they want not prohibited by law. It is initially up to the employee/visitor to determine whether he feels these rules are reasonable. If so, he will voluntarily submit to a reduction in his rights. If not, he will leave unhindered.

If employers/business owners uniformly start making rules which are unacceptable infringements of fundamental rights, not only will the employee/visitor refuse to submit to them, but as "The People" will make law and force it on the employer/business owner through the courts.

A wise employer will only make rules for his "castle" which are rational, necessary, and acceptable. Otherwise he will find himself in serious trouble with "We, The People".

Long answers to two good questions. Parting shot: Castles are castles. But they only remain standing if they support "The People's" rights.

28 posted on 04/09/2008 10:24:44 PM PDT by DakotaGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

It is somewhat of a victory. Concealed-weapon permits should be unconstitutional for anyone not judged insane or having a felony record. It is strictly a tax and government registration to claim a 2nd Amendment right ploy.


29 posted on 04/10/2008 5:31:45 AM PDT by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
It will get pretty nasty.

The way I see it:

Individuals have rights. Corporations have privileges.

30 posted on 04/10/2008 11:14:46 AM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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