I am a huge 2A guy (the moniker might be a clue!), but I am really quite amazed if this is FL law.
You mean that a private company has no right to demand employees not carry, so long as they do so without displaying the firearm, and that is state law? Really?
That is rather draconian, don’t you think?
I mean, I thought the right to do what you will with your own property was the REASON for 2A?????
Please comment and enlighten me.
Until laws concerning liability and the property owner's duty to protect is changed, I'm all for it.
I don’t think it’s draconian. I think it’s a protective measure to prevent concealed carry permit holders from having to jump through hoops to determine when they can and cannot carry. It’s to prevent situations like what we have here with this lady who was fired for carrying on the job. The only recourse that the bank has is if she was not carrying legally. There is some indication in the article that she may not have been, because it says that someone “noticed that she had a gun” and reported her for it. If her gun was ghosting to the point where people could see it through her clothes, or if she actually brandished it inside the bank or showed it off to someone, then she wasn’t complying with the law and the employer can act. However, it’s just as likely that an employee who knows that she carries concealed and has a grudge against her reported her just to get her in trouble, without actually seeing anything. I don’t think the bank has much of a case here in their own defense.