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
Not true.
First gun control law in US history was enacted in 1792, it made it illegal for slaves to own arms.
From 1860 to 1890 native Americans were not allowed by law to own guns.
Abilene had a no guns allowed policy in the 1870's, the days of Will Bill and John Wesley Harding. Many western towns did, and many saloons required you to leave your guns outside prior to entering the establishment.
Today, "no guns allowed" remains (thus far) a time-honored traditional right of a business owner, even Buckskin Joe's Frontier Town and Railway restricts guns in the park.
What we have here is a basic argument for parking rights, versus the right of a private business owner to set the rules of access to his property.
We are asking the government to violate property rights in the name of convenient parking...they will be only too happy to oblige.
Will it be a good thing?
It will not.
The U.S. Constitution is a document detailing the powers granted to government by the people, it limits their intrusion into our lives according to our wishes. What it does not do in any segment of the document (none that I have seen) is to set rules for the behavior of the citizen.
In this case, the government has in no way restricted anyone's right to bear arms, the citizen has however defined the Second Amendment in respect to his private property; no where does the Constitution remove from the citizen the right to set conditions of entry unto his property, what it does do is to place a restraint on the government's ability to infringe on the people's right to bear arms.
People really need to think about this long and hard...your right to bear arms is in no way eroded by my unwillingness to allow you access to my property while carrying a gun; I am not bound to allow anyone (short of law enforcement officers with a proper warrant) access to my property at all. You have several choices once I make my rules of access known to you.
What is wrong here is to act to further erode a property owner's rights to set rules of access to his property, in the name of being entitled to convenient parking.
Who owned the parks?
Tell me tommy, where is the Constitutional Article limiting the individual rights of the citizens?
free dixie,sw
So, it's part of the State government...right?
I used to live in Dodge City and yes, they had a law banning guns North of the "deadline" or the Arkansas River.
The law was only enforced against Texans and Cowboys. The purpose was to allow the thieves in Dodge to rob them without fear of repercussions.
That hardly proves that arms were not freely worn in colonial and early America.
So do I.
Amendment IX.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your right to bear arms does not deny me my property rights, and your right to bear arms in the public square does not extend to my property.
Checkmate tommy.
How soon you 'forget' losing arguments lou:
Luis argues today:
The government may not abridge a citizen's right to bear arms, I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution.
-72-
Conversely, Luis argued recently:
--- 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.
Luis, 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 in effect sworn that oath.. -- Would you refuse on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution. --"?
112 tpaine
the parks are NOT city,town,county or state-owned & are SEPARATE entities. SOME actually levy taxes & have their own police/fire/maintenance departments.
VA is PECULIAR, goverment-wise. for example CITY governments are TOTALLY separate from county government, even when the city is wholly inside the geographical limits of a county! TOWNS, otoh, are SUBJECT to the county government. (to further complicate matters, SOME county governments ACT as if they were "chartered cities of the first class".)
free dixie,sw
Where you pay taxes, you rule, where you collect taxes, people rule.
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
Well Tommy, you now stand side by side with homosexuals, transexuals, and the gender-identity challenged in demanding to be granted protected class status by the government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I stand with our Constitution, while you deny that it applies to you.
Your stance also puts you squarely alongside Robert Reich..
Replies
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574293/replies?c=387
394
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
You stand on the Constitution? So do I. Checkmate tommy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No checkmate louie. Your position on this issue puts you solidly in the Robert Reich camp.. -- Admit it.
"Do you disagree with this principle?"
Of course I don't...but I am not an official, so I am not bound by the Constitution to honor your Second Amendment rights at the expense of my property rights.
Your RKBA's are protected from governmental intrusion by the Constitution.
As for my being a citizen, of course I am, and I am sworn to defend the Constitution, and I will fight any government law which seeks to violate the Second Amendment.
My right as a property owner is limited to my property, and does not limit your ability to own a gun, it does allow me to refuse you entry for specific reasons or even for no reason at all other than I don't want you in my property. I don't have to give you any reason why I won't allow you on my property whatsoever. The mere fact that I don't want you on my property is sufficient, and no one may violate my right to restrict access to my property to any degree, short of a law enforcement officer exercising a Court order via a properly filed, duly sworn warrant.
Any more B.S. arguments from you?
what i went through trying W/O SUCESS to plant a dogwood tree for the victims of 9-11 is BEYOND WEIRD. (i finally gave up on "my little project" after i found out that planting ONE TREE would require the approval of, at least, the DOD,the US Park Police, the Arlington county government, the VA Department of Transportation, the Arlington Park Board AND at least two private contractors!)
i spent the better part of 3 weeks (9-5PM) trying to get permission & (even with the assistance of US Senator Warner's office) couldn't get it done.
free dixie,sw
Nothing I've said is in contradiction, the Constitution applies to government, we GOVERN according to the Constitution, I don't GOVERN, I own property.
The Constitution applies to the States, I am not a State, I am a property owner, I don't enact laws for the general public, thus the restrictions places on the government by the Constitution do not apply to me as an individual.
I'm done with you, you are truly confused.
The government may not abridge a citizen's right to bear arms, I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution.
-72-
A very simple question luis:
Would you refuse to take this oath on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution --?
-- The Oath of Citizenship --
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.
Wrong! in the early days of the republic weapons were usually barred from churches, saloons, and courts of law.
Come onto my property and try to exercise your 1t amendment freedom of religion, then watch how fast I limit your rights...lol..come on use your brain
Where did you come up with that gem?
free dixie,sw
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.