NRA bill would OK guns in cars at work

MiamiHerald.com ^ | Feb. 08, 2006 | MARC CAPUTO

[neverdem]

TALLAHASSEE

A bill being pushed by the NRA to allow people to keep guns in their cars on workplace parking lots faces a tough challenge from the powerful Florida Chamber of Commerce.

TALLAHASSEE - The National Rifle Association is pushing a bill that would penalize Florida employers with prison time and lawsuits if they prohibit people from keeping guns in their cars at workplace parking lots.

But the proposal is facing stiff opposition from a group just as powerful in the state capital as the NRA: Florida's biggest business lobby.

Mark Wilson, a vice president of Florida's Chamber of Commerce, which represents 136,000 businesses, said the proposal, to be voted on today in a House committee, is ''an all-out assault'' on employer-employee relations that intrudes on private property rights.

With other business groups expected to join in, the widespread opposition to the NRA bill sets the stage for a rare power struggle between two of the Legislature's mightiest lobbies. And some political observers predict that, for one of the first times in recent history, the NRA will lose in the Legislature of a state where one of every 49 people has a concealed weapons permit and an estimated six million own firearms.

Bill sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley, an Ocala Republican, said he filed the legislation to prevent ''back-door gun control.'' In the past two years, he has successfully sponsored bills limiting lawsuits against gun ranges, preventing cops from compiling electronic lists of gun owners and expanding people's rights to use deadly force if they feel threatened outside their homes.

''We just disagree that the business community's private property rights trumps my Second Amendment rights,'' Baxley said, noting he doesn't personally support carrying firearms in the workplace.

Under the bill, if business owners ban guns in cars on workplace parking lots, they could get sued and charged with a third-degree felony, punishable by a maximum five-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine. The bill has an exception for places like schools, where guns are banned by law.

Gov. Jeb Bush, who noted he helped reshape the controversial gun-range bill, said he's uncommitted right now and wants to ``let things develop a little bit.''

The measure was inspired by a case out of Oklahoma in 2002, when a dozen paper mill workers were fired after bosses found out they had guns in their cars. Oklahoma lawmakers passed a law similar to the Florida proposal, and business owners sued in federal court. Among them: ConocoPhillips. The NRA then launched a boycott, replete with billboards saying, ''ConocoPhillips is no friend of the Second Amendment.'' Since then, four states have passed laws like Oklahoma's, seven are considering them, and five killed the idea with relatively little debate, said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He said the Florida legislation is faring badly because it tells big business what to do.

''I don't know what the NRA is smoking,'' Hamm said. ``They're taking on the business lobby, which is just foolish.''

Wilson, the Florida chamber executive, said employers have the right to regulate what happens on their property ``just like we have dress codes, just like we have all kinds of things. As soon as we allow a national organization to decide employment terms between an employee and an employer, we've gone too far.''

Wilson added that ``this seems to be a collision between the Second Amendment rights and property rights of homeowners and businesses.''

But the NRA's Florida lobbyist, Marion Hammer, said the federal and state constitutions don't expressly recognize employer rights to regulate behavior.

''The Constitution gives you the right to bear arms,'' she said. ``It doesn't say you have a right to come to work nude or come to work wearing a bathing suit, or how long your hair can be or whether you have facial hair or whether you come to work smelling because you haven't taken a bath.''

Hammer said she's not worried about taking on the chamber of commerce: ``The chamber represents self-interests. NRA represents the people. I fear nothing, except losing freedom and losing rights.''

Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report. mcaputo@MiamiHerald.com

[tpaine]

jwalsh07 wrote:

Paine, guns are private property.

I know, and luis wants to ban them from employees trunks.

Why do you want to invite the government in to tell you what you can or can't do with your private property?

I don't. I have a right to carry guns in my trunk. -- Luis wants the power to fire me for doing so.
My State is defending my right to carry, as is its duty. Something wrong with that?

[jwalsh07]

No but there is something amiss when you tell Luis that he can not make the rules for his property and post them. I really never have understood those who think property rights are separate from gun rights. Those who wish the government to make laws stating that you can carry on private property when the owner says you can't should not be surprised when the government says you can't carry at all.

