Posted on 07/08/2008 1:21:49 PM PDT by neverdem
So, yea, Disney is right to be concerned. On the other hand, Disney is wrong to deny their employees the right to carry guns on their way to and from work which is what they're doing with this parking lot deal.
A reasonable thing to do would be for Disey to build a "gun safe room" in the employee preparation area. That way they could bring their guns into the room, and out of their cars, and have them safely locked up during the day.
In the meantime the affected employees should take Disney to court for engaging in a conspiracy to deny them their civil rights.
At every park's entrance.
From what i read of the Fla. statutes, The House of Mouse doesn’t qualify as an exemption. What, do they think they’re below the law??
Should Disney employees with concealed-weapons permits be allowed to keep their guns in their cars while at work?
Yes.
All other employees are able to. (14462 responses) ...81.1%
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-guns-disney-poll-070208,0,431434,post.poll
It would be reasonable for Disney to provide security so their employees have a safe working environment. Its not reasonable to restrict a law abiding persons rights on the grounds someone else may break the law.
Seriously folks, if someone is going to commit murder at work does anyone actually think they will worry about breaking the no gun at work rule.
its not about work place safety, its about perceived liability issues and control.
“...keep guns in their cars on Disney property.”
I agree . I refuse to submit myself to situations where someone requires me to disarm then has neither the duty nor capability to protect me . Since I retired I no longer fly commercial for this same reason .
Aha! The stealth exemption.
Had Disney tried for an clause that was clearly granting themselves an exemption, it would not have passed. But, they apparently realized they could sneak this one in. And they were right.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
It’s the happiest place on Earth!
Apparently Disney Corp thinks they are exempt from the Constitution too.
Disney claimed they are exempt because they have fireworks on property. Way away from his car in the parking lot. He works in security, he already holds a position of “authority” (as opposed to being a soda jerk).
Some suspect that Disney lobbying efforts may have gotten the “exemption” into the law.
Florida legislature disagrees with you. They find that the car belongs to the man driving it and that he should not have to surrender his commuting safety to comply with Disney policy.
“No vacation dollars for Disney from my family.”
same here! now the terrorist know where an easy target is.
10/6/2007
A Tulsa federal judge has ruled against the state in its attempt to make sure employees can take guns onto their employers' property.
U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.
Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.
Whirlpool Corp. opted out of the Tulsa lawsuit in November 2004, and the Williams Cos. and ConocoPhillips took over as the primary plaintiffs.
Williams later dropped out of the lawsuit, leaving ConocoPhillips, which is based in Houston but employs more than 3,000 people in Oklahoma, to carry on with the case.
Tulsa attorney Steve Broussard, representing ConocoPhillips, said Friday that the company is pleased with the ruling.
Kern concluded that the proposed changes to Oklahoma law conflict with -- and are legally pre-empted by -- the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act.
That federal law requires employers to lessen hazards in their workplaces that could lead to death or serious bodily harm. The measure also encourages employers to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.
According to Kern's opinion, Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota and Kentucky have passed similar laws, while 13 states have rejected such measures.
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has embarked on a state-by-state campaign to get legislatures to enact laws that require employers to allow their workers to bring guns onto company parking lots.
"When you get off work at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock and you're driving home, you have the right to protect yourself if you're accosted on the highway," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president has said.
The amendments to Oklahoma law were made after forest products giant Weyerhauser Corp. fired eight employees in 2002 when guns were found in their cars on company lots in Oklahoma. Federal courts later upheld the firings.
Will Heller affect these rulings made in 2007 and before?
Which is why I never buy Conoco gasoline. And I drive a lot.
However if they find you carrying inside the park they will charge you with trespass.
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.