State Senate OK's guns-at-work bill (Florida)

In the three-year duel over whether citizens should be allowed to conceal their firearms in locked vehicles at work, state lawmakers have decided Florida business owners will have to bite the bullet.

Siding with the influential gun lobby, the state Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a compromise measure allowing employees to stash firearms in their parked cars, despite the objections or policies of their employers -- as long as they have concealed-weapons permits.

''This is about a legal person that owns a legal firearm parked in a car that is legal, out of sight and locked up in a parking lot. Not anything else. It is a preservation of rights,'' said Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, who sponsored the bill backed by the National Rifle Association. Already passed by the House, the bill now heads to the governor, who will decide whether to enact it into law.

Over the last three years, lawmakers have grappled with the so-called guns-at-work issue in which the Second Amendment right to bear arms has bumped up against private property rights, setting the powerful gun and business lobbies against each other.

In the end, the watered down version of the bill was crafted to deny either side an unmitigated victory or inconsolable defeat. Employers would be banned from prohibiting workers from concealing guns in their locked vehicles on company property, but employees must now carry a concealed-weapons permit to do so.

The provision means only some 490,760 current permit holders could legally keep their guns at work, of an estimated six million gun owners in Florida, according to numbers from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and estimates from the NRA.

I presume that the "castle" includes one's person, right?

Not to my way of thinking. One's "castle" is a structure with rights of ownership attached.

One's person is another matter. It is inviolate. No one may legitimately lay a hand on one's person or restrain one without permission/authority. Specifically; agents of the state may do so under restricted conditions which are the subject of law...the authority "We, The People" have allowed them. An employer may only do so to the extent the employee agrees to.

But we all must remember, the employer's buildings are his "castle". The employer may set up any rules he desires in his "castle" which do not violate the law. Employees and visitors must decide for themselves if these rules are tolerable.

If the employer's rules in his "castle" are intolerable, the employee/visitor either does not enter the "castle" or immediately leaves. If "We, The People" feel these rules are uniformly excessive; then "We, The People" correct it through establishing additional law.

This is what "The People" of Florida have done. They found that employers were routinely violating a fundamental principle of our civilization, the "castle" principle as applied to one's vehicle. So, "The People" of Florida corrected it through legislation.

Should employers also be restricted from infringing our other fundamental rights at work, like freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches?

The short answer is: No. The longer answer is more complex.

The Constitution and amendments not only spells out the limits of federal government, but it specifies the rights of "The People" (individual rights) and reserves all other rights not specified to the States and "The People" (the ultimate authority and source of power).

Notice Constitutional limits were only placed on government. State and local government can only do what "The People" authorize through legislation (except for those items granted by the Constitution to the federal government). The federal government is constrained in the same fashion but also is not allowed any action outside that specifically enumerated in the Constitution (this is being grossly violated every day). And finally, no government can deny in any way "The People" their rights spelled out in the Constitution (also grossly violated every day).

But employers and business owners are not government. They are also "The People". In their "castles" they can make any rules they want not prohibited by law. It is initially up to the employee/visitor to determine whether he feels these rules are reasonable. If so, he will voluntarily submit to a reduction in his rights. If not, he will leave unhindered.

If employers/business owners uniformly start making rules which are unacceptable infringements of fundamental rights, not only will the employee/visitor refuse to submit to them, but as "The People" will make law and force it on the employer/business owner through the courts.

A wise employer will only make rules for his "castle" which are rational, necessary, and acceptable. Otherwise he will find himself in serious trouble with "We, The People".

Long answers to two good questions. Parting shot: Castles are castles. But they only remain standing if they support "The People's" rights.

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.