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 ...
Nebulous.
"Ah, so my employer CAN restrict my First Amendment rights on the job. "
The keyword is on the job. The workplace does not extend into the employee's vehicle.
"A serf has no choice who he works for."
Everyone has to work. Everyone does not have the capacity and/or the opportunity to run a business. It is the govm'ts job to protect rights and define property lines. Tradiitonally the property line was drawn at the vehicle body, or saddle bag. Employers have attempted to extend their property line into the employees.
This was done, because the legislatures failed to ban, or restrict firearms as they wanted. This action by the employers prevents employees from choosing effective self defense measures off the job, traveling to and from work. It's a valid exercise of govm't power for the legislature to acknowledge and protect their employees rights. Especially when the exercise of those rights occurs outside the workplace.
The parking lot is the employer's property. You car is parked on it. He has the right to set terms for his property.
Everyone has to work. Everyone does not have the capacity and/or the opportunity to run a business.
There are businesses that do not have this restriction. Work for them. If you used the marketplace of ideas, the companies in question might change their policies for business reasons, instead of resorting to government force.
It is the govm'ts job to protect rights and define property lines. Tradiitonally the property line was drawn at the vehicle body, or saddle bag. Employers have attempted to extend their property line into the employees.
Their property line is at their property line. They cannot force a search. But they can demand that you leave and terminate your employment.
This was done, because the legislatures failed to ban, or restrict firearms as they wanted. This action by the employers prevents employees from choosing effective self defense measures off the job, traveling to and from work. It's a valid exercise of govm't power for the legislature to acknowledge and protect their employees rights. Especially when the exercise of those rights occurs outside the workplace.
The lot belongs to the employer. Once again, use the marketplace of ideas, instead of government force.
I'm not interested in allowing them to establish these bogus ideas, or rearrange the property boundaries as is being done here. This is no more than a blatent attempt at adverse possesion, and gun control by proxy. As long as these grabbers are left unchallenged, the eventuality will be that insurance concerns will demand this policy. LaPierre recognizes this.
Having the legislature correct this is no different than having govm't interfere in the workplace to prevent employers from exposing their employees to cyanide, beryllium, mining risks, ect...
"The parking lot is the employer's property. You car is parked on it. He has the right to set terms for his property.
I've been there before. Employers don't have the right to make that demand. If they're all so concerned about it and they can go to hell and take their stinkin' parking lot with them to posses and rule over for all eternity.
Well, as I previously posted, you already have my arguments and I yours, not much point in repeating them to each other endlessly, point by point. Or going round and round, as you said.
But I do have a question. May the homeowner keep another person from carrying a firearm on his property if he crosses the boundary on foot? Does the RKBA, in your opinion, allow a homeowner to make it conditional that persons entering his property on foot be unarmed?
Because, if I understand you correctly, it is the fact that the car is private property that makes the difference to you here.
Well, here you are disallowing the *right* of the business owner to control what happens in his own parking lot.
It's a parking lot. The employer has the right to decide who can park and what can be parked.
Nothing gives him the right to extend his parking lot inside the car. He may not dictate and rule as if the inside of the vehicle was his parking lot.
-- there is no doubt in my mind that the property owner may create any conditions he wishes, without justification, regarding the presence of that car on his land.
Not at all; -- if you invited me and my car onto your land without an initial search, you have no power to search me or my car later. [unless you can get a warrant] IE; The owner can't "create any conditions he wishes, without justification." He too is bound by law, even on his property. -- Obviously, his best recourse is to get me to leave.
Well, as I previously posted, you already have my arguments and I yours, not much point in repeating them to each other endlessly, point by point. Or going round and round, as you said.
As long as you are confused about the law , I feel obligated to explain, as it is my duty defend the constitution.
But I do have a question. May the homeowner keep another person from carrying a firearm on his property if he crosses the boundary on foot?
Depends on the purpose of the "crossing". Say I'm tracking a wounded griz, and I cross onto your posted gun free ranch without seeing your sign.
You then come up insisting that I disarm myself for the trip back off your property.
-- Can you agree you have made yourself a problem with an unreasonable demand? Do you really think I'm going to lay down my weapon & walk away?
Does the RKBA, in your opinion, allow a homeowner to make it conditional that persons entering his property on foot be unarmed?
Sure, you can post your property with 'no guns, no hunting, no trespassing' signs. But you can't force people to read the sign, can you? Read your state laws on 'posting property'. Those laws do not give you the power to break other laws in protecting yourself from trespass.
Because, if I understand you correctly, it is the fact that the car is private property that makes the difference to you here.
How many times must it be said that the Georgia Supreme Court decision on this issue is constitutionally correct?
