State Senate OK's guns-at-work bill (Florida)

The Miami Herald ^ | April 9, 2008 | MONICA HATCHER

[Happy Valley Dude]

Will your Guv sign it?

Yes, he will.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

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

[lesser_satan]

That’s a good point.

[DakotaGator]

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.

[Osage Orange]

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..!!!

[timm22]

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?

[timm22]

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.

[DakotaGator]

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.

[moonman]

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.

[fireforeffect]

It will get pretty nasty.

The way I see it:

Individuals have rights. Corporations have privileges.