Posted on 08/24/2008 5:46:15 AM PDT by libstripper
Supporters of the right to keep and bear arms have long recognized the value of firearms for the defense of life, liberty and property. But in Florida, a perverse conception of the 2nd Amendment has produced the opposite effect: The cause of gun rights is being used to attack property rights.
In 1987, Florida wisely affirmed personal freedom by letting law-abiding citizens get permits to carry concealed weapons. But this year, the legislature decided it was not enough to let licensees pack in public places. They also should be allowed to take their guns into private venues -- even if the property owner objects.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The libertarians aren't going to like that one, one bit.
No man is an island. Part of an orderly, functioning society is responsibility towards others.
BTW, I really don't think that the private property argument applies to business owners as it does to the individual citizen. A privately owned business does have a lot of public access. It's not like an individual's home where it's him and his family.
With the way disgruntled employees have a tendency to shoot up their previous employers place, the employer would be a fool not to let his employees carry. Prohibiting guns is not going to keep the nutcase from bringing in one anyway, just like any other gun free zone. As a matter of fact, it may be more incentive for him to do it because he knows that no one else will be carrying and he'll be free to do as he pleases.
This is the most compelling of the public safety arguments in favor of the state laws, each of which is far less intrusive than building codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, etc. When an employer deliberately, and in the face of compelling evidence, engages in a practice that blatantly jeopardizes the safety of its own employees and the general public, it's high time for the state to step in and prohibit that practice.
Business owners don't have property rights because they let other people come on their property?
BTW. An employee or any other person that can legally posses a firearm is and never was breaking any law in Florida by having a firearm secured in their car while parked on private property that is open to the public.
I’m no legal scholar, but it seems to me this is an issue of control of the firearm. A private business has the right to prevent you from bringing anything onto their property, or at least they should. But I don’t believe that right should be extended to include a firearm in someone’s car, just because the car is parked on your property. The space in the car remains in control of the individual, not the business, and it’s no affront to property rights to define it that way it seems to me.
I support the second amendment but I also support a business owner’s right to control what goes on on his property. Anyone who has witnessed two friends discussing the reasons behind the lack of success during today’s hunting expedition over “a couple” of beers will recognize the wisdom of the “No Guns In Bar” sign over the door.
On the other hand, corporate entities are different from individuals. The courts, at least in California, have ruled that shopping malls for instance are public spaces (Robbins v. Pruneyard) and that free speech rights hold there for individuals. By extension, if California ever got a sane carry law that would seem to apply to the right to carry at the mall as well. Likewise, if a business cannot ban an “Obama for President” bumper sticker on an employee’s car parked on their property it should not be able to prevent the employee from storing a gun in their car while they are at work.
—bflr—
So the law doesn't uphold gun rights. What it does do is infringe on property rights.
I wonder if Mr. Chapman realizes the irony in this incredibly stupid statement that he made. My employer does not own my car and has absolutely no right or power to go inside it and inspect the contents. Where did my property rights go? They evaporated the instant I drove onto the company lot. Can the employer give permission for the police to search my car? It's on their property. I think not.
But what about employees who walk, bike or take the bus? Since the law doesn't give them the right to take their guns into the workplace, they have to leave them at home. Should the state force companies to let workers carry pistols into the factory, office or day-care center?
This would be a brilliant rejoinder if the law actually said that. Of course, it doesn't say that, and the best the whiners can do is parrot this remark as if they had a brilliant, albeit nonexistent, complaint. When the state contemplates a law that says the property holder must honor carry permits in situ, they will be correct.
But let's take this idiotic tripe a step further. The constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and freedom of speech also act on government, not private entities. Has an employer the right to fire employees who have bibles in their cars? Korans? How about the lack of a bible in the car, or an Obama bumper sticker on the car where it is in plain sight and might offend the customers or other employees?
Not only does no such right exist, the employer would lose the case in court and suffer a significant judgement, and possible other sanctions as well. The laws on this one are clear and have been around for a long time.
"I have clients that have to carry out terminations. Sometimes that termination is volatile. A lot of places have a policy where they walk the terminated employee to his car. What if you walk the guy to his car that has a gun? I wouldn't want to be that supervisor."
The lawyer doesn't seem to have a problem with an employer who hires mentally unstable employees, does he? These employees pose a threat to the other employees who work there. Are there no legal issues there? Hint - there aren't, except that the ACLU will defend a person who was not hired because he was a whacko. ADA. And of course, the employee is being fired anyway. This person breaks company rules. What prevents him from breaking one more rule, the one about guns in the car? He's nuts, and is about to break several other rules and laws about killing people.
The whole argument is a load of crap.