You are being evasive, but thanks.
EXTRAORDINARY LIABILITY INCURRED IF BUSINESSES BAN LAWFULLY OWNED FIREARMS
(a) Businesses incur an extraordinary liability should customers or employees be attacked while at the business or in the parking lot of the business when the management has specifically banned the individual's right of self-protection.
(b) The exposure for employers is even greater when an employee's right of personal protection is stripped away. Employees have a right to have firearms in their vehicles for protection on their way to and from work. While customers and clients can do business elsewhere, employees have to go to work. Employers are, therefore, responsible for the safety of their employees while they travel to and from work.
(c) Requiring an employee or prospective employee, as a condition of employment, to give up his or her personal protection rights and privacy rights is flagrant employment discrimination.
(d) When businesses discriminate against their employees for exercising a constitutional and state protected right, they incur exposure that is not present when they do not interfere with constitutional, civil and human rights.
(e) Businesses are prohibited from discriminating against persons because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. They are also prohibited from discriminating against persons who carry firearms in their vehicles for protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting. Further, business may not substitute their own storage policies for statutory requirements.
(f) When businesses post signs attempting to prohibit customers from having legally owned firearms stored in their vehicles while shopping or visiting their facilities, they are practicing extreme discrimination against customers who have taken responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their families while traveling.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. Having a firearm in your vehicle is clearly keeping and bearing.
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you try to package it. Calling the gratuitous banning of firearms a safety issue is a blatant attempt to hide an anti-gun political philosophy. And it is a political philosophy that will be costly in terms of liability due to the extraordinary duty to provide more extensive safety and protection for customers and employees, and the inherent litigation that will result from failures to do so.
Thanks much. I was going to look and see if that info was in this month's copy of "American Hunter."
I happen to agree with most of the points made by the NRA there. I just think that a business owner has a right to run his business as he sees fit. To make unwise choices or even unfair ones. Because while people have to work, they don't have to work *there.*
I also agree that gun bans in parking lots are part of the anti gun, leftward push that's been so prominent in the US since the 60's. We have to fight that, but not, IMO, by giving government greater power than it already has, since that's exactly what the Left is pushing for. Yes, I know that others on this thread don't think that's giving it more power, that RKBA covers cars in parking lots. Seems silly, but that's the main bone of contention I think.
I agree that it's discrimination against gun owners. And that it's wrong. However, IMO, it's not up to the federal government to tell a business where and how it may discriminate. It really shouldn't have been up to federal government to direct non discrimination on the basis of race, religion and gender. Unfortunately, such an overwhelming and monolithic majority of Americans were unjustly discriminating on those bases that government eventually was forced to step in and relieve us of a portion of our freedom to decide whom we hire.
Anyway, as I said, I'm against giving government increased power, even for a good cause. They might use it for a bad cause, like shutting down RKBA.
Well, as I previously posted, you already have my arguments and I yours, not much point in repeating them to each other endlessly, point by point. Or going round and round, as you said.
244 Sam Cree
Though you omit the context, I am content for you to repost those comments of mine.
You are being evasive, but thanks.
Correct.
Here's my take on doing that. Say you work for a private nongovernmental employer (this exempts me as a school teacher) and your employer places a private ban on guns in parked cars. Folks who are holders of concealed wqeapons permits can sue if they are injured by a criminal attack on their way to or from work. It's a case with "legs" because it would bring up both of the main justifying processes of tort law: The "foreseeability test" That a criminal attack was foreseeable and preventable and the second part which is the crucial but for the actions of the defendant said victim of such attack herein known as the plaintiff, could have had at least a chance of avoiding victimization. I think that such a lawsuit would even trump a pre-agreed to document stating conditions of employment. In similar fashion that a pre-nuptial agreement can be broken.
I know just about nothing about tort law. But yes, I can see where one could sue their employer by demonstrating that he was a crime victim due to a company policy of banning firearms from cars in the lot. OTOH, if someone went postal, couldn't the reverse form the basis of a suit?
But here's the real thrust of a defense: If the employer had access to firearms on the premises, the playing field would have been leveled which is all any tool would do. OR why weren't there safeguards like metal detectors & cameras in place to prevent weapons from entering the building? Ah one more thing just entered my mind that might very well prevent such a suit: mental incapacity.
No, I'm wondering if a person who was injured during a "postal" incident could sue the employer for not having provided a safe workplace. Perhaps you know the results of such suits, if they have occurred?
I agree that "postal" incidents would be less likely to happen, and end more quickly if the crazy knew that others present were armed. As they say, to quote Lazarus Long, whom I have actually never read, "an armed society is a polite society." But I'm not confident that you could get a jury to see that in modern America.
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.