Because you have already ceded the government the power to control private property. I'm not going there for any cause.

[tpaine]

jwalsh07 wrote:

Paine, guns are private property.

I know, and luis wants to ban them from employees trunks.

Why do you want to invite the government in to tell you what you can or can't do with your private property?

I don't. I have a right to carry guns in my trunk. -- Luis wants the power to fire me for doing so.
My State is defending my right to carry, as is its duty. Something wrong with that?

No

but there is something amiss when you tell Luis that he can not make the rules for his property and post them.

Read my response to his post if you want to critique my stance. "Something amiss" is just your straw man opinion about the issue.

I really never have understood those who think property rights are separate from gun rights.

And you never will if you don't read the arguments that have been made here.

Those who wish the government to make laws stating that you can carry on private property when the owner says you can't

Sigh, -- another straw man. Luis invited me on his property to work.

should not be surprised when the government says you can't carry at all.

Amazing blindness to the issue. -- Here we have a few States upholding our right to carry in a vehicle, and 'conservative' FReepers are trying to find fault.

Because you have already ceded the government the power to control private property. I'm not going there for any cause.

Whatever. If you can't agree that State governments are duty bound to make reasonable regulations against attempted gun bans by business, - what more can be said?

[Luis Gonzalez]

---

If I carry a gun onto someone's store or business, and they have a "no guns allowed" sign up, would they be violating my rights under Article 1 Section 6, "Every individual has the inherent right of owning, using, and carrying arms of any description”?

This is a private property issue. The business owner has the right to set his own rules and you decide if you want to trade there in light of those rules. Let's say the storeowner has a policy of no guns on his business property. You carry a weapon onto the property. He asks you to leave. You refuse & he calls the Sheriff. I think the worst you are guilty of is trespass. If he asks you to leave & you do, you have both made your free choice. If he asks you to leave, you refuse and you take your .45 out & shoot him, you are probably guilty of trespass and injury or death. In any case, if a crime is alleged to have occurred, it is up to a jury to decide.

Posting a policy of no weapons on the premises of a private business is not government force. It is not interfering with your right to bear arms, it simply gives you a choice if you want to trade there or not.

It's not all that different today in Texas. The CCW law passed & it carried a provision that allowed businesses to put up a sign designed in a certain way that prohibited the carrying of arms on that property. Wal-Mart had these signs in their stores all over Texas. Had someone carried a concealed weapon onto the premises, used it in the manner consistent with the law, been cleared of any wrong doing in using the weapon, the charge of carrying in violation of the sign would become moot.

The real issue was whether or not one wanted to go onto the property knowing law-abiding citizens had been disarmed, felons had not. TSRA stated in a letter to Wal-Mart that they were advising their members to stay out of Wal-Mart as it was an unsafe environment. I delivered one of those letters to the Wal-Mart Superstore in Beaumont myself. Three weeks later, following a 17% decline in business, Wal-Mart took the signs down.

Bob Phipps

[Luis Gonzalez]

Legally Speaking
Posted

By Karen MacNutt,
Contributing Editor

Jane had jumped through all the hoops, both required and suggested, to obtain her license to carry a concealed handgun. She had joined a club. She had taken courses. She had studied the law. She had become proficient in the use of the gun. She had researched the best gun to carry and the best carry holster. Now she had put it all together and was out for the first time "packing heat."

Her first task of the day was to go to the Post Office. She did not get beyond the Post Office door. "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED." She looked at the sign in frustration. "They can't do that," she muttered to herself, "I have a license."
Just because a city or state issues you a license to carry a gun that does not mean you can carry a gun anywhere you please. Your right to own or carry a gun is part of a tapestry of rights that interact with each other. These rights often must be counter balanced against other rights and public safety. They are subject to certain limitations.

Our Federal Constitution was not intended to be an exhaustive list of rights belonging to the people. Other rights that are not part of the written Bill of Rights, are equally part of the tapestry of rights belonging to all mankind. The authors of the Bill of Rights listed what they considered to be some of the more important rights, but those rights came from natural law; that is, they were rights given to all mankind by God.

