NRA pushes 'guns-at-work' bill in Florida

Florida Times-Uion ^ | 10/08/2005 | J. Taylor Rushing

[RightDemocrat]

TALLAHASSEE -- A rare and spectacular showdown may be coming in Florida's Republican Party: Big Business vs. Big Guns. And the stakes couldn't be higher. To critics, it's about the safety of workplaces, including hospitals and churches, throughout the Sunshine State. To supporters, it's about the safety of employees who travel to and from those workplaces.

The dust-up is over the "guns-at-work" bill, which the National Rifle Association began pushing last month in Tallahassee to force all Florida businesses to allow firearms in the vehicles of any employee or visitor. Companies could keep policies banning guns from their buildings themselves but could no longer apply those policies to their parking lots.

Many businesses are either wary of or leaning against the proposal, including heavy-hitters such as Disney and local giants such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, CSX and Baptist Health System.

But the NRA is insistent. The group, which has donated nearly $1 million in Florida over the past decade, mostly to Republicans, is led in Tallahassee by former national President Marion Hammer. Hammer said the rights of gun owners should be intact in their vehicles, and the proposed law already gives businesses immunity from liability lawsuits in cases of workplace shootings.

"Your home is a slam dunk, but bridging that into the private property of an organization doesn't hold," said Mike Hightower, chairman of the Duval County Republican Party and lobbyist for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. "I don't think people are going to want to cross that line."

In a telling sign of wariness, neither Gov. Jeb Bush, Senate President Tom Lee nor House Speaker Allan Bense are taking positions on the bill yet.

[Labyrinthos]

Can you also tell your employees that they can't have religious or political material in their cars? Can you tell them how they should vote if they want to work for you?

That's a different situation: Federal law specifically prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee or potential employee based upon the person's race, gender, national origin, age (I think), disability, or religious practices. Congress passed the laws allegedly under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress could (and perhaps it should) also pass a law to prohibit employers from discriminating against lawful gun owners. My point is that the prohibitions that you refer to come from a statute passed by Congress, not directly from the Constitution itself, and that's because the Constition is a social contract between the people and the government, and not a private contract regulating the relationship between private employers and employees.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Case law in the state of Montana my friend, allows me to wear a .45 strapped to my hip in full view, unconcealed into any business I choose to visit.

Now, the owner does have the right to ask me to leave, or to take it off before I come in. But he cannot dictate what is in my car whether I work there or not.

Case law is relative to where you live.

A person's car is their property, and unless that business owner wants to be charged with breaking and entering, they would have no other way of knowing whether or not that person has a weapon in their vehicle.

Ban all cars and get rid of your parking lot, or not. But you do not have the right, under any circumstances, to dictate what I carry in my vehicle.

Period.

[Labyrinthos]

You have Zero right to tell a person what they can or cannot carry in their car so long as that item, whatever it is, is a lawful product. You don't want someone parking their car in your lot, that's fine. But YOUR rights end at my bumper bud.

I wish I was wrong, but I'm not, pal, at least not under Federal law. I don't know whether your state law protects the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon in the private workplace, but I am absolutely certain that neither the Constitution nor federal statute offer such protection.

[from occupied ga]

Sorry, it's true--people can freak out and make a lifetime mistake in five minutes that they would never do if they had to drive 20 minutes home and back to the office in which to calm down and think it over.

Sorry, it's false -- what you're advocating is a "cooling off period" verbatim from the pages of Sara Brady's HCI handbook. Totally bogus as shown by the crime states from states with waiting periods and states without. States with easier firearms access have less crime, not more. Or are you now saying that the Brady bunch are not loons and that we should pay attention to them on matters of gun control.

If you don't think proximity matters, imagine what firings would be like if there was a gun in the hallway outside the HR director's office Oh, and an open bar. Do you think that would increase violence, or have no effect

More totally irrelevant stuff - this is about having a firearm in your car, not drinking or having a free one sitting in the hallway. Please stick to the subject.

[Eagle Eye]

when it involves the safety and well being of their employees

I understand this better than you can possibly realize.

HOWEVER...can you show me any evidence than a firearm in a car is an increased safety or health risk to the work force?

I can't quantify this right now, but I'll bet there are more lost workdays due to people 'toughing out' colds and flu than there are from firearm related incidents amongst co workers.

So is it really about the safety and well being of their employees?

[Leatherneck_MT]

Carrying a weapon in a workplace is far different from carrying a weapon and leaving it locked in your vehicle.

Federal Law (i.e. the Constitution) does protect that right.

Nobody has challenged these jackass corporations yet is the problem.

Now they are and the spineless bastards don't like it. Problem is, seems like some of the "Leaders" in the Republican party don't like it either.

No surprise there anymore. They have no interest in the Constitution OR the Country. They are only interested in "The Party".

[XJarhead]

Your right to set the rules, as I see it, stops when it infringes on my Constitutional rights.

Constitutional right are rights that are protected from interference by the government. That's basic constitutional law. Another citizen can take action against you because they don't like the content of your speech, for example. They can kick you out of their home, place of business, or whatever. It's the government that can't do that.

