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

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 Bushbacker1 (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]

To: untrained skeptic

“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.”


There is no need for conflict here. Just make it clear in the law that if a person requires people to be disarmed on their property, then they assume the liability if that person is assaulted and does not have the means to defend themselves.


21 posted on 07/29/2008 8:34:08 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
The solution is simple: every state should enact a "castle law", and include one's personal conveyance as an extension of the individual's "castle".

The business owner also has rights -- which end at the interface between the surface of their parking lot and the tires of parked vehicles. OTOH, owners always have the right to forbid parking on their property.

However, if they do so, they have no right to discriminate between the vehicles of customers and employees. And, frankly, if I were a customer of such a business, I would cease to be so -- because, I will be armed as I travel. (And, thankfully, Texas law specifically makes that legal -- I just read the law yesterday...)

22 posted on 07/29/2008 9:03:45 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Do you manufacture any toilet paper with bin Laden’s face on it?


23 posted on 07/29/2008 11:09:54 AM PDT by wastedyears (Show me your precious darlings, and I will crush them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
There is no need for conflict here. Just make it clear in the law that if a person requires people to be disarmed on their property, then they assume the liability if that person is assaulted and does not have the means to defend themselves.

So you would make property owners legally responsible for the actions of criminals over which they have no control? Trial lawyers would love that.

What if you happened to see a young woman waving her gun around carelessly in her car while taking it out of where she stores in the car and putting it in a holster.

If you allow her to carry the gun after observing her carelessness, and she negligently discharges the weapon and unintentionally hurts someone, you will get sued for not forcing her not to carry the gun because you observed her negligent behavior in the car.

If you tell her she can't carry a gun on your property, but allow young men to do so, you will get sued for discrimination.

If you forbid her to carry the gun and she mistakenly gets shot during a drive by shooting, you get sued.

The more we allow people to sue because of the actions of others you end up with trial lawyers getting rich and property owners being screwed.

For public places that others pretty much need to have access to, I can understand the law requiring that everyone be permitted to carry a gun there.

Extending that to the parking lot of your place of employment is a small stretch, as long as the employer is granted immunity from lawsuits if someone is harmed by an employee's gun. The responsibility for their gun and any actions they take with it must lie with the employee, not the employer. If the employer can be sued for any action an employee takes with the gun, then it isn't really reasonable to require the employer to allow them to carry a gun.

Requiring an employer to allow employees to carry a gun on company property outside of their cars is a bigger step along the same line. As long as the make the employer immune to lawsuits resulting from the actions of employees, I don't think it is unreasonable point at which to balance the rights of employers and employees.

However, if the employer can be held liable for the actions of the employee, then they should have the right to place restrictions on the employee that reduce the risk of them getting sued into bankruptcy.

In a large company with tens of thousands of employees, what is the chance that one would have a negligent discharge on company property in which someone was seriously injured or killed? How many million dollars would that likely cost the company? How much do you think it costs a company to insure themselves against such risk?

In cases where you really don't need to go on that property owner's land, I would leave it up to the property owner. When concealed carry became law here in Ohio, a lot of businesses stuck up signs in their windows prohibiting people from carrying guns in their stores. Most of them due to ignorance and under pressure from special interest groups that went around telling fictitious horror stories and passing out signs.

Within a matter of months, most of those signs came back down because of customer feedback, and the fact that the irrational fears of the store owners faded after the horror stories they were told didn't come to pass.

However, some stores do still ban carrying concealed weapons. Knowing that I have the choice of shopping there, or going elsewhere. I go elsewhere. I don't think they should be held liable if a criminal enters the store and harms people. I think it is up to the customers to determine if knowing that they can't carry a gun in there, if shopping there is worth the risk to them.

I think the stores should allow people to go armed on their property, but I don't think that the government should force them to allow it.

24 posted on 07/29/2008 11:10:29 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mbynack

Florida isn’t a “right to work” state,...

Actually, yes, it is.

What this means in reality, and is meant to mean, is that unions cannot mandate union membership as the price of your job, anywhere in the state.


25 posted on 07/29/2008 11:10:52 AM PDT by bill1952 (Obama-the only one who can make me vote McCain McCain-the only one who can make me stay at home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
OTOH, owners always have the right to forbid parking on their property. However, if they do so, they have no right to discriminate between the vehicles of customers and employees.

Why not? If they own the parking lot, shouldn't the owner decide who may and may not park on their property for whatever reasons he likes?

