Posted on 02/08/2006 7:13:35 AM PST by neverdem
TALLAHASSEE
A bill being pushed by the NRA to allow people to keep guns in their cars on workplace parking lots faces a tough challenge from the powerful Florida Chamber of Commerce.
TALLAHASSEE - The National Rifle Association is pushing a bill that would penalize Florida employers with prison time and lawsuits if they prohibit people from keeping guns in their cars at workplace parking lots.
But the proposal is facing stiff opposition from a group just as powerful in the state capital as the NRA: Florida's biggest business lobby.
Mark Wilson, a vice president of Florida's Chamber of Commerce, which represents 136,000 businesses, said the proposal, to be voted on today in a House committee, is ''an all-out assault'' on employer-employee relations that intrudes on private property rights.
With other business groups expected to join in, the widespread opposition to the NRA bill sets the stage for a rare power struggle between two of the Legislature's mightiest lobbies. And some political observers predict that, for one of the first times in recent history, the NRA will lose in the Legislature of a state where one of every 49 people has a concealed weapons permit and an estimated six million own firearms.
Bill sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley, an Ocala Republican, said he filed the legislation to prevent ''back-door gun control.'' In the past two years, he has successfully sponsored bills limiting lawsuits against gun ranges, preventing cops from compiling electronic lists of gun owners and expanding people's rights to use deadly force if they feel threatened outside their homes.
''We just disagree that the business community's private property rights trumps my Second Amendment rights,'' Baxley said, noting he doesn't personally support carrying firearms in the workplace.
Under the bill, if business owners ban guns in cars on workplace parking lots, they could get sued and charged with a third-degree felony, punishable by a maximum five-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine. The bill has an exception for places like schools, where guns are banned by law.
Gov. Jeb Bush, who noted he helped reshape the controversial gun-range bill, said he's uncommitted right now and wants to ``let things develop a little bit.''
The measure was inspired by a case out of Oklahoma in 2002, when a dozen paper mill workers were fired after bosses found out they had guns in their cars. Oklahoma lawmakers passed a law similar to the Florida proposal, and business owners sued in federal court. Among them: ConocoPhillips. The NRA then launched a boycott, replete with billboards saying, ''ConocoPhillips is no friend of the Second Amendment.'' Since then, four states have passed laws like Oklahoma's, seven are considering them, and five killed the idea with relatively little debate, said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
He said the Florida legislation is faring badly because it tells big business what to do.
''I don't know what the NRA is smoking,'' Hamm said. ``They're taking on the business lobby, which is just foolish.''
Wilson, the Florida chamber executive, said employers have the right to regulate what happens on their property ``just like we have dress codes, just like we have all kinds of things. As soon as we allow a national organization to decide employment terms between an employee and an employer, we've gone too far.''
Wilson added that ``this seems to be a collision between the Second Amendment rights and property rights of homeowners and businesses.''
But the NRA's Florida lobbyist, Marion Hammer, said the federal and state constitutions don't expressly recognize employer rights to regulate behavior.
''The Constitution gives you the right to bear arms,'' she said. ``It doesn't say you have a right to come to work nude or come to work wearing a bathing suit, or how long your hair can be or whether you have facial hair or whether you come to work smelling because you haven't taken a bath.''
Hammer said she's not worried about taking on the chamber of commerce: ``The chamber represents self-interests. NRA represents the people. I fear nothing, except losing freedom and losing rights.''
Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report. mcaputo@MiamiHerald.com
Your absolutely right. They don't have a right to strip search you. It's voluntary....if you want to work there. I dislike it as much as you, I'm sure.
In general the parking lot is there, because the local govm't requires it in their zoning/building code. You have no right ot operate and demand some of your employees, or all of them use on street public parking. Also, to remind you, an employer has no jurisdiction over the vehicle's interior.
That's how the market works...and that's how property rights work (or at least they ought to). And that is really what this issue is about.
As to OSHA, for the most part it is an overburdensome, governmental regulatory agency that sucks up untold citzens funds, and infringes on property rights. I certainly don't want more of anything like that.
Anyhow...it appears we disagree on this issue. So be it. Others can decide for themselves. But i know this, I will never asceed to the government, by force of law, and again outside of war or insurrection, telling me that armed individuals whom I would otherwise not want on my property, must be allowed there against my wishes. That is the same slope the British took with the colonists.
You've been left with nothing but absurd comebacks on a serious subject.
If you believe that a Russian Air Force base could be built on a parking lot in the United States, then I don't see the reason why I could expect you to debate this with any degree of intelligence.
It's like debating with my six year old.
The point is simple...the Second Amendment does no more give you the right to enter my property carrying a gun against my wishes, than it gives me the right to preach Islam in your front yard against yours.
The Constitution is a constraint on government, not an imposition on citizens.
You've been arguing for some absurd Constitutional right to park, it's been more than established that your right to bear arms is not conflicted by my refusal to allow you access to my property bearing arms, your only argument being that it is inconvenient to park elsewhere.
You have no Constitutional right not to be inconvenienced.
You are arguing AGAINST individual rights.
If they had an employee contract indicating this...then those employees either had the option of finding another lot, finding another job, or, as they chose, to violate that agreement and then be responsible for the consequences.
I would not do what that company did...but I believe they have the right as the owner of the property (individual or company) to set the terms by which their own property can be visited, parked on, loiterd on, etc.
I agree whole heartidly about the shape of our free market society...but the answer is not to use the force of law when it is in our favor to disallow or abuse or infringe on other's property rights, even when we don't agree with them. And I believe that is what this is doing...but that is just my opinion.
So, in this socialist world where you live, everyone has a right to my property except me.
Correct?
What comes onto is the vehicle. His property right does not extend to the inside of the vehicle.
