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


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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ]

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