So, does this bitch slap Disney? Does the fired security guard get his job back with a bunch of punitive damages?
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.
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.
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.
Does the fired security guard get his job back?
Judges will never allow armed observers into the senate or house chambers.
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 ?
Every DAY is “Take your Gun to work Day”!!!!
Good on Florida. They are slowly moving away from being known as “Floriduh”.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
And we all know what the US Supremes said about that right to private property stuff.