The right to "bear arms" is the outgrowth of two more basic rights. The first is the right to life. Without the right to life, no other right has meaning. For the right to life to have substance, a person must have the right to defend his or her life from violence. Basic to the right to life is the right of self-defense. The right to self defense is meaningless unless you are able to defend yourself in an effective manner. Thus, the right to have arms (the term "arms" is not confined to firearms) is an instrumentality of, and an expression of, the right to life.

The second right is the right to own property. A firearm is a piece of personal property. As such, you should have a right to own a gun absent some compelling governmental interest. As the owner of property, you have the right to control that property so long as you are not endangering others.

If you carry a gun there are other rights that must be considered. One of these is the right to travel. The right to travel is an essential part of the right to liberty. Out of the right to travel, the courts carved the concept of the right to have access to public accommodations. It was on this theory that the federal courts struck down laws that discriminated against blacks in terms of access to restaurants, public transportation, hotels and other places that hold themselves open to the public. If the right to travel (part of the right to liberty) did not trump the right to property in certain circumstances, the right to property would allow a restaurant owner to refuse to admit people he did not like based on race, sex, religion and national origin.

Your right to travel does not give you the right to trespass over someone else's property. There is, however, an exception to this rule. In an emergency, if your life is endangered, or in some cases if your property is endangered, you may enter onto another person's property. This is called the defense of "necessity." The law has balanced your rights with the property owner's rights and determined that the higher good is obtained by allowing you to enter the other person's property. Your entry is not as a matter of right, rather, the property owner's ability to defend his property against your entry is limited by law.

Under certain circumstances, your rights can be terminated by the government. If you are guilty of a serious breach of the social order, your liberty or life could be terminated by the government. Each of our rights are limited by the concept of reasonable use. Our right to do something does not extend to the right to injure or endanger others by our actions. Thus, the right to own an automobile does not give us the right drive irresponsibly.

Within the law there is a constant balancing of rights, duties, and defenses. Having a "right" to do something is only one part of the question of whether or not you can or should do something. All rights are subject to the reasonable police powers of government. For example, you have the right to put a political sign up on your house, but the government can tell you, within reason, how big the sign can be and how long it might be displayed.

There are clearly places where gunowners may not take their guns. If you are visiting a friend at Folsom Prison, do not take your gun. Most federal property is posted to prohibit the carrying of firearms. Statutes make it illegal to have guns in certain parts of airports and on all interstate common carriers unless very specific rules are followed. By federal law, guns may not be taken into schools without the permission of the person in charge of the school. Many courts have rules prohibiting guns in the courtroom. Many psychiatric hospitals have rules against guns inside the hospital. In some cases these rules are imposed by law and in others they are imposed by the person controlling the facility. Each of these places have reasonable grounds based on public safety concerns to restrict firearms possession. I might disagree with some of these rules, but I can not say that they are unreasonable in theory.

You have a right to say who may come into your home. If you invite someone into your house, you can restrict them to your living room. You can prohibit them from consuming alcohol or smoking in your home. You can prevent them from bringing their dog or their gun into your home. You can do this because you have the right to exclude them from your home. Because you can exclude them, you can admit them on conditions. This is your inherent right as the person in control of the property. If you own unimproved land, you may post it for "No Trespassing" and "No Hunting." If you rent your property to someone else, however, you surrender much of the control of your property to the tenant and there are cases that say that landlords can not prevent tenants from owning guns. If someone comes onto your property against your wishes, you can have them arrested for trespassing. Likewise if your employer says, "No gun on the job," and you violate his rule, you will be fired. The employer, as the person in control of the property, has the right to set this rule.

Some states that passed "concealed carry" handgun laws also enacted laws that allow businesses to exclude people who carry guns from coming onto their property. To the extent such laws are lawful, they are an extension of the common law of trespass which exists even if the special laws had not been enacted.

As a gunowner I am annoyed when I am barred from bringing a concealed handgun into a public building or business. If I were carrying openly, I can understand how my having a gun might upset other people. If no one knows I have a gun and the police have licensed me as being a suitable person to have a gun, I am unable to see the harm. If I were a bad person and were not licensed, I would not worry about signs that said, "No guns."

