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

Skip to comments.

USAA TAMPA OFFICE DEFIES NEW FLORIDA CONCEALED LAW
JUNE 27, 2008 | USAA CORPORATE

Posted on 06/27/2008 9:17:01 PM PDT by evangmlw

Tampa: Prohibition against firearms on USAA property remains in effect

Published 6/27/2008 USAA's policy prohibiting firearms anywhere on USAA property remains in effect at all locations. The policy remains in effect despite a new Florida law limiting such policies.

Background On July 1, a new law takes effect in Florida that restricts employers' ability to prohibit guns at the workplace. However, that law also includes an exemption for properties that include school facilities, such as our Child Development Center (CDC).

As a result, USAA's policy prohibiting guns in the workplace will remain in effect even after the law takes effect July 1.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; concealed; florida; guns; secondamendment; workplace

1 posted on 06/27/2008 9:17:01 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: evangmlw

Misleading headline


2 posted on 06/27/2008 9:24:47 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw

I don’t remember that on the stockholders meeting agenda the last time I got my proxy documents .


3 posted on 06/27/2008 9:25:29 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw

Link?


4 posted on 06/27/2008 9:26:31 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

What’s misleading about it?


5 posted on 06/27/2008 9:27:54 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

No link available, internal correspondence.


6 posted on 06/27/2008 9:28:48 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
What’s misleading about it?

They aren't defying the law.

...and are you sure that's USAA's internal headline?

7 posted on 06/27/2008 9:30:10 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Would you prefer “stretching the law?” The child development center is a day care, not a school. The day care facility is in a separate building from the office and not associated with the 6 story concrete deck parking lot. I think implying the property is a school facility is quite a stretch. Have you read the Florida Statutes on concealed permits and the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008?”


8 posted on 06/27/2008 9:35:36 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I stand corrected on misunderstanding: The Headline Is My Own Thoughts

The Correspondence Headline is: Tampa: Prohibition against firearms on USAA property remains in effect


9 posted on 06/27/2008 9:38:15 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
There's going to be a lawsuit filed against the company for breaking the law and violating employee's constitutional 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 06/27/2008 10:00:14 PM 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: goldstategop

What makes you think so?


11 posted on 06/27/2008 10:09:36 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
Would you prefer “stretching the law?”

Whatever it says.

"Stretching the law" could be in brackets after. :-)

Have you read the Florida Statutes on concealed permits and the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008?”

Yes, as well as the pre-passage analyses, which pointed out the constitutional issues with trying to interfere with private-property rights, as well as recommending that "school proprty" be explicitly defined. AFAIK, that didn't happen.

Of course, this is likely all academic, with the federal court review already in progress.

The child development center is a day care, not a school. The day care facility is in a separate building from the office and not associated with the 6 story concrete deck parking lot. I think implying the property is a school facility is quite a stretch.

Now that's good info to include as commentary. Thank you!

12 posted on 06/27/2008 10:10:56 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

The law goes into effect Monday. I’m sure the appeal will continue, however; the first judge reviewing the case refused to rule on the appeal at this time. I’m sure USAA has confered with their legal staff and are preparing for battle.


13 posted on 06/27/2008 10:19:38 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
“As a result, USAA’s policy prohibiting guns in the workplace will remain in effect even after the law takes effect July 1.”

They are not a public entity, they are private business and as such can make the rules for their properties.

A municipal building or a public street would be different. We the citizens pay for those things, and as such we the citizens set the rules with a vote.

Now USAA being a private company stockholders own the private company. As such they can make the rules for their company. The only ones entitled to change the rules are the owners.

If a private citizen or a customer doesn't like it they don't have to go there or be a customer anymore. The ruling in Heller did not change the rules (and rights) of ownership of private property.

14 posted on 06/27/2008 10:34:25 PM PDT by JSteff (This election is about the 3 to 5 supreme's who will retire in the next 8 years, vote accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
Now USAA being a private company stockholders own the private company. As such they can make the rules for their company. The only ones entitled to change the rules are the owners.

And smoke nazis.

15 posted on 06/27/2008 10:38:39 PM PDT by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JSteff

The Heller Case has nothing to do with this. This is effected by a new Florida State Law enacted by the Florida Legislation that says an individual who has a concealed permit can have a firearm in their vehicle parked in their employers parking lot.


