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 ...
the rights of private proprietorships to control their parking areas would be preserved,
What is being "preserved"?
What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?
You are asking the wrong question. A person doesn't have to gain anything to have rights.
You claimed something is "preserved" by infringing on my right to have a gun in my car.
They gain the right to be secure in their private property.
My gun locked in my car is not a security threat to their property. Can you agree?
I believe that few will choose to take a stand against firearms in the face of competition from corporations which are not allowed to infringe the right.
You may not carry on my private property even if I choose to carry on business on that property.
A gun locked in my car is not being "carried" on your property. Can you agree?
There is no right to incorporate and be granted limited liability. That is a legal privilege granted by legislatures based on expected benefits to the whole people. One of the benefits can be the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to corporate parking lots.
You are making part of my argument for me. Thanks. Are we in agreement then on the other parts above?
I predict that any law which forces private property owners to tolerate firearms owned by others on their property could be struck down by the US Supreme Court.
A law which requires someone to tolerate your bearing arms on another's property, in effect, prohibits that person from excluding you because you are bearing arms.
Having a gun locked in my car while at work is not "bearing arms on another's property". Can you agree?
Similar laws do exist in some circumstances with regard to racial discrimination. If you are suggesting that a law prohibiting discrimination against a person bearing arms, then that is much broader than a law concerning what people may have in their parked cars. I would support laws which prohibit discrimination against those who bear arms, but I think that practicality concerns dictate that private property rights take precedence.
And I ask why parking lot property rights should take precedence over our right to keep a gun in our cars. Can you explain?
I still maintain that mandating that arms be allowed in corporate parking lots would achieve 99 percent of the benefit with virtually NO legitimate private property concerns.
There are lots of privately held companies in the USA. Why do you want them to have the power to ban guns in employees vehicles?
Sam Cree wrote:
RKBA applies to public property and your own private property, not the private property of others. Same goes for the entire BOR.
As I said before, your rights don't include bringing arms onto the private property of someone else. If the Courts have ruled that arms in a car are not really on that property, then the Courts are every bit as guilty of parsing the language as was Bill Clinton.
I still want to know what to do with my pistol which I have the "right to carry" when I get to the front gate of the parking lot.
I understand you may prohibit me form bringing it into the building, but my car is my home away from home. Why should you be able to dictate to me what I keep in it.
I am, in fact, an engineer. But perhaps I missed my calling.
My approach is not so much based on "incrementalism" though there may be good legal reasons to do so.
Rather, my thinking is very much influenced by a couple of principles that liberals never seem to consider. One principle is that "that government is best which governs least". Thus, if 99 percent of a benefit can be derived by a change in corporate powers, I prefer that to changing private property laws.
The other principle, and perhaps it has a name that I don't know, is that laws should be as simple, clear, and straightforward to enforce as possible. That is why the War on Some Drugs is an abomination and has led to restrictions on carrying cash or buying cold medicines. Violations of this principle are also responsible for filling our courtrooms with cases which should have been decided outside of courtrooms. In an attempt to be "fair" about everything, liberal laws create spider's nests of special cases and exceptions.
For that reason, I would prefer a broad change which outlaws all discrimination based upon bearing arms, rather than a "firearm in parking lot" exception to private property rights.
I don't really want to be able to dictate what you keep in your car. I just want to retain the right to be able to dictate what comes onto my own property, which includes cars and their contents.
FWIW, my opinion is that if as a society we are actually going to trust ourselves to keep and bear arms, and so far, we do, it's still in the BOR, then as employers, we shouldn't worry about our employees being armed. I personally let my (very few) employees bring arms onto my property. If there was one I didn't trust with a gun, I'd let him go rather than tell him to leave the gun at home. Because then trust would be the issue.
More to the point, I worry that large companies who prohibit arms on their property are doing it out of a desire to be politically correct, which is reprehensible. Or maybe they fear lawsuits, which is a comment on the legal profession.
In spite of all that, I don't think government should be given the power to direct property owners in what their employees may bring on the property. Make that strongly don't think.
Unfortunately, our very own US Supreme Court just trumped that right by an act of judicial activism, thus creating systemic abortion.
"The question remains, why do you think you need the power to keep me from having a gun in my car?"