"I will never asceed to the government, by force of law, and again outside of war or insurrection, telling me that armed individuals whom I would otherwise not want on my property,"
The matter involves an employee, that is not armed in the parking lot, or any part of the workspace. The employers decision regarding whether, or not the employee is welcome, is limited to workspace and work quality.
"As to OSHA, for the most part it is an overburdensome, governmental regulatory agency that sucks up untold citzens funds, and infringes on property rights."
It's justification is to protect the rights of citizens of the US, that would otherwise be violated by unscupulous employers. Regardless of the worth of any particular regulation, the govm'ts main job is to protect rights and OSHA is one such branch which does that.
So who is going to enforce those rules if an employee decides he doesn't wish having HR staff crawling through his or her vehicle? That company (like Weyerhauser) is going to telephone the police...so there you go...government would eventually become involved.
As an aside, I'm guessing that not too many companies maintain kennels full of explosive-sniffing dogs either. There might be a few of these pups in the private sector, but again I'm willing to bet that most of them would come via law enforcement agencies and would be invited onto the property by overreaching, left-leaning employers with an ax to grind against uppity employees.
~ Blue Jays ~
Not in any way, shape, or form.
For the record, in my own opinion, an individual, a company, or any other private organization should be able to establish the rules concerning who and what comes onto their property, inside the vehicle or out, inside their breifcase or out, inside their brown paper bag or out.
If folks don't like it, they are free to go somewhere else, get another job, or, violate the property owner's wishes and take responsibility for the consequences if they are found out.
This is America and I am an Americam. I'll stand my ground and promote and protect Freedom.
Stay safe.
When the government violates the rights of industry owners in the name of the worker, we have socialism.
I've known and conversed with each of you many times over the years. I'd say we all agree on about 95+% of issues, and are very well and friendly disposed towards one another...including our views of the unalienable right to defend ones self and therefore to be bear arms.
However, if I let each of you know, straight up, before hand, that when coming to my house for dinner I didn't want you to bring a loaded gun into my house, I believe each of you would honor that request...or, you would politiely tell me that you weren't coming.
Jeff, no one here is claiming the right to bring a gun into an office, home or barn.
If I extended that to a get together, or work activity out in my barn...I believe each of you would still honor that request, or politely tell me you preferred not to come.
I would politely ignore your odd request and come ready to work with my tools & guns in my truck, and leave the guns locked in the parked truck.
I am not saying I would ask you that...but I know that if I did, you would honor my right to be, in essence, the King, of my own home and property.
Indeed you are king, but you are not entitled to insist that my vehicle be a 'gun free' zone.
Now, if you came armed anyway, if I had asked you not to bring firearms and saw you with one, why then I would politely ask you to either take the firearm somewhere off my property, or ask you to leave.
Obviously, there would never be occasion for you to see inside my locked truck.
On the other hand, if, in the unlikely event, someone accosted you and/or me while we were there, why then I would be glad you had it and we could use both your firearm and mine to defend ourselves. At that point, I would not make an issue of you having had it.
That's reasonable. -- At issue here are companies and individuals that are not being reasonable.
Without that happening, if you chose to bring it, then you would also have to be responsible for that act and my potentially asking you, as the property owner to either take it away, or leave.
Note...in none of this have I violated your right to bear arms. I have asked you as the owner of the property in question to not bring them...you are still free to choose either not to come, to come without them, or, as I have said, to bring them anyway and then be responsible for that decision.
Again, reasonable.. People are responsible when treated like adults.
I believe this covers the bases...the same principle must apply to someone's property, whether in their building or on the premises. Otherwise, property rights become meaningless.
Jeff, if all the corporations/companies in the USA were allowed to ban guns in parking lots, out RKBA's would become essentially meaningless for those who worked or did business with them.
Our founders fought against the government forcing them to house armed men on their property..the kings redcoats. To compel me, with the force of government, to accept onto my property armed individuals against my will (outside of a time of insurrection or war), is to, in essence, do the same thing as the King did with his redcoatsd IMHO, and I would be against it.
You are not being forced to have workingmen, customers, or guests park on your property. You are free to ban everything & anyone from your property.
-- But you may find it impossible to do business on that basis, because the rest of us have a right to keep arms in our vehicles.
That's my take and opinion on the matter.
And mine.
The property owner is not doing the violating here, for it is property. It is the ones demanding access to that property on their own terms.
Oh well, I will amiacably and reasonably, leave it at that. Stay safe...and do stay aremd, for in the end, in any case, it is your choice.
If folks don't want you armed onm their property...then boycott their property and their business and go where you can stay armed if that is your desire.
Ping for later.
There is no right to park. Parking is by permission. Granting of that permission on the employer's part is limited to considerations of space alloted, not to the contents of the inside of the vehicle.
"When the government violates the rights of industry owners in the name of the worker, we have socialism."
The govm't is acting to protect the rights of it's citizens. No employer has jurisdiction over the interior of a vehicle. The vehicle does not belong to the employer.
I do not agree with such decisions...but it is their property and their decision to make.
I do not believe there is any danger of all business banning guns on their premises. To much good blood flowing in too many good veins for that to happen. But, the issue ois that they do have that right if they so desire, on their property.
The answer is not to use the force of law to MAKE them accept those who bear amrs onto their property In principle, if we do that, we are in fact on a slope similar the King of England. The answer is to use our own choice of not going there or doing business there to exert a market pressure on them while allowing them their own freedom of choice as regards their own property.
Anyhow, my friend, those are my own thoughts.
The problem with your argument is the protection of the constitution and certain rights such as the right to bear arms. The employer and property owner has a right to excersize certain positions but not to violate rights. Try and tell someone who is a minority race you don't want them in your parking lot.
There's no need to get the police involved; the company could just fire the employee.
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.