16 posted on 06/27/2008 10:40:48 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
Heller? C'mon, son! Get with the program!!


17 posted on 06/27/2008 11:50:08 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Barack Hussein Obama=Jimmy Carter II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

Been a member since ‘66, love USAA.

Like it or not, this USAA decision is within the law as published here.


18 posted on 06/28/2008 1:02:36 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Leftists stop arguing when they see your patriotism, your logic, your CAR-15 and your block of C4.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
The referred statute defines a school as “For the purposes of this section, “school” means any preschool, elementary school, middle school, junior high school, secondary school, career center, or postsecondary school, whether public or nonpublic.”

A day care center where any educational activity occurs will qualify under “preschool” unless Florida requires industrial day care centers to be licensed and the USAA one is not licensed, which I doubt.

The parking lot issue re the USAA building is moot. It the lot used by people bringing kids to that “preschool?”

“Property” will be defined here under broad encompassing contiguous real estate terms and perhaps even more broadly under an intent of use doctrine.

USAA wins legally.

Live by the loopholes, die by the loopholes.

19 posted on 06/28/2008 1:17:05 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Leftists stop arguing when they see your patriotism, your logic, your CAR-15 and your block of C4.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Been a member since ‘66, love USAA.

WOW! They're older than I am!

We love USAA. Bank accounts, insurance, mortgage, car loans, credit card, investments .....we have everything that they offer.

I really hope that they don't ever open up to civilians again.

20 posted on 06/28/2008 5:40:50 AM PDT by submarinerswife ("If I win I can't 't be stopped! If I lose I shall be dead." - George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Like it or not, this USAA decision is within the law as published here.

Not that it matters. I don't think there are any consequences if the "law" is violated, is there?

21 posted on 06/28/2008 7:33:08 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Barack Hussein Obama=Jimmy Carter II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

The day care center has its own parking lot where the children are dropped off and picked up. The parking garage is so far from the day care center that it is not feasable to park in the lot and walk them to the day care facility.


22 posted on 06/28/2008 8:00:30 AM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw

Do parents park in that lot, walk their kids to the day care, then walk to their workplace?


23 posted on 06/28/2008 9:55:44 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Leftists stop arguing when they see your patriotism, your logic, your CAR-15 and your block of C4.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Wrong... Constitutionally, the rite to self-defense will trump personal property rites. There is a reason for it being the 2nd Amendment.

Deets


24 posted on 06/28/2008 11:00:01 AM PDT by ebiskit (South Park Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Parents drop their kids off at the day care facility and then proceed to a 6 story concrete parking deck which is further down the street (1/8th mile) at the main building complex. At the end of the day, they get in their vehicles, drive to the day care about 1/8th mile down the road and pick their kids up. The day care is a separate building totally separated from the parking lot and main office.


25 posted on 06/28/2008 12:13:40 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ebiskit
Wrong... Constitutionally, the rite to self-defense will trump personal property rites. There is a reason for it being the 2nd Amendment.

Do you believe that self-defense trumps property in all cases? In other words, do I not have the right to refuse someone entry to my property because I do not want them to be armed?

Do the same protections extend to the free speech rights of the 1st amendment? So that I would also not be allowed to deny entry to my property to someone holding or expressing beliefs I find repulsive?

26 posted on 06/28/2008 12:27:28 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: timm22; All

Wrong... Constitutionally, the rite to self-defense will trump personal property rites. There is a reason for it being the 2nd Amendment.
Do you believe that self-defense trumps property in all cases? In other words, do I not have the right to refuse someone entry to my property because I do not want them to be armed?
____

Do the same protections extend to the free speech rights of the 1st amendment? So that I would also not be allowed to deny entry to my property to someone holding or expressing beliefs I find repulsive?

____

Timm22

Bottom line is that it is Man’s God-given rite to ‘peaceably’ defend himself where ever he maybe. We have only been able to appropriately exercise this judicious use of force for the past 200-300 years thusly throwing off ‘most’ of the state’s yoke in addition to others whom by nature are compelled to oppress. If you chose not to properly defend yourself, that’s your unfettered prerogative. However, if I am ‘invited’ onto your property verbally by you or implicitly by way of a business, then you can be assured I will be able to appropriately defend myself since your invitation is more than likely open to nameless others in the community at large. That is an assumption I will defend just as my life. If I have no reason to be there in the first place, then as jesse jackson would put it, “The question is moot.”