Some public buildings have what I consider a reasonable compromise. They provide a place for the gun to be checked. It is, after all, their property and they have met my needs by providing a place for storage. Many stores require you to check bags when you enter. Requiring you to check your gun would not seem to be much different.

There are a number of policy questions businesses should consider before implementing a "no gun" policy. By announcing that the store is "gun free," they are announcing that no one inside the store is armed. The bad person sees this as an invitation. In a world where no one else is armed, the person with a gun is king and unstoppable. It is no coincidence that most of the places where there have been multiple killings are places that are "gun free." I have never heard of anyone trying to rob a gun show.

Merchants have no general duty to safeguard their customers other than to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn customers of dangers that might not be apparent. They are not insurers of their customers' safety. They are not generally responsible for the illegal acts of third parties. That is, there is no liability against the merchant if some third party intentionally hurts one of the merchant's customers. On the other hand, if a merchant forbids people who are licensed to carry guns from bringing their legal guns onto his premises under the guise that he is protecting their safety, he has then assumed an obligation that he did not previously have. He has undertaken the specific task of protecting his customers. That undertaking creates a special relationship between the customer and merchant which did not previously exist. If the merchant, having created the special relationship, then fails to take other steps necessary to protect his customers from the criminal acts of others, he can be held liable for injury to his customers by the illegal acts of third parties.

Another problem arises if such businesses attempt to search their customers in an effort to enforce their regulations. The ability of a private person to detain you or involuntarily search you, is very limited. It would not cover a general search for weapons. A non-consentual touching in such cases would be a criminal battery. On the other hand, they can bar you from entering their premises if you do not consent to the search. Although passing through a metal detector might be acceptable to some customers, passing all customers through an airport type search would not be acceptable to most customers.
If the store does not provide the licensed gunowner with a place to check his or her gun but forbids entry, then the store is not only creating a special relationship, but it is making a political statement that translates to, "I don't want to do business with people who have guns."

Gunowners should not support businesses who allow their anti-gun bias to move from philosophy to open discrimination. Not only should you not do business with such companies, but you should write them a very polite letter explaining how hurt you feel at their discriminating against you. An angry letter will simply be ignored as the ranting of a crackpot.

State laws that specifically encourage businesses to exclude guns owners are troublesome. For many people the ownership and carrying of a firearm is an expression of philosophy. It is a belief in the integrity and worth of the individual, common citizen. It is a statement that the one who carries a gun is not willing to be a victim and will not give up his or her life or property without extreme objection. In a large number of assaults, the mere display of a firearm expresses the intent and feelings of the licensed holder in such unambiguous terms that the assailant abandons his attack.

It is highly unlikely that a court would accept the concept that carrying a licensed gun for protection is an expression of speech entitled to First Amendment protection. However, laws imposed by some states are thinly veiled attempts by government officials to force individuals to embrace their anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology through compelled statements, or actions equaling statements. Such compulsion is a violation of the First Amendment. Although all citizens have the right to express and, within limits of public safety, act on their private beliefs, it is inappropriate for government to attempt to join the ideological battle.

Source

[Luis Gonzalez]

Property owners have explicit rights and control the terms by which others may enter their property. Access to a private residence is legally under near-total control of the resident, with no need for posting signs or other regulations.  Places open to the public may not discriminate and are generally subject to the sign requirements.

No-Guns-Allowed Signs: Four new laws define what a no-gun sign must look like, and how to give 'proper notice' that guns are prohibited at a public place.

A - For the purpose of the CHL trespassing law (§30.06 described above) and for the CHL restrictions in §46.035, you have "received notice" when the owner (or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner) gives you notice either orally or in writing.  If it's in writing it may be handed to you, or prominently posted in English and Spanish on the property, in contrasting-color block letters at least one inch high, with this precise message: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun".  Any place open to the public could post such a 'thirty-ought-six' sign to restrict CHLs.  If a hospital, nursing home, amusement park, place of worship or government meeting does not post such a sign (or give written or oral notice), then properly licensed CHLs are not prohibited from entering.
B - A business with a liquor license or permit, which gets 51% or more of its income from the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, must conspicuously post a sign at each entrance, in English and Spanish, that it is unlawful for a CHL to carry a handgun on the premises.  The sign must be in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch high, with the number "51" in solid red at least five inches high. (see Art. 4413(29ee) Sec. 31).
C - Any place with a liquor license or permit that doesn't have to post a "51" sign (in other words, they get less than 51% of their income from drink sales) must post a sign that says it is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless you have a valid CHL permit.  The basic idea here is to make bars off limits to everyone, but to allow CHLs to enjoy a restaurant even if it serves alcohol (and it's illegal for a CHL to get drunk while armed).  The sign must be at least six inches high and 14 inches wide, in contrasting colors, and conspicuously displayed.  The liquor authorities can require a language in addition to English if they deem it necessary. (see Alcoholic Beverage Code §11.041 and §61.11).

