Posted on 10/09/2005 9:09:28 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
Your ability to enumerate these various types of organizations is only possible BECAUSE they are treated differently. They have different advantages to the owners and different legal obligations. They have different reporting requirements, tax laws, and legal protections. All of the laws are designed to trade-off legislatively created benefits for the owners for presumed benefit to the public.
Let's consider for a moment the corporations in the business of operating passenger aircraft in the US. These corporations are operating today under mandate from the government which prohibits the keeping and bearing of arms by passengers. You might argue, as I do, that this intrusion is a violation of the Second Amendment. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone who agrees with the policy of prohibiting arms on airlines arguing that that same government would not have the authority to mandate that people be permitted to keep and bear arms in other corporate settings.
"My Rights as a sovereign citizen of this State and the country that I live in, is greater than ANY created Corporation."
My point is actually that a corporation is made up of other sovereign citizens, who continue to have rights over their own property, known in this case as corporate property. Your rights are not greater than theirs, despite the fact that they have formed a business organization.
Agreed, but the constitutional rights of the owners, which include not only RKBA, but the right to direct the use of their property, are not different. They remain the same. The rules of conduct pertaining to the individual business operations are different, it's true.
"These corporations are operating today under mandate from the government which prohibits the keeping and bearing of arms by passengers. You might argue, as I do, that this intrusion is a violation of the Second Amendment. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone who agrees with the policy of prohibiting arms on airlines arguing that that same government would not have the authority to mandate that people be permitted to keep and bear arms in other corporate settings."
In fact I do agree with you here that the government does not have authority to suspend RKBA on airplanes. However, I think that the airlines themselves *do* have that authority.
This is where I am arguing from:
Right now it's up to a private citizen to direct what comes on his property, no justification needed. We give our rulers power to overturn that, to take that direction over for themselves; we give them power to threaten our freedom, what's left of it. Including RKBA. My opinion is that any time a government takes on powers outside of constitutional restraints, all the restraints are at risk.
Additionally, some are saying that corporations are not private citizens, and thus don't have all the rights that we enjoy. My position is that because corporations are owned by private citizens, those rights apply.
I pretty much agree with your thoughts except that the company was really not disarming its employees except when they were on company property, which should be its right, even if ill advised.
They 'really' are attempting to disarm their employees, and it's obviously their intent.
-- And that is "ill advised" by the clear words of our 2nd. At least 2 state legislatures plus the Georgia supreme court agree that it is not a company power or 'right' to search private vehicles.
You say above such a choice is "ill advised", yet you argue they ought to have that power "even if ill advised." Can you explain why?
Yes. In a free country, you still have the abililty to make choices, even if your rulers think they are "ill advised."
'Rulers"? How odd.. -- Can you explain why people "ought to have that power" -- the power to ignore the constitution?
Why should we allow companies to have the power to ban guns in parking lots? It makes no constitutional sense.
Because it is our constitutional right to ban whatever we want in our own parking lots.
Around you go. The Constitution says our RKBA's "shall not be infringed". Parking lots are not an exception.
As for the private property vs private property, car owner vs parking lot owner, the corporation is not under a legal obligation to provide parking at all.
Local law says otherwise. Most larger companies are required to provide off street parking to employees & visitors as part of the business license/use permit process.
Well, once government takes control of part of a companies operations, you have to expect government to issue it's own rules as it sees fit.
Local laws governing parking have been long accepted as being constitutional.
But feel free to nitpick.
So in the sense that the lot was mandated by the government, not the company, I can see where the lot is essentially under government, not private direction. Whether or not government should have the right to mandate employee parking is another question.
Thank you for conceding the point that employees must use company parking lots. Given that, it is equally obvious that they cannot be forced to give up the right to have guns in their cars.
Your statement of the employers concern is obvious. My question regarding the bill of rights is, so far, unaddressed by your response. Freedom isn't comfortable. If one has the freedom to keep a bible locked in the car under the guaranees of the first amendment, how does one lose ones rights under the second.
I think you may agree with me on the above, but consider that corporate parking lots are an exception. OTOH, your last post indicates that you think that RKBA gives you the right to carry on the private property of others whether they want you to or not:
"'Rulers"? How odd.. -- Can you explain why people "ought to have that power" -- the power to ignore the constitution?