As for the 1st, oddly enough, no. Nonetheless, the 2nd Amendment by its very nature is THE lynchpin not only to the Republic but as well to an open and civil society. Read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” and give the numbers a scant glance. I think it will be an illustrative exercise. Just remember, you’ll meet some of the the most polite at the range.

By the way, would you do MS-13 a big favor and put up a “Gun-Free-Zone” sign in your front yard?

No government has a monopoly on perpetuity. The 2nd is THE line we all man.

the Deets


27 posted on 06/28/2008 3:16:01 PM PDT by ebiskit (South Park Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: timm22

Critical enough for ya?...


28 posted on 06/28/2008 4:05:30 PM PDT by ebiskit (South Park Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

The statute's prohibition is against taking a weapon into the facility. The parking lot for dropping kids off and picking kids up is totally detached, separated, and some distance from the day care center. Parents do not walk the kids to and from the parking garage where they park their vehicles. I think there are some serious legal questions here as to the stated law they are citing.

29 posted on 06/28/2008 7:00:24 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
Pardon my profound ignorance, but I live in the Tampa area and never heard of USAA. The article is of little help. Can anyone help me out?

The rules of journalism....who, what, where, when and why at or near the beginning of a post.

Leni

30 posted on 06/28/2008 7:04:51 PM PDT by MinuteGal (Stay Home or vote Barr for Obamination, more Taxation, Regulation, Litigation and Ginzburgization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
bump for answer......

Leni

31 posted on 06/28/2008 7:56:31 PM PDT by MinuteGal (Stay Home or vote Barr for Obamination, more Taxation, Regulation, Litigation and Ginzburgization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw

Both sides will have arguable positions.

Courts will settle issue, not us.


32 posted on 06/28/2008 8:12:48 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Leftists stop arguing when they see your patriotism, your logic, your CAR-15 and your block of C4.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

USAA is a company based out of San Antonio, Texas with over 20,000 employees. The Southeastern office is a six story building located by Bruce B. Downs and I-75, employing about 1400 employees. They offer auto insurance, homeowners insuracne, life insurance, banking services, investment services, etc. The Tampa office is a large complex sitting on several acres of land.


33 posted on 06/28/2008 9:11:15 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
Thanks. I did not know that.
34 posted on 06/29/2008 12:52:44 AM PDT by JSteff (This election is about the 3 to 5 supreme's who will retire in the next 8 years, vote accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
Thanks for the info.

Leni

35 posted on 06/29/2008 6:43:25 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Stay Home or vote Barr for Obamination, more Taxation, Regulation, Litigation and Ginzburgization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ebiskit
However, if I am ‘invited’ onto your property verbally by you or implicitly by way of a business, then you can be assured I will be able to appropriately defend myself since your invitation is more than likely open to nameless others in the community at large. That is an assumption I will defend just as my life. If I have no reason to be there in the first place, then as jesse jackson would put it, “The question is moot.”

Suppose a condition of my invitation is the requirement that any invitee be unarmed. I give ample notice of this condition well before anyone steps foot on the property. Would that situation qualify as one where you (or any other armed person) would have no reason to be on my property?

...By the way, would you do MS-13 a big favor and put up a “Gun-Free-Zone” sign in your front yard?

Why would I want to do that? I have no problem with people carrying weapons on my property. In fact, I generally feel safer when they do. I am familiar with Lott's work and I've quoted it to gun control advocates in other debates.

I don't think a person *should* ban weapons on their property. It's a dumb thing to do. This is just one of those areas where I believe a person has the right to do something stupid, if that's what they want.

If the property owner wants to subject himself to an increased risk, and any of his visitors also agree to accept that increased risk, who are we to tell them they have to do things differently?

36 posted on 06/29/2008 12:40:26 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: timm22

Please not that customers do not come onto the property. This is a call center with tight security. Only employees and invited guests are allowed on the property. One rather odd thing here. Although firearms are not allowed on the property, it appears that security guards are armed. They either carry 9mm pistols or tasers that appear to be pistols in a holster.


37 posted on 06/29/2008 6:45:48 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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