Steve Chapman is illiterate
There is the Property of your person
There is the Real Property you own (land)
There is the Property of your personal effects
There is the Property of your RIGHTS
a first year law student knows this.
This is just a new BS position since the USSC has finally said the STRICT SCRUTINY test applies. IOW this is an individual right.
You can’t take rights without due process of LAW.
There is also the arguement that pursuit of happliness is the pursuit of PROPERTY, see above list.
They have "some" property rights---but less than, say, for instance, a homeowner in his home. The property rights of businesses have ALWAYS been determined by state law. CCW is just another example.
When an employer opens his property to employees' cars (which has many benefits for him with respect to attracting employees, insuring punctuality, etc.), he is inviting that piece of the employees' home onto the property. His choice, his freedom is contained in the right not to provide employee parking.
Why is this issue any different than the Americans With Disabilities Act ? The government is dictating both behavior and required property "improvements" to a property owner there, and it has withstood legal challenges. It is not a health or safety issue for the general public, it is only an issue for a small percentage of the public who suffers from handicaps. If we want to have our public policy be "access for all" that is fine, but then you have to explain how having a public policy which says: "you have the right to carry a concealed weapon" doesn't allow other laws which enable that public policy in a practical manner.
To me, the basic issue is that by prohibiting guns in cars, an employer takes away the practical implementation of a public policy enacted by the state.
The state has the right to fight back and force employers to enable their public policy.
The amendment says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. That means by ANY ONE. Not just federal and state governments.
Any business owner that disagrees with my assessment should stop paying property taxes, and get back to me in a few years with the outcome of the assertion of their "property rights"...
**snicker**
So Chapman is indeed all wet on this one.
Excellent editorial, Chapman is right on the money, Second Amendment right do not trump all other rights as too many would like to assert. As an employer you have no right to work for me unless we come to a mutual agreement and while you are on my property obey my rules or go work for someone else.
For "private" employers, what you say may be true.
But "corporations" are completely a creation of government. In exchange for the advantages of incorporation, such entities are taxed separately from the taxes of the owners and the owners benefit from limited liability. There should be no objection from further demanding that the right of the people to keep and bear arms on corporate property shall not be infringed.
codes of construction are for constancy and RELIABILITY.
It is to prevent fraud which is taking by deception. It establishes “doing the job right”.
This is about business owners who think the employee is a de facto slave supported by leftists who need the citizen to be a FACTO slave, both against the property of the rights of the citizen.
The 2nd applies to all levels of government officials in the USA, [read Art VI] -- and it certainly applies to all individuals as well.
Our oath of citizenship requires that we all support and defend the Constitution.. Thus,a private employer prohibiting its employees from keeping loaded weapons locked in their vehicles is not constitutional.
Moreover, as you note, it is an act contrary to public safety.
"Business owners don't have property rights because they let other people come on their property?"
They have "some" property rights---but less than, say, for instance, a homeowner in his home. The property rights of businesses have ALWAYS been determined by state law. -- Wonder Warthog
Well put WW, -- at your home you can personally 'ban' firearms, -- in public life, you cannot.
Our rights are not in conflict, as a gun in my locked car is no threat to your business property or workplace.
-- you have no right to work for me unless we come to a mutual agreement and while you are on my property obey my rules or go work for someone else.
You cannot make up 'rules' that infringe upon our constitutional rights.
You can not “ban” the property of the rights of the person. We had that whole amendment banning slavery and peonage to prevent that.
You do not surrender to slavery when you accept a paycheck and you don’t by pass the prohibition against slavery because you pay a paycheck.
rights are a property unto themselves.
It is not the property of the “thing”
it is the property of the RIGHT. The right itself is a property.
There is no such thing as a right that trumps all other considerations.
Following that logic taken to it’s extension, why can’t a business owner just kill, rape or torture anyone on their property for any reason?
Personally, I hope that any business that tries it goes belly up.
You cannot make up 'rules' that infringe upon our constitutional rights.
There is no such thing as a right that trumps all other considerations.
Look at your own claim just above; -- you, in affect, claim your property right trumps my right to have a gun in my car.
-- you have no right to work for me unless we come to a mutual agreement and while you are on my property obey my rules or go work for someone else.
You cannot make up 'rules' that infringe upon our constitutional rights.
There is no such thing as a right that trumps all other considerations.
Look at your own claim just above; -- you, in affect, claim your property right trumps my right to have a gun in my car.
The Constitution provides a framework for government, but is has no direct affect on individual conduct within their own sphere.
Simply untrue. We are all obligated to support and defend the constitutional laws of this republic.
You may have a First Amendment right to free speech but you have not right to enter my living room and attempt to exercise that right.
See my previous reply, as I do not claim 'that right'.