Not that I would agree with an owner preventing anyone from carrying a gun on their property. But if the owner wants to make stupid restrictions on his property, and everyone who enters does so informed and voluntarily, what gives us the right to demand things be done differently?

26 posted on 07/29/2008 12:04:12 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

The Judge was correct in his legal reasoning since we already allow legislatures to dictate how private property is used, there is no point in denying the government that power in this case. The real question is how much authority the government should have to dictate how private property is used. If you don’t like Disney’s rules get another job or don’t park on their property. The government should stay out of it.


27 posted on 07/29/2008 12:34:53 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
“I think the stores should allow people to go armed on their property, but I don't think that the government should force them to allow it.”


A nicely argued post! I would gladly see more such on Freerepublic, which already shines amid the firmament of web sites with its brilliance.

You have convinced me that immunity from suit is a better course of action. There is no doubt that our runaway tort system is the cause of many of our problems.

Thank you for your well thought out arguments.

28 posted on 07/29/2008 12:40:11 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; untrained skeptic
“I think the stores should allow people to go armed on their property, but I don't think that the government should force them to allow it.”

If firearms carry is allowed in the only local grocery  in line with community standards in a small town 50 miles from the nearest larger town and another grocery, and Mayor Bloomberg of New York or Mayor Dailey of Chicago buy the grocery and forbid firearms on the grocery property, why should the citizens of the community not use their government to force the new and absentee owners to allow it?  Why would  Bloomberg or Dailey have the right to interfere with the community, from a location possibly hundreds of miles away, simply because they are absentee property owners with no personal stake in the community?

29 posted on 07/29/2008 2:45:58 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bill1952; mbynack
Florida isn’t a “right to work” state,...
'Actually, yes, it is.'

A lot of people confuse 'right to work' states with 'employment at will' states. 'Employment at will' states are states where employees have no legal recourse if they are fired, unless it is due to illegal discrimination.

30 posted on 07/29/2008 3:02:46 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Obama "King of Kings and Lord of Lords")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
“If firearms carry is allowed in the only local grocery in line with community standards in a small town 50 miles from the nearest larger town and another grocery, and Mayor Bloomberg of New York or Mayor Dailey of Chicago buy the grocery and forbid firearms on the grocery property, why should the citizens of the community not use their government to force the new and absentee owners to allow it? Why would Bloomberg or Dailey have the right to interfere with the community, from a location possibly hundreds of miles away, simply because they are absentee property owners with no personal stake in the community?”

The could do as my parents and grandparents did when no stores in the local community would carry the supplies they needed: Gather together the like mined people and create a coop. My father was on the board for many years, and it still is a going concern, even with Walmart and Pamaida in town.

31 posted on 07/29/2008 3:50:57 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic; marktwain
preamble by marktwain: There is no need for conflict here. Just make it clear in the law that if a person requires people to be disarmed on their property, then they assume the liability if that person is assaulted and does not have the means to defend themselves.

Reply to unrestrained moron skeptic:

So you would make property owners legally responsible for the actions of criminals over which they have no control?

They have complete control. They may recognize their customers employees have a right to be armed - absolving themselves of any responsibility in that way or they could furnished armed escorts from wherever the employee comes from before work and to wherever they go after. That would be reasonable.

What if you happened to see a young woman waving her gun around carelessly in her car while taking it out of where she stores in the car and putting it in a holster.

Then they film it and charge the woman with reckless endangerment - no problem there.

If you allow her to carry the gun after observing her carelessness, and she negligently discharges the weapon and unintentionally hurts someone, you will get sued for not forcing her not to carry the gun because you observed her negligent behavior in the car.

No you won't. She is leaving your property. The issue is not the people being allowed to bring weapons into businesses, it is about being allowed to keep them in your own car which you drive to and from the business. Read before posting.

If you tell her she can't carry a gun on your property, but allow young men to do so, you will get sued for discrimination.

Again, the issue is not the people being allowed to bring weapons into businesses, it is about being allowed to keep them in your own car which you drive to and from the business.

If you forbid her to carry the gun and she mistakenly gets shot during a drive by shooting, you get sued.

If it happens after she leaves you betcha, and you should - you brought it on yourself.

The more we allow people to sue because of the actions of others you end up with trial lawyers getting rich and property owners being screwed.

Others aren't making you demand your employees and customers be unable to defend themselves. Take responsibility for your stupid decisions.

For public places that others pretty much need to have access to, I can understand the law requiring that everyone be permitted to carry a gun there.

You mean like the road you travel to and from work? Don't be so incoherent - you just spent the first half of your post claiming people do not have exactly that same right.