It looks like you are here wilfully ignoring that the Constitution does not give you the right to carry on someone else's property unless they say you can.
As you pointed out to me earlier in Exsoldier's post, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. My property.
Here'e my viewpoint:
It may be wrong of a business to ban firearms in employees' cars which are on the premises. But being that the business is not in fact infringing on the RKBA, it's more wrong to give government the power to force the issue.
if a company sets a policy regarding use of their property that is countered by government action, then that is still affecting private property rights.
If a company sets a policy regarding use of their property that is contrary to constitutional law, [IE; a parking lot gun ban] -- but then the ban is countered by government action, the company is no longer infringing on the private property rights of its employees. Justice has been served.
Private property rights of employees? The employees are on the property of the company. You can't even keep the terms straight here.
The employees have their private property [cars] on the company lot. The company has no power to ban arms from the employees property, get it? Try to keep up with the terms of the discussion.
What if I were to catch you on my land with a gun. Would I have no right to order you off?
You're twisting the logic of the issue. Employees are not being "caught" uninvited on your land. Their right to have a gun in their car is being violated.
An employee engaging in company in violation of company policy and is fired is no longer employeed, and is required to leave like a trespasser. Or is escorted out.
Those are company 'policies' that are violating an individual right. Companies have no power to violate rights.
What if you came to a party - and I did not want guns there because alcohol was being served. I see you have a gun - am I infringing your 2nd Amendment rights by telling you to leave?
My gun is locked & concealed in my car. Do you claim the power to search my car?
You didn't answer my question. I already said I saw you with a gun.
How did you 'see' my gun if it was concealed & locked in my car?
Do you have the right to stay on my property when I do not want guns there? You have a permit, BTW. But you are on my property against my terms.
You invited me to your party. I left my gun locked in the car. How am I violating your 'terms'?
Gawd, you are dense.
OK, fine. I did not see the gun. You have it locked in the trunk. But I requested that no guns be brought onto my property for the party. I find out you brought a gun anyway. Do I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL YOU TO LEAVE MY PROPERTY?
Don't waste my time or JimRob's bandwidth asking how I found out you had the gun. Under your rules for use of private property, do I have the right to tell you to leave?
In fact, do have the right to tell you to leave my property for ANY REASON?
Because there is a line drawn around every amendment--the clear and present danger line, you can call it. It's why you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Where that line is drawn for each right depends on the circumstances of the right involved, and that's the point of my comparison.
Who gets to draw the line? As an employer, I have had to give up enormous "rights" I had 50 years ago. I can no longer determine whom to hire, how to manage them, whom to promoteand in many cases, how much to pay them. How did the property rights that somehow invade a lock car's trunk remain so undiminished?
Indeed there is also a way to punish such places and see if the concept of good business overrules their negation of the BoR. A lot of local gun clubs have taken to printing business cards stating that such and such business will no longer be patronized by local gun owners based on store policy of not allowing CCW's on the premises....yada yada yada. Worked GREAT here locally when Denny's had such an absurd practice. My gun club used to go to Denny's after a morning on the range and we'd all walk in almost thirty of us and you'd see the managers eyes just glaze and hear him go ka-ching! and then somebody would notice the warning sign and we'd all get outraged and stalk out and go to another Denny's and do it all over again. That stupidity lasted about a month with all the clubs in the area doing this constantly.....
faireturn, I don't believe that our constitutional RKBA extends to the private property of others,
At issue here is the right to carry guns in your private property, your car, while in a company parking lot. No one is violating any company 'private property', as the guns never leave the car.
your last post indicates that you think that RKBA gives you the right to carry on the private property of others whether they want you to or not
My gun is in a locked car, - my property. I a not "carrying" on your property. Get it yet?
In a free country, you still have the abililty to make choices, even if your rulers think they are "ill advised.
'Rulers"? How odd.. -- Can you explain why people "ought to have that power" -- the power to ignore the constitution? -- Why should we allow companies to have the power to ban guns in parking lots? It makes no constitutional sense.