I really don't need the power to keep you from having a gun in your car, I even want you to have one there. I just want the power to keep cars containg guns (or anything else) off my own property, if I so choose. If I want to keep cars containing little old ladies for Kerry (which, unfortunately are legal) off my property, I want that right too, in fact it seems more reasonable than keeping cars containing guns off. But it's the same right.
The idea that a car on someone else's property acts as a small oasis of its owner's property, and thus has immunity, like an embassy in a foreign country for instance, is kind of a fascinating idea. Not one which I agree with, though.
Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?
"I assume the term "guns-at-work" was selected by opponents of the bill? It certainly gives a different impression from "guns locked in your car.""
I think your right. It is a very misleading based on the facts. I have no problem with an employer that sets a policy that something like guns, booze, or smoking isn't allowed at work. They own the facility and it is there right. But this is very different. To me a car is private property. Companies shouldn't have the right to regulate what you have on or in your property.
As long as you are in lawful possession, I have no right to bar you from the curtilage of my property. I can under the castle doctrine, prevent you from entering my domicile.
But folks lets leave aside the business aspect and private property for one moment. Can the government especially local government prevent me as a teacher from having a gun locked in my car? Because once I roll off school property....I'm in da HOOD......
Must you provide justification for keeping a car off your property? IMO, it's the property owner's discretion, no justification required.
But yeah, leaving aside the property rights issue, seems to me that in some schools the teachers ought to be armed in the classroom.
In this instance, the private parking lot property ends at my private property, my vehicle.
The question remains, why do you think you need the power to keep me from having a gun in my car?
I really don't need the power to keep you from having a gun in your car, I even want you to have one there. I just want the power to keep cars containg guns (or anything else) off my own property, if I so choose.
Why would you so choose, when you say you even want me to have one there?
The idea that a car on someone else's property acts as aof its owner's property, and thus has immunity, like an embassy in a foreign country for instance, is kind of a fascinating idea. Not one which I agree with, though.
Well, our constitution agrees with the citizens home as a "small oasis" from unreasonable searches, why would you consider a car any less?
Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?
Honestly, the thought never entered my mind [I'm 68]. -- I first saw that idea posted about a year ago here at FR, when the Oklahoma incident arose. Why on earth would anyone who supports the Constitution -want- to hang a sign prohibiting guns on his property? In America that's like waving a red flag at a bull.
Faireturn, I personally wouldn't want to keep employees from carrying. What I want is solely the power to control what's on my property, including contents of cars.
As I said, my few employees routinely carry on my property, which pleases me.
But I believe it's up to me, not the state, to determine these things on my own property.
And, IMO, if we give the state the power to insist that guns may come onto one's property without their consent, then we risk giving it power to also prohibit such a thing. The power to truly infringe the RKBA, which I don't believe is happenning in these corporate parking lots.
I kind of go along with the idea of a car being an extension of one's home, but I don't believe one can "extend" one's home onto someone else's private property. I don't think it matters whether it's business or residential.
Well at least you honestly admit you want " -- the power to control what's on my property, including contents of cars. -- "
Most employers are using bogus liability arguments.
And, IMO, if we give the state the power to insist that guns may come onto one's property without their consent,
The state is obligated to enforce our 2nd Amendment against all infringements. Parking lot gun bans are infringements.
then we risk giving it power to also prohibit such a thing. The power to truly infringe the RKBA, which I don't believe is happenning in these corporate parking lots.
You are letting your beliefs blind you to the truth. These bans are orchestrated by the brady bunch faction, imo.
I kind of go along with the idea of a car being an extension of one's home, but I don't believe one can "extend" one's home onto someone else's private property. I don't think it matters whether it's business or residential.
Parking your car in a private or public lot does not "extend your home" by any stretch..
Agreed. No Trespassing laws are as old as the republic. If you POST your land you are justified in enforcing the ban. But if you don't post the land, especially rural land and you find somebody on your property you are within your rights to ask them to leave but you cannot take further action as long as they obey the request. But you can't have them arrested for the initial trespass as this would be the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional.
I agree. What you do in the workplace is their business, but what's in your car is not. Even (in my opinion) if you have drugs or explosives -- that's a police matter, and if they show up with a search warrant, then you're toast.
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.