Extending that to the parking lot of your place of employment is a small stretch, as long as the employer is granted immunity from lawsuits if someone is harmed by an employee's gun. The responsibility for their gun and any actions they take with it must lie with the employee, not the employer. If the employer can be sued for any action an employee takes with the gun, then it isn't really reasonable to require the employer to allow them to carry a gun.

The employer bears no responsibility for actions taken while the employee is on the employee's property - which the law recognizes the employee's car to be.

Requiring an employer to allow employees to carry a gun on company property outside of their cars is a bigger step along the same line. As long as the make the employer immune to lawsuits resulting from the actions of employees, I don't think it is unreasonable point at which to balance the rights of employers and employees.

It's also specifically not something this law addresses. Employers are recognized as having the right to forbid that.

However, if the employer can be held liable for the actions of the employee, then they should have the right to place restrictions on the employee that reduce the risk of them getting sued into bankruptcy.

Again the employers have a right to forbid the guns outside of cars.

In a large company with tens of thousands of employees, what is the chance that one would have a negligent discharge on company property in which someone was seriously injured or killed? How many million dollars would that likely cost the company? How much do you think it costs a company to insure themselves against such risk?

Really really tiny. the guns will be in the cars - out in the parking lot.

In cases where you really don't need to go on that property owner's land, I would leave it up to the property owner. When concealed carry became law here in Ohio, a lot of businesses stuck up signs in their windows prohibiting people from carrying guns in their stores. Most of them due to ignorance and under pressure from special interest groups that went around telling fictitious horror stories and passing out signs.

In cases where you work for the property owner, you don't give up your right to protect yourself on your way to or from work. Period.

Within a matter of months, most of those signs came back down because of customer feedback, and the fact that the irrational fears of the store owners faded after the horror stories they were told didn't come to pass.

However, some stores do still ban carrying concealed weapons. Knowing that I have the choice of shopping there, or going elsewhere. I go elsewhere. I don't think they should be held liable if a criminal enters the store and harms people. I think it is up to the customers to determine if knowing that they can't carry a gun in there, if shopping there is worth the risk to them.

I think the stores should allow people to go armed on their property, but I don't think that the government should force them to allow it.

Again this law is addressing firearms in people's own vehicles, which are by law an extension of the customer or employee's property.

The businesses could of course avoid the whole issue by not owning any parking. Then the whole issue would go away, as would their customers.

32 posted on 07/29/2008 4:47:37 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The could do as...

They could do that and more power to them. But your post doesn't respond to my questions.

33 posted on 07/29/2008 5:09:29 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
“If firearms carry is allowed in the only local grocery in line with community standards in a small town 50 miles from the nearest larger town and another grocery, and Mayor Bloomberg of New York or Mayor Dailey of Chicago buy the grocery and forbid firearms on the grocery property, why should the citizens of the community not use their government to force the new and absentee owners to allow it? Why would Bloomberg or Dailey have the right to interfere with the community, from a location possibly hundreds of miles away, simply because they are absentee property owners with no personal stake in the community?”

Because they are private property owners with as much right as other private property owners, whether they are absentee or not.

If I give the government that much power over someone else's property, I run the risk of it being abused on my property rights. We are way too far down that road already.

34 posted on 07/29/2008 5:52:48 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Because they are private property owners with as much right as other private property owners, whether they are absentee or not.

Having "as much right as other private property owners, whether they are absentee or not" only means that, just like other private property owners,  their property rights do not include the right to interfere with a community (as stated in my post #29), simply because they are absentee property owners.

Of course, my statement is opinion just as yours is opinion.

For the right to keep and bear arms we can refer to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and (for you and me) the Ohio Constitution.  For property rights, what comparable reference do you offer in support of your opinion?

If I give the government that much power over someone else's property, I run the risk of it being abused on my property rights.

Understood, and that is always a danger.  But "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men."  Don't you want government, as necessary and appropriate, to secure our rights (regarding arms, property, etc) from those who would violate them?  If your answer is "no", then what should we do besides go back to personal combat and blood feud to protect our rights?  If, when property rights are in opposition to the right to bear arms,  you only want government to protect property rights, are you not putting us on the road to government oppression against those who would exercise the right to bear arms? (We are way too far down that road already.)

If, when property rights and the right to bear arms are in opposition, you want government to protect both rights equitably, how does the Florida decision not do that?

