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 ...
"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
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)
Heck yeah, this is a victory!
Two of my past employers actually *asked* me to carry at work.
Will your Guv sign it?
That said, any employer who would object to an employee having a gun is a moron.
since when can a company policy trump a constitutional right?
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.
"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
Does anyone know if they kept the exceptions?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Unless if the permit holder happens to be a postal worker.
He’s a wimpy spineless thing who chooses the path of least resistance. Least resistance here is signing the bill.
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.
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.
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.