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
I never really understood the desire of some people to rifle through the private belongings of others.
Frankly, I find it bizzare to say the least. I guess some folks are control freaks, or have weird fetishes, or just enjoy abusing their authority over others.
I've always respected the private property of others. I don't go through women's purses when they leave them unattended on a date. I don't dig through workers toolboxes when they take a bathroom break. I don't sneak around through my neighbors house when invited over for dinner.
I guess some folks *do* these things, and they tend to show up on threads like this. It is really kind of creepy.
Dont want it searched? Walk to work or park on the street.
Like I said, that is creepy. It sounds like you would have had a promising career as a Stasi agent. Too bad for you, they are out of business.
Not only is it absurd, I find it downright creepy and even un-American that someone would claim authority to rifle through another person's private property.
There is another "reason" or at least justification. Corporations are not people, except as provided by law. Those laws are designed to give the people who actually own corporations protections against risking any more than they have invested. It goes back to the Dutch explorers, at least. Companies, not being people, have no rights, none. They have priveleges granted by government. In return for those privileges the government may limit what would otherwise be private rights.
And of course as others have mentioned, there are some competing rights considerations as well. In such cases the solution is often the minimum possible restrictions on the rights (or privileges) of both sides of the issue. In this case that would mean such things as requiring firearms to be locked in vehicles and not visible from outside, which is an infringement but a livable one, similarly, any objective analysis will show that no real injury at all is done to the company. (As we all know, such policies do nothing to stop criminals or the insane, and only guarantee them a safer "work environment", ie. "Gun Free Victim Zone".)
You, sir, are 100% correct. Although I've argued this point here in the past and you would be surprised at the number of people who claimed that corporations have Rights.
Do I have to worship the god you dictate?
-----
The problem I see with that thinking is that YOUR policy against me bringing by gun into your parking lot, conflicts with MY right to have my gun before I get to YOUR parking lot, and when I LEAVE your parking lot..... I am not sure if there is an easy solution to this
Maybe a business oportunity here...??? public use gun lockers to drop off/pick up your gun OUTSIDE the parking lot?
BTTT
There isn't. You have the rights of the property owner versus the rights of the citizen guest. Both are quite valid.
Overall, I say let the market decide -- I'll take my business elsewhere if I can. And if rules are to be made, it would be best to err on the side of individual liberty.
That's a BS argument, you don't have to park on his parking lot, park elsewhere and walk.
You have no right to enter my property if I don't want you on my property, and if you can't adhere to my conditions of entry, I don't have to allow you on my property.
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.
Perfect example...if you come on my property and start conducting Islamic prayer services in my yard, I'll have you removed, by force if necessary, because your right of freedom of religion does not supersede my rights as a property owner.
Your rights end where mine begin.
Your argument assumes a right to enter that parking lot. You don't have that right unless it's given to you by the owner.
It takes a court order for the government to do that.
Your right to carry ends at the edge of someone else's property.
which argument do you suggest is "BS".. I think I made a valid argument for both sides.. and simply pointed out that the ballance between the two is not easily made.
Yet, you claim right to use the parking lot I paid for however you want to use it.
The right you claim as the owner of that car applies to the owner of the parking lot.
There is no balance...property rights trump.
You don't have to park in my lot.
Regardless of how this comes out, I will continue to do what I please with my private property (my automobile) and my employer can take a flying leap. It's none of their business, and I will never consent to a search of my vehicle, their fantasy life regarding my private property notwithstanding.
exactly the reason why I stated that the balance between the rights are not easily achieved.. in essence an employer who makes it difficult for an employee to exercise their "right to carry" while NOT ON THE CLOCK... basicly to and from work... is a fair question for an employee to ask.. IMHO an employer does not assume ANY liability by NOT creating a "prohibition". The decision to carry a firearm in your vehicle should rest with the individual not the company they work for..
Not exactly...you REALLY require a concealed carry permit to do that:
"It is unlawful to carry a handgun concealed on or about one`s person or concealed or openly in a vehicle without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
If you don't, they're pretty specific on how and where they should be in your vehicle:
In order to transport or possess rifles and shotguns in a motor vehicle, Michigan law requires that they be unloaded and broken down or enclosed in a case, carried in the trunk of the vehicle, or inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle."
I'm no lawyer or law student, but it makes sense to me.
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.