35 posted on 07/29/2008 7:25:09 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd; marktwain
They have complete control. They may recognize their customers employees have a right to be armed - absolving themselves of any responsibility in that way or they could furnished armed escorts from wherever the employee comes from before work and to wherever they go after. That would be reasonable.

If you place restrictions on them so that they have to allow either someone to go armed, or provide protection for them, they obviously no longer have complete control. You are placing restrictions on their control of their own property.

Obviously when we live in a society, some restrictions are reasonable and within the power of the state government to impose, but don't try and say that their property rights aren't being restricted.

In this case you are also offering property owners a false choice. Providing security is likely going to be very expensive, more expensive than most property owners can afford. Even if armed guards are provided they are unlikely to completely prevent a third party from harming someone on your property. The property owner is faced with a prohibitive expense which far from guarantees they will not be held liable for the criminal actions of others.

Many might even reasonably argue that the presence of armed guards escalates the situation in more cases than not. It is likely true in some cases, however not having armed guards leaves people as helpless victims of armed attackers. Basically, if the property owner is liable for the safety of people on their property, they are screwed either way. If they have guards and the guard escalates the situation and people are harmed, they get sued. If the property owner doesn't have guards and someone is harmed, they get sued. In neither case did they instigate the violence. They are being held liable for the violent actions of a third party that they can't control.

Sticking property owners with liability for the actions of third party criminals is no more reasonable than gun control advocates wanting to disarm law abiding citizens because a criminal might take their gun away from them and harm someone.

Let me give you an example of a false choice that might hit closer to home for you. What if the government allowed you to carry a gun, but required a $50,000 a year license to do so, and held you liable if your actions while armed might have escalated the situation, while also holding you liable if you don't use the gun you carry to stop others from being harmed. That is the kind of choice you offer property owners.

Then they film it and charge the woman with reckless endangerment - no problem there.

More fake options. You expect property owners to have cameras that record what happens everywhere on their property, and that the camera's to have high enough resolution to clearly show what is happening? It's not like they can go and grab a camera after something happens.

Even if they do catch the action on a camera, the have to properly gauge what might in hindsight by a jury be considered to show that the person was dangerous. If they accuse someone of reckless endangerment for something minor they likely get sued. Same is true if they don't have evidence to back up their claim of reckless endangerment.

However, observing something that might be considered too minor for a charge of reckless endangerment, and doing nothing, may very well get you sued if that person negligently hurts someone on your property.

No you won't. She is leaving your property. The issue is not the people being allowed to bring weapons into businesses, it is about being allowed to keep them in your own car which you drive to and from the business. Read before posting.

Read the preamble by marktwain you posted. It isn't limited to just having guns in the parking lot. I did cover having guns in the parking lot in my post, and I said it was a small stretch to give people that ability as long as the property owner is given immunity from being sued over what employees do with those guns. I would say that you should read before posting, but you obviously read it, you even quote my comment below, so I don't know why you're recharacterizing my comments and taking them out of the context they were in. I guess I'm just a moron like you said.

Again, the issue is not the people being allowed to bring weapons into businesses, it is about being allowed to keep them in your own car which you drive to and from the business.

I don't think that is an unreasonable balance between the property owner's rights and the rights of employees, but only as long as the employee cannot be held liable for what the employee does with those guns on their property.

If it happens after she leaves you betcha, and you should - you brought it on yourself.

So if a criminal sees you are armed while robbing a place, starts shooting, and others are harmed, are you liable for them being harmed? Or does the full responsibility fall on the criminal? Such logic doesn't work when you apply it to other situations.

If you start making others who have no real control over criminals, responsible for their actions, our society starts coming apart.

I'm not saying that you can't require employers to allow people to keep guns in their cars in their parking lots. However, doing so is a limitation on their property rights, and like all limitations on the rights of others should be carefully balanced as to not overstep. You could say that the property owner can always not choose to open up their property to others as a business. However, individuals also have the choice of not going to work or shop at that business. Not going to work their might cause financial hardship, but so does a property owner closing his business.

Others aren't making you demand your employees and customers be unable to defend themselves. Take responsibility for your stupid decisions.

Who is forcing you to go an work for that employer or shopping there? Take responsibility for your own decisions. It works both ways.

Here in Ohio, our concealed carry law makes property owners immune to lawsuits for the actions of people carry concealed weapons on their property. They still have the right to ban concealed carry on their property if they choose, but the explicit removal of liability was enough to make it so that the vast majority of businesses do not prohibit customers from carrying concealed weapons on their property. However, most companies do not allow their employees to carry concealed weapons, because they are held liable for the actions of their employees.