Gun rights are no more sacrosanct than any other right. The Second Amendment is absolutely, totally and completely irrelevant to the issue of carrying a gun on private property.
Simply wrong again, because - as much of the land in the USA is private property, -- your position would allow defacto infringement of our right to bear arms while going about our daily business.
You have a choice and that is whether you want to work for a particular employer or to park on their property. But like most liberals
{I'm not a liberal}
you seem to think that once someone opens a business they become a slave and lose their rights. To make the assertion that somehow your “rights" trump all other considerations is either a display of ignorance about rights or a desire to place yourself in the role of absolute dictator.
I'm not making that 'assertion'. -- You are making points not in contention.
As an employer I have no right to make you work for me, but by the same token you have no right to work for me without my consent. It is only if we come to mutually acceptable terms that you can work for me and enter my property. Any basis other than mutual consent is a assertion of a “right” to impose your will on others without any regard to their rights.
In effect, in your attempt to ban guns from parking lots, you are imposing your will on others without any regard to their rights.
The rule at my office is no thermonuclear warheads in the parking garage. If you gotta pack WMDs, leave ‘em in your car out on the street.
LOL
In effect, in your attempt to ban guns from parking lots, you are imposing "your will on others without any regard to their rights".
Is there something about the idea of mutual consent that is beyond your ability to understand?
Is there something about our right to bear arms while going about our business that is beyond your ability to understand?
How is it that you can acknowledge that the first amendment does not entitle you to come into my living room and start asserting that you have a right to free speech; but then assert that you do have a right to come into my living room and bring your gun.
Your hype about 'living rooms' is specious, as I assert no such rights.
In my parking lot I have the same right to control who uses my property, for what purpose and what they do while there as I do in my living room.
Not true. Your business parking lot 'rules' are subject to constitutional law. The 2nd amendment is the law of our land.
If you don't like my rules stay off my property
[If you don't like our ability to carry arms in our cars, move to a society like England]
or move to a communist society where nobody has property rights, which seems to me to be your ideal society.
Guns are property. Guns in employee/customers cars are private property. Learn to live with it.
Not true. Your business parking lot 'rules' are subject to constitutional law. The 2nd amendment is the law of our land.
If you don't like my rules stay off my property
[If you don't like our ability to carry arms in our cars, move to a society like England]
or move to a communist society where nobody has property rights, which seems to me to be your ideal society.
Guns are property. Guns in employee/customers cars are private property. Learn to live with it.
This discussion is pointless because you lack even a basic understanding of the concept of rights.
How silly. You simply refuse to accept that my possession of arms in my car do not infringe on your parking lot property rights
I acknowledge you have a right to posses guns but you can't accept that I have a property right that would allow me to forbid you from trespassing on my property.
Your business parking lot is not being trespassed on by guns in customer/employee cars.
Now whether I choose to allow you on to my property is entirely my prerogative, you have absolutely no right to be there. But because you can't even grasp the idea that I might have a property right that might allow me to forbid your trespassing there nothing more to discuss.
Thank you for conceding the discussion.
We can leave it that your business parking lot 'rules' are subject to constitutional law. The 2nd amendment is the law of our land.
Not true. Your business parking lot 'rules' are subject to constitutional law. The 2nd amendment is the law of our land.
If you don't like my rules stay off my property
[If you don't like our ability to carry arms in our cars, move to a society like England]
or move to a communist society where nobody has property rights, which seems to me to be your ideal society.
Guns are property. Guns in employee/customers cars are private property. Learn to live with it.
This discussion is pointless because you lack even a basic understanding of the concept of rights.
How silly. You simply refuse to accept that my possession of arms in my car do not infringe on your parking lot property rights
I acknowledge you have a right to posses guns but you can't accept that I have a property right that would allow me to forbid you from trespassing on my property.
Your business parking lot is not being trespassed on by guns in customer/employee cars.
Now whether I choose to allow you on to my property is entirely my prerogative, you have absolutely no right to be there. But because you can't even grasp the idea that I might have a property right that might allow me to forbid your trespassing there nothing more to discuss.
Thank you for conceding the discussion.
We can leave it that your business parking lot 'rules' are subject to constitutional law. The 2nd amendment is the law of our land.
Look at post 34 and recognize that you did not address the point made. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that anyone with even the most basic understanding of Law and the Constitution would claim gives you any right to be on my property.
Try reading John Locke and then you may understand the importance of Property rights and how they form the foundation of almost all other rights, until we can agree that property rights exist and are important their is absolutely nothing that can be accomplished with this discussion. Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” would be a good start, almost any University Bookstore will have a copy for less than ten dollars.
You made the following 'point' at #34.. And directly after that I addressed your point.
