NRA bill would OK guns in cars at work

MiamiHerald.com ^ | Feb. 08, 2006 | MARC CAPUTO

[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

[stand watie]

MANY companies REQUIRE their employees to park in "designated parking areas".

i don't have time today to go look it up, but i believe there is a federal court case that is "on point" on this issue.

as i recall it, the judge ordered the company to provide spaces where weapons could be SAFELY/SECURELY stored while at work, as a way to protect BOTH the employee's right to bear arms AND to protect the property owner's rights as well.

NO RIGHT is ABSOLUTE. (figuring out HOW "conflicting rights" can be accommodated is ONE of the reasons we have courts of law.)

free dixie,sw

[Beagle8U]

"The SCOTUS has already weighed in, and allowed employers the ability to discriminate against smokers in the hiring process, and by extension during their tenure as employees."

When did SCOTUS rule on smokers ?

I missed that one, ya got a link?

[stand watie]

NOPE it is NOT an "abrogation of all our property rights".

see #321.

free dixie,sw

[tpaine]

States can make constitutional rules about how you use your property.

Luis Gonzalez Translation: government can usurp your property rights.

Luis, you argued quite differently recently, -- and I agreed:

--- we govern according to what the Constitution says.
It says that Amendments apply to the States, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Quite true Luis, -- but then Article VI goes on to say that all officials "-- shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; --"

Do you disagree with this principle?
Have you ever served in any official capacity, been a member of the armed forces, or a naturalized citizen?
-- All of us have sworn that oath..
-- Would you refuse to swear on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution. --"?

[stand watie]

can you cite that USSC case? i'd like to read it.

free dixie,sw

[Mini-14]

Don't be surprised that some gun owners wish to disarm other gun owners. Here's an example I saw at my conceal carry training course in North Carolina:

A student I'll call "Biff", repeatedly asked the instructor on where to get a sign barring licensed individuals from carrying at his business. The instructor repeatedly stated that he knew of no source for obtaining such signs. Later on Biff started giving out more details on what he wanted for a sign. He wanted a magical sign that would prohibit everyone except for himself from carrying! To quote Biff, he said "I don't want any of 'THAT' going on around MY business".

There you have it -- bigoted gun owners who want to disarm everyone else and leave them vulnerable to criminals.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...we govern according to what the Constitution says..."

GOVERN...related to government, and government is limited by the Constitution.

The Constitution is a constraint on government, not an imposition of citizens.

My land is my private land, and I am in my land my own government.

I am not an official, and those officials are duty bound to stop government from encroaching on rights...you claim a right to park on my property, against my wishes.

You don't have that right, and since you don't have that right, you now argue that government must violate my rights to allow you convenient parking.

You are a statist, and support collectivism.

[humblegunner]

I thought you were banned.

[Luis Gonzalez]

http://www.fairmeasures.com/ask/enews/archive/winter96/new04.asp

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I thought..."

Your post fell apart right at the onset.

[spunkets]

"The parking lot is private property, it is not a public realm. If the employer makes it clear up front that they do not want firearms on their property,

The car ain't there property. The employer gets to decide whether, or not they want the car parked, no more.

[stand watie]

THANKS. i'll go look up the case & read it.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

rotflmRao!

free dixie,sw

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution."

It's an old liberal trick, parse in order to misdirect.

I am not bound by the Constitution to honor your Second Amendment rights on my property.

You, on the other hand, have NO CHOICE, but to accept my rules for access aotherwise you are not allowed on my propery.

The Constitution binds the government, and limits the government's actions.

[stand watie]

btw, i would NOT work for that firm either. perhaps that's why i run my own shop.

free dixie,sw

[spunkets]

"You have been arguing in defense of the right to smuggle on this entire thread."

The interior of the car is not your property. It has nothing to do with smuggling. Smuggling is an illegal activity. Owning a car is not. It's like owning a parking lot. The owner gets to decide if he wants the car parked there, or not. That's the full extent of his property right.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The employer gets to decide whether, or not they want the car parked, no more."

And they don't want it parked there if you have a gun in it.

Period.

Thanks for finally agreeing with my point of view on this.

[humblegunner]

Your post fell apart right at the onset.

Well, you still have your endearing quirkiness it seems.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, I was never banned.

[Luis Gonzalez]

smug·gle (smgl)

v. smug·gled, smug·gling, smug·gles

v.tr.

1. To import or export without paying lawful customs charges or duties.

2. To bring in or take out illicitly or by stealth.

To bring in or take out illicitly or by stealth.

If I tell you that you are not allowed to bring porn to your place of work, and you sneak porn in, then claim that I have no right to search you because I want to make sure that you're not bringing porn into the workplace, you are claiming the right to smuggle; A.K.A. illicitly ringing something banned into the workplace.