www.gunlaws.com

[JABBERBONK]

Your an idiot , I'm done with you

[Dead Corpse]

You claim an unalienable right to enter my property against my wish.
You are an idiot. No. He's not. He's saying that just because you invite him onto your property does not mean he becomes your property. A fact you don't seem to be able to grasp.

[Dead Corpse]

I set the rules for access, and you make the choice of whether you want to enter under my rules, or not enter.

So, you freely admit that unless a person gives up all their Rights at your property line, you don't want them there. They must make themselves your utter, and helpless, slave as a condition of association.

"Moral Cripple" I named you. More accurately than I had at first intended.

[Dead Corpse]

If I say you can't enter, and you enter regardless of what I say, you violated my property rights.

Lame attempt at obfuscation. You have already invited me by hiring me to do a job completely unrelated to my vehicle or its contents. What you object to is me being able to protect myself to and from your workplace because you don't like guns on your property. I am not submitting to your Master/slave demands and that puts your panties in a twist.

I am coming to your house with a Mullah, and I am going to tell him to invite a bunch of his friends over for a Islamic service that he is going to conduct on your yard.

No. You will never have an invitation to my house. Ever. Exceedingly few Muslims, much less their Mullah's, would meet my personal criteria as "friends". You are again trying to change the issue. Doing it quite badly as well.

You may not disallow him to do that, because you may not disallow him his unalienable right to freed speech and freedom of religion.

If you invite a hungry bear over for dinner, do not be surprised when it acts like a hungry bear.

[Dead Corpse]

Psychotherapy? No. An ounce or two of Glenfiddiche 18 year is all the therapy I need on the rare occassion. Methinks that Luis may require somewhat stronger medication.

[Dead Corpse]

I don't need help, I've been beating you myself senseless for days now.

Fixed it for you.

[Dead Corpse]

Regurgitating the current anti-RKBA legal fiction isn't going to get you very far.

[Dead Corpse]

He asked you to provide a citation for your assertion. So you call him an "idiot"...

(sarc)Brilliant. You must win a lot of arguments and have tons of friends.(/sarc)

[Luis Gonzalez]

You call articles from from pro-RKBA sites and publications fiction?

You and tommy belong together.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You have already invited me by hiring me to do a job."

Brought lawyers into the discussion, they agree that I win the case.

Now, you're just beating a dead horse...which is probably a way of life for you.

[Dead Corpse]

Being a clearing house for 20,000 unConstitutional gun laws does not make a website "pro-gun". You delusion continues...

Also, your graphic isn't showing up. Seems your choice in photo hosts is as poor as your debate skills and understanding of human Rights.

[Luis Gonzalez]

(psst...over here)

Call these guys gun-grabbers...go ahead.

[Dead Corpse]

Lawyers deal with Law. If a Law runs contrary to the Constitution, then it cannot be a law no matter how many lawyers and justices back you up. Or do you agree with the USSC's Kelo decision on emminent domain? How about Roe V Wade?

Still think "legal experts" are the finaly arbiter of what makes a morally consistant law? They care only for the letter of the law. Not its intent. Not its morality. And at least for the last couple of decades, not even a laws consistancy with out Constitution and its basic premises.

Your failed "appeal to authority" logical falicy is hereby noted. Not that such is very surprising. Next, you'll try and say God told you you can enslave your fellow man or otherwise deprive them of their Rights as humans, just for having the temerity to accept an invitation to step onto your hallowed ground.

[Dead Corpse]

Learn from this...