Some companies still do prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons even those they are immune to liability, and I'm sure Disney will not permit customers or employees to carry guns unless forced to do so by law.

I do support laws that require employees to allow an employees or customer to keep their gun in their car. Prohibiting them from doing so no only requires them to be unarmed at that store or employer, but also on the way too and from that place.

We used to not have any rules about keeping guns in our cars where I work, however when we got bought by a much larger company, it was among the rules in the company handbook. I used to bark by the building next door when I wanted to go to the range after work. Now we moved to a new building, and there isn't another parking lot where I can park close by. I'd really like to see the law they now have in Florida here.

As for allowing employees to carry at work, I'm much more hesitant to require that despite my own personal desire to do so. I don't like the government continuously extending it's authority into what people allow on their private property. By opening up their property to employees, property owners do make it so they must respect the rights of their employees, but there must be a balance between the rights of the property owner and others that come on that property, especially when employers are held responsible for the actions of their employees.

The employer bears no responsibility for actions taken while the employee is on the employee's property - which the law recognizes the employee's car to be.

Kind of, but not really. The law considers a person's car to be their own property like they consider a person's body and clothes to be their own property. A property owner can't simply demand to search your clothes simply because you are on their property, same with your car.

However, if you start shooting customers from the window of your car while you are at work, your employer is going to get sued. If you walk out to your car in the parking lot, get a gun, come back into the store and shoot a customer that was being rude to you, your employer is going to get sued.

By allowing employees to have guns in the car an employer does at least in theory accepts some small level of risk. It is a very small level of risk, but the consequences to the employer if that risk is born out can be immense.

Now we all know that a disturbed employee that would shoot up their place of employment is unlikely to care about the company's policy on firearms. The possibility that them being allowed to have a firearm in the car when they happen to snap being what allows them to go on a rampage is even more unlikely then the extremely unlikely chance that one of their employees will go on a rampage.

But aren't we also told by gun control advocates that the chances of needing a gun to protect ourselves is extremely low, and the chance that we will use that gun effectively to defend ourselves is even lower? Yet don't we reply that despite the chances of needing it being so low, the consequences of not having it when it is needed are so great that we must be allowed to carry our guns?

My solution would be to first make property owners immune to liability for the criminal use of guns by others on their property, including employees. Of course if the employer directs the employee to use a gun in a criminal fashion, then they would be liable, but barring direct involvement by the employer, they should be immune to liability.

I would then require the employer or retailer to allow anyone that can legally transport a firearm in their car to do so while their car is on their property.

As for actually carrying guns into the store or while working, that I would still leave up to the employer as an exercise of their personal property rights.

I would make the criminal penalty for carrying a gun a simple misdemeanor criminal trespass if the person does not leave when asked, at least for the first . Then the property owner could choose not to allow the person back on their property if they chose to do so.

If you remove liability for employers, the financial risks for employers in allowing guns to be carried on their property mostly disappear, and from what I've seen with our concealed carry laws here in Ohio, that is enough to get most companies to drop their bans, at least for customers.

36 posted on 07/30/2008 6:43:42 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
I am both pro-gun and pro-private property.

I have to say that I disagree with this ruling. I think private property rights trump the 2A, because gun owners are on the property, even at work, by their own choice.

This ruling takes away the rights of the property owners, while a ruling in the other direction would not have taken away the rights of the gun owners. It would have left the choice up to them whether or not to go onto the property and be disarmed.

37 posted on 07/30/2008 6:49:58 AM PDT by TChris (Vote John McCain: Democrat Lite -- 3% less liberal than a regular Democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
I think private property rights trump the 2A,

The 2A is a written statement of a right.

Where is the written statement of the property rights you say trump the 2A?

38 posted on 07/30/2008 8:41:19 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Where is the written statement of the property rights you say trump the 2A?

If it's not written, shall we conclude that there are no property rights? The BoR is not, nor was it intended to be, an exhaustive list of rights.

39 posted on 07/30/2008 10:14:45 AM PDT by TChris (Vote John McCain: Democrat Lite -- 3% less liberal than a regular Democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
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.

And we all know what the US Supremes said about that right to private property stuff.

40 posted on 07/30/2008 10:26:51 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
If it's not written, shall we conclude that there are no property rights?

No. Nor should we leave people guessing as to what they are or make them up as we go along.

Again: Where is the written statement of the property rights you say trump the 2A?

41 posted on 07/30/2008 11:32:00 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | 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