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

Skip to comments.

Federal judge upholds guns-at-work law (Florida)
orlandosentinel.com ^ | 07/29/08 | Aaron Deslatte

Posted on 07/29/2008 5:59:16 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3

A federal judge has dealt a major defeat to Florida's business lobby by upholding the main thrust of a new law allowing employees with concealed weapons permits to take their guns to work. The so called "guns-at-work" law was the product of a three-year constitutional clash that pitted the powerful National Rifle Association against equally influential business groups over two basic constitutional concepts: the right of private property and the right to bear arms.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; employmentatwill; federaljudge; florida; freedomofcontract; guns; judiciary; propertyrights; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

1 posted on 07/29/2008 5:59:16 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

So, does this bitch slap Disney? Does the fired security guard get his job back with a bunch of punitive damages?


2 posted on 07/29/2008 6:03:47 AM PDT by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

Whats most amazing to me is that so many cases go all the way to the state or federal supreme courts. As long as the pockets are deep you just keep going to a higher court.

Our judicial system is screwed but the one shining aspect of this ruling is the judge didn’t make his own law.


3 posted on 07/29/2008 6:09:23 AM PDT by driftdiver (No More Obama - The corruption hasn’t changed despite all our hopes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

Florida isn’t a “right to work” state, so a company can fire you for any reason and you have no recourse unless you can prove your firing violated Federal laws - Such as discrimination due to Race, Age, Gender, etc.


4 posted on 07/29/2008 6:11:58 AM PDT by mbynack (Retired USAF SMSgt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mbynack

Florida is a right to work state and they can fire or dismiss you for just about any reason. They would have to pay unemployment though. I don’t imagine this guy will get his job back since he forced their hand in the courts.

In Disney’s opinion they own Orlando if not the state of Florida. So the law should be written to suit them.


5 posted on 07/29/2008 6:14:57 AM PDT by driftdiver (No More Obama - The corruption hasn’t changed despite all our hopes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

If you open a business up to the Public, then you need to let the public in. If you want to keep your business “private”, then you can exclude whoever you want. Blacks, Jews, Chinese, gays, Christians, gun owners, or any other group you are prejudiced against.


6 posted on 07/29/2008 6:18:19 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

I cannot find a link to the 39 page ruling.


7 posted on 07/29/2008 6:22:17 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ('GOP' : Get Our Petroleum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
"....a three-year constitutional clash that pitted the powerful National Rifle Association against equally influential business groups over two basic constitutional concepts: the right of private property and the right to bear arms."

Actually, both sides were talking about "the right of private property". The issue is whether the inside of a citizen's automobile is his or her private property or not.

8 posted on 07/29/2008 6:23:09 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

If the private companies are so adamant about preventing employees from exercising their Second Amendment rights, the law leaves them with a simple, effective remedy.

Do not allow employee’s vehicles on their property.


9 posted on 07/29/2008 6:31:30 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye
So, does this bitch slap Disney?

No, the Florida law had some kind of specific loophole for Disney and other amusement parks.

10 posted on 07/29/2008 6:35:48 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21; kinganamort; katherineisgreat; floriduh voter; summer; Goldwater Girl; windchime; ...

Florida Freeper


11 posted on 07/29/2008 6:36:29 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Does the fired security guard get his job back?


12 posted on 07/29/2008 6:42:59 AM PDT by Road Warrior 04 (Kill 'em til they're dead, then kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Judges will never allow armed observers into the senate or house chambers.


13 posted on 07/29/2008 6:48:02 AM PDT by KLFuchs (Congress and the president working together is much worse than having them fighting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

How are law abiding citizens, nearby to protect you, a “Defeat” for anyone but criminals ?

OOOOHHH yeah, we’ve been over that before. Why is everyone’s face is blue ?


14 posted on 07/29/2008 7:00:27 AM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

I read in another article that the Florida law excludes some work locations including those that keep explosives on premises. Disney argues that since they have a fireworks display every night, fireworks are a type of explosive, therefore, Disney is exempt under Florida law. Well, anyway, that’s their argument.


15 posted on 07/29/2008 7:23:11 AM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ops33

Yeah, my employer is trying the same tactic by virtue of their Marsec and DHS compliance issues.

We make toilet paper.


16 posted on 07/29/2008 7:29:55 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

WOOT!

Every DAY is “Take your Gun to work Day”!!!!

LOL

Good on Florida. They are slowly moving away from being known as “Floriduh”.


17 posted on 07/29/2008 7:30:46 AM PDT by Rick.Donaldson (http://www.transasianaxis.com - Please visit for latest on DPRK/Russia/China/et al.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

It is (or should be) very simple. The interior of my vehicle is not my employer’s property. I see no clash between my right to carry and my employer’s private property rights.


18 posted on 07/29/2008 7:38:25 AM PDT by Hazwaste (Vote! Vote for the conservative local, state, and national candidates of your choice, but VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Keep in mind this law is only designed to cover the employer/employee relationship.

For the most part I can throw my gun in my glovebox and drive onto any business property I damn please without fear of being prosecuted.

The law was meant to prevent people from being fired for carrying a gun in their vehicle onto their employer’s property.

The security guard from Disney wanted to be the first test case as Disney had informed their employees that Disney was exempt from the new law. As previously mentioned, one of the exceptions to allowing employees to carry on company property, was if said property’s main purpose was to manufacture or store explosives. Disney said their fireworks on park property was sufficient to allow them to be exempt.

What I can’t figure out is that the fed judge issued an injunction, but for what? It almost reads as if the exclusionary language has been temporarily suspended. But I doubt that’s what it is.


19 posted on 07/29/2008 7:42:56 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Barack Hussein Obama=Jimmy Carter Part Douche)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hazwaste
It is (or should be) very simple. The interior of my vehicle is not my employer’s property. I see no clash between my right to carry and my employer’s private property rights.

Your vehicle is still within the boundaries of their property, so any gun you would have in your car on their property would still be on their property.

Your person is your own property as well, however if you carry something on your person and enter someone else's property, you are taking that item onto their property.

You can't just put blinders on and say that the conflict doesn't exist, just because you wish it didn't.

There is unquestionably a conflict between the rights of the property owner and the rights of the employees.

Both the property owners and the employees are private individuals.

It is because the rights of individuals come in conflict when they interact that we need laws that govern how such conflicts are resolved.

Fortunately, the Florida legislature appears to be trying to do more to affirm the right of individuals to protect themselves, though it is at the cost of the rights of the property owners.

20 posted on 07/29/2008 7:55:50 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

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