It looks like you are here wilfully ignoring that the Constitution does not give you the right to carry on someone else's property unless they say you can.
I can't stop you from imagining that. Nothing I've written here 'wilfully ignores the Constitution', and you know it.
As you pointed out to me earlier in Exsoldier's post, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. My property.
And as was pointed out to you earlier, your right to ban weapons does not extend to my property, my car, legally parked in your lot while I'm at work.
Here'e my viewpoint:
It may be wrong of a business to ban firearms in employees' cars which are on the premises. But being that the business is not in fact infringing on the RKBA, it's more wrong to give government the power to force the issue.
The fact is that 'the business' is infringing on the RKBA, and it is the governments job to stop such infringements. We empower local, state & feds to enforce our laws, among their other duties.
I agree completely.
I think I've made my arguments as clearly and simply as I can, so there's probably not too much point in repeating them, although I may go back and read the comments of others that I probably have missed.
The standpoint that I operate on and that normally, unless I screw up, dictates my opinions is that governement should not play a major role in the ordering and arranging of society. That's all.
It so happens that I'm a life member of the NRA, and have owned and used guns all my life. Sometime deer hunter, sometime upland game.
faireturn, I've made my arguments as completely, clearly and simply as I can. You don't think a citizen should have the right to make it conditional that people coming on his property should not have firearms (or other things, I suppose) in their car. I do.
I thought maybe that you made a distinction between residential and commercial properties, but apparently not.
I will have to settle for just telling you to keep your car off my property, if you inisist on keeping a gun in it that I don't want on my land. Although, truth be told, I doubt that I would mind. It's the right to control what comes on my own property that matters to me. Even including the interior of an automobile.
He also thinks the Constitution restricts individuals instead of just government. And when asked to point out where the Founders said the Constitution and BOR was a restraint on individuals, he cannot.
OK, fine. I did not see the gun. You have it locked in the trunk. But I requested that no guns be brought onto my property for the party. I find out you brought a gun anyway. Do I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL YOU TO LEAVE MY PROPERTY?
It's questionable, -- if our party is in Oklahoma or Utah, and I'm an employee working at your party, the answer is no.
Otherwise sure, you can get all upset and accuse me of having a gun concealed & locked in my car, but seeing you have no proof, you would look paranoid to do so.
In any case, I would have left when you first started acting odd about guns, not just because you had the right to set terms. I suspect most of your rational guests would have followed.
Don't waste my time or JimRob's bandwidth asking how I found out you had the gun.
Under your rules for use of private property, do I have the right to tell you to leave? In fact, do have the right to tell you to leave my property for ANY REASON?
Well, there are questions under the constitutions rules, dboy. -- But the facts remain in the cases at hand. -- Companies have no power to search employees cars for weapons. We have a right to carry arms in our vehicles, and it is a violation of individual rights to ban employees from having a gun in their cars. Let's hope the USSC someday backs up the States on this issue.
I can't figure out why I posted on this thread. I knew it was going to go this way.
I've made it clear that you have no constitutional power to search my car for arms. -- You do have the power to keep me off of your property. But when you allow me enter your property in my car, you have no power to search it later.
I thought maybe that you made a distinction between residential and commercial properties, but apparently not.
This is an individual rights issue about 2nd, 4th, - and private property rights. - I won't infringe on yours, nor allow you to infringe on mine.
I will have to settle for just telling you to keep your car off my property, if you inisist on keeping a gun in it that I don't want on my land.
No problem. Just keep in mind that employees & guests do have rights when on your property.
Although, truth be told, I doubt that I would mind. It's the right to control what comes on my own property that matters to me. Even including the interior of an automobile.
Thanks for your candor, Sam. Most here will not admit that this is all about control.. I prefer freedom.
______________________________________
dboy: -- He also thinks the Constitution restricts individuals instead of just government. And when asked to point out where the Founders said the Constitution and BOR was a restraint on individuals, he cannot.
195 by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
The proof is in Article VI, and in our oath of citizenship. Read much?
You misunderstand me. My position is that control of one's own property is the very essence of freedom. And rights.
Well in that case you'd have no objection to an employee/stockholder carrying on company property?
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.