I personally think it is stupid for businesses to bad weapons from private vehicles if they are locked in the trunk. But, I also think its their property, and they have the right to set their own rules. If you don't like them, you are free to find another job or patronize a different business.

[Eagle Eye]

The First Amendment stops at the boundary of company property. Why should the Second Amendment be any different?

I think that you're incorrect and that there are probably many court cases that would suggest that employees must be permitted accomodation for their religious practices.

Additionall I think that if any employer tried to ban me from having my Bible, Koran, Book of Morman, etc in my car that they'd be in trouble.

So why should the Second Amendment be any different?

[HostileTerritory]

You're arguing from wishful thinking. You'd like to extend your 2nd Amendment rights, so you're not going to listen to people who provide common sense reasons why it would expose companies to risks they don't want to take.

You can believe what you like, but people who make it their business to run companies smoothly and make firings as painless as possible have their own experiences and knowledge to draw upon. I suspect you'll lose in the legislature, and rightly so.

[from occupied ga]

so you're not going to listen to people who provide common sense reasons why it would expose companies to risks they don't want to take

I'm listening. I just don't agree with you or Sara Brady on waiting periods.

[HostileTerritory]

Because there are safety issues involved.

Private property restrictions on the First Amendment aren't really threatened by something someone keeps in their car. If an employee, fired or otherwise, retaliates by going to his car and bringing in his issues of Hustler or the Watchtower it won't be very hard for HR to clean up the mess quickly and undo the violation of their policies.

A gun in the car has the potential for exponentially greater damage. Yes, most everyone who keeps a gun in the car is a good gun-owner, but the liability caused by the exceptions is what private property owners have to consider. And it's unfortunate, but getting fired, particularly under bad circumstances, can turn a really large percentage of otherwise sane people into exceptions. Companies don't want to risk it.

[XJarhead]

Carrying a weapon in a workplace is far different from carrying a weapon and leaving it locked in your vehicle. Federal Law (i.e. the Constitution) does protect that right.

Maybe it should, but it doesn't. There's nothing an employer can do that violates the Constitution because the Constitution is a limitation on governmental actions, not private actions.

[HostileTerritory]

Like I said, I'm not the one you have to convince. I don't work in state government or human resources.

"But you agree with Sarah Brady" isn't going to convince anyone who disagrees with you that having guns on company property is a good idea. It may make you feel better, and I think that's worth something, but it's not really an argument.

[P8riot]

I am absolutely certain that neither the Constitution nor federal statute offer such protection.

That's whe re you got it wrong, Pal. The second ammendment enumerates that right. There are no exceptions or conditions to it.

You really are an arrogant SOB aren't you? Assuming that you have the right to tell me I cannot leave my home with a weapon in my vehicle just because it might spend a few hours in your precious parking lot. No wonder you New Yorkers end up with the Chuck Schumers, and Hillary Clintons that try to ram their socialist agendas down the throats of the rest of the nation. Do us a favor and don't do us any favors.

[rahbert]

You can't be serious. As others have pointed out, a firearm
on the premises (including a locked vehicle but available to the owner) is a risk to others when that owner is involved in disputes, including with the employer. I recall
the shootings in Sunnyvale (Silicon Valley), at DEC in
Hudson Mass, the various incidents at post offices (genesis
of the "going postal" syndrome)..

My wife carries out terminations as part of her job. Its
stressful enough without the danger of a fired employee coming into mahogany row and offing the management. Ultimately this issue will lose on the grounds of common sense and liability.

[Eagle Eye]

Bogus argument and insulting to gun owners.

Employee safety is not threatened by guns inside cars.

Those who are likely to take hostages and commit murder are not likely to be deterred by company policies against having a firearm in the parking lot or in the workplace proper.


Now your argument works both ways; that copy of Hustler (Odd how you threw pornography into the mix!) or Watchtower won't protect the car's owner once that car leaves the parking lot.

So if this is really about safety, your argument misses the mark.

You'd disarm all because you think that maybe one might some how someday commit a criminal act.

Are you also going to ban scissors and pocket knives and hatchets from cars?

[rahbert]

This is also true here in Texas. None of the large employers
in the Metroplex I know of permit firearms on the premises (including employee vehicles). The smaller employers may
vary.

And there are no Schumers here that I am aware of...

[Labyrinthos]

That's whe re you got it wrong, Pal. The second ammendment enumerates that right. There are no exceptions or conditions to it.

Yes, the Constitution enumerates that right, but it only applies to the government. ARE YOU THAT NAIVE ABOUT THE CONSTITUION? (Obvioulsy you are.)

[Eagle Eye]

A firearm is zero risk. Criminal behaviors are the risk.

I'd be willing to bet that your company had more lost days from comunicable diseases and from the tools at work than from firearm incidents between co workers.

But let's not let facts get in the way of fearful perceptions!

You'll also have to consider that people with GUNS IN CARS have helped stop school shooting sprees.

But you act as if policies against guns in the parking lots keep people from returning after a termination to commit crimes.

[from occupied ga]

Like I said, I'm not the one you have to convince.

I'm not trying to convince. We're just having a friendly discussion.

but it's not really an argument

Neither is your unsupported claim that people "go postal" if they have ready access to guns. The evidence is to the contrary if you look at the crime stats from states with and without waiting periods.