[34] In my parking lot I have the same right to control who uses my property, for what purpose and what they do while there as I do in my living room.
Not true. Your business parking lot 'rules' are subject to constitutional law. The 2nd amendment is the law of our land. --
-- Look at that answer and recognize that you did not address the point I made about the Second Amendment -- Anyone with even the most basic understanding of the law and our Constitution would realize it does not give you any right to ban guns on my property, [the locked trunk of my vehicle].
You have a parking lot for customers and employees. -- Arms,- locked in the trunks of their vehicles, do not infringe on your property rights.
Your whole argument is specious and self serving.
Why do you want to disarm your fellow citizens?
Unless you will admit that property right exist and are important I will not waste any more time trying to educate the ignorant!
Your whole argument is specious and self serving.
Why do you want to disarm your fellow citizens?
Unless you will admit that property right exist and are important I will not waste any more time trying to educate the ignorant!
You are educating all who read this as to your inability to face facts. -- Business's who ban guns in their parking lots are attempting to circumvent our 2nd amendment rights to bear arms as we go about our business. -- Why do you want such 'bans'?
Law should always be based on rights and not what will most readily serve your own personal advantage. From that bases you have no right to work for me and you have no right to be on my property. Before you work for me we both must agree to the terms, not have you simply impose your will on others. You are only allowed on my property with my permission and I have the right to set the rules while you are on my property, if you don’t like it stay off my property. As an Employer and property owner I would most likely have no problem with you keeping a gun in you car, my problem is with you opinion that you are entitled to simply impose your will on me without any concern for my rights or consent. You have every right to carry a gun on your own property or on public property, but you don’t have any right to be on my property without my consent and I will only give my consent if you acknowledge my right to set the rules while you are on my property. If you don’t like it don’t come on to my property.
You have every right to carry a gun on your own property or on public property, but you don’t have any right to be on my property without my consent --
In effect you gave your consent when you opened a business and provided a parking lot for customers/employees.
-- and I will only give my consent if you acknowledge my right to set the rules while you are on my property.
Nope, You can't 'set' unconstitutional 'rules' while running a public business. You must abide by constitutional 'rules' [the law of the land] while running a business.
If you don’t like it don’t come on to my property.
If you don't like our constitutional rules, take your business elsewhere. [Canada welcomes gun bans]
As an Employer and property owner I would most likely have no problem with you keeping a gun in you car, my problem is with you opinion that you are entitled to simply impose your will on me without any concern for my rights or consent.
Get a grip.. -- How does a gun in my car trunk "impose my will" on you?
According to you when I start a business I lose my property rights and any right to choose who I do business with, that proposition is absurd in a free society.
Get a grip.. -- How does a gun in my car trunk "impose my will" on you?
Maybe I should start with the basics since you didn't acknowledge any familiarity with John Locke and “The Second Treatise of Government” that I mentioned in post 39.
Maybe you should address the issue; How does a gun in a customers/employees car "impose anyones will" on you?
The basic property right is the right to exclude others from property which an individual owns. If that is what you were willing to acknowledge as property rights then there is no further discussion necessary since that is all I have claimed as my right.
Your "basic property right" does not allow you to infringe on your peers basic rights.
According to you when I start a business I lose my property rights
Simply not true. You lose no 'property rights' by guns in the trunks of cars parked on your business property.
-- and any right to choose who I do business with, that proposition is absurd in a free society.
Your proposition that our free society allows you to disarm your neighbors as they go about their business, -- is absurd.
Simply not true. You lose no 'property rights' by guns in the trunks of cars parked on your business property.
-- and any right to choose who I do business with, that proposition is absurd in a free society.
Your proposition that our free society allows you to disarm your neighbors as they go about their business, -- is absurd.
It is absolutely pointless to discuss rights with someone who has never read anything about the foundation of rights, doesn't have any understanding of what rights are, and can't acknowledge that anyone has a right that might interfere with what they want.
You lose no 'property rights' by guns in the trunks of cars parked on your business property. Admit it.
One last time, you have no right to be on my property, that is what property rights mean, the right to exclude others. You have repeatedly asserted your right to trespass on my property so you are either incapable of understanding what property rights are or you feel entitled to simply abridge my rights. I have asserted nothing that in anyway interferes with your right to own or posses a gun anywhere where you have a right to be.
I have asserted nothing that in anyway interferes with your right to own or posses a gun anywhere where you have a right to be.
I have a 'right to be' in the parking lot of a business where I am a bona fide customer or employee. --- You assert the 'right' to ban guns in car trunks parked in that lot.
You lose no 'property rights' by guns in the trunks of cars parked on your business property. Admit it.
Why do you want to prohibit the right to possess a gun under these circumstances?
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.