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
Yes. You are. My right to the tools to defend myself. Incidentally, your property as well. That you not only deny that you are infringing my right to the tools of self protection, but then try and insinuate that your employees are your PROPERTY, shows exactly how insane you are. Just like the communists/socialists/fascists out there.
My being armed and able to defend myself in no way impinges on your right to own your business and run it as you see fit. If you will only hire disarmed serfs, then you have more in common with the slave owners of old than you do any free market capitalist who would immediately see the efficacy of having an ARMED on-hand security staff in each and every personnel.
Neat evasion luis. You will not defend the Constitution from individuals who infringe upon our supreme law? Quite an admission.
The supreme law applies to the government
-- And according to Art VI it applies to everyone that takes that oath. -- You did. - It applies to you.
individuals can't enact laws, they can assert their own rights on their own property.
Of course they can, but only those rights that do not infringe on the equal rights of others.
--- 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.
None of your property rights are 'expended' by honoring Second Amendment rights; -- thus you are sworn to defend the Constitution, and fight any infringement which seeks to violate the Second Amendment.
I defend my Constitution from the violation of its contents by government
Government only? -- thats an evasion of the oath you took.
No it's not.
Sad reply. -- Deny the truth if you must luis.
and as the Constitution does not grant the government the power to violate my property rights in the name of they who own no right to my property,
Who claims "they" are violating ~your~ 'property rights' by having guns in car trunks? That's your fantasy. - Get real.
They are...if I don't want guns in my property and they use the force of government to force themselves on to my property with a gun, they are violating my property rights.
Dream on luis. A gun in an employees car trunk does not "violate your property rights".
in defending my property rights from being violated by the government, I defend my Constitution.
Yet you refuse to defend our right to bear arms from those who want to ban guns. You can't honor just part of your oath luis. -- Admit it.
No one is banning guns, I am not seeking to ban guns
Companies are banning guns luis. Admit it.
I don't have the power to ban guns
Which is exactly my point luis. -- Yet above you've claimed you can, from car trunks.
nor does the government.
Governments in the US misuse their powers to ban guns luis. -- So do some business's & individuals. Admit it.
I have the power to set conditions on access to my property.
Yep, but not unconstitutional conditions.
Same reason I encourage my friends to come to my house with whatever arms they feel comfortable with. Woe betide those who try and crash one of my barbeques with mischief on their minds. If I didn't trust those people with personal arms, why would I be friends with them or hire them as employees?
But of course, - this whole issue is about unreasonable gun hating employers.
Which of course, -- most of the unreasonable 'property rights' freepers here will not admit.
Can you?
The exercise of their rights is subject to your review?
Employers who ban guns are subject to everyones scorn, luis. -- Learn to live with that.
Show me where in the Constitution you are given that power.
I was asked to take an oath to 'protect & defend' 51 years go luis.
That oath to the US Army is still valid as far as I know.
Why indeed? -- But there are many strange people in this world, and I've been at more gun bashing social affairs than I can count.. -- My wife is a liberal.. -- You learn to meet, and ignore, and laugh at the anti-gun nuts real fast..
Just like here.
No employee is required by law to park in the provided parking, no employee is required by law to drive to work, no employee is required by law to accept a job, no employee is required by law to remain in a job when they don't wish to remain in that job.
This issue is about violation of the property rights of the property owner in order to gain more convenient parking.
Answer one question tommy...if I show up on the doorstep of your house tomorrow, demand to be allowed in, and sit down to post on FR on your computer are you obligated to let me in, and are you Constitutionally forced to allow me to stay until I decide to leave?
It's your right as a business owner to make that choice.
Why would you promote taking other business owner's ability to make the same choice that you have the right to make?
Is it because you don't believe that they have the right to make choices in their own businesses?
Or is it because you don't agree with their choice?
Others don't have to agree with your choice, yet, they don't have the right to take your ability to chose from you.
"Same reason I encourage my friends to come to my house with whatever arms they feel comfortable with."
And I support your right to make that choice.
Why do you oppose other people's right to make free choices in who they associate with, and who they allow on their property?
You don't allow others to come on your property unless they abide by the rules you set for continued stay on your property...you say so right here:
"Woe betide those who try and crash one of my barbeques with mischief on their minds."
You demand the right to run your business and set rules for your property as you see fit, yet you support not allowing others to have the same right to chose as you do.
No employee is required by law to park in the provided parking
Off site parking is forbidden by local ordinaces at many business sites luis. Grow up & admit it.
no employee is required by law to drive to work, no employee is required by law to accept a job, no employee is required by law to remain in a job when they don't wish to remain in that job.
Asolutely correct louie. You are a master at stating the obvious.
This issue is about violation of the property rights of the property owner in order to gain more convenient parking.
No, it's about having a gun in your trunk while you're working. [get some new lines lou. This is getting boring.]
They could also be reasonable and provide 'gun parking' for employees who walked or took public transportation.
But of course, - this whole issue is about unreasonable gun hating employers.
Which of course, -- most of the unreasonable 'property rights' freepers here will not admit.
Can you lou?
The exercise of their rights is subject to your review?
Employers who ban guns are subject to everyones scorn, luis. -- Learn to live with that.
Show me where in the Constitution you are given that power.
I was asked to take an oath to 'protect & defend' 51 years ago luis. That oath to the US Army is still valid as far as I know.
Answer one question tommy...if I show up on the doorstep of your house tomorrow, demand to be allowed in, and sit down to post on FR on your computer are you obligated to let me in
No.
and are you Constitutionally forced to allow me to stay until I decide to leave?
No.
Any more silly questions louie? -- If not do yourself a favor and get rest.
I'm a contractor.. You call me out to your ranch to estimate a job, and I note the signs posting your property; they say, "-- No Hunting - No Trespassing - No Firearms -- Without express permission of the owner. --"
I get your job and we sign a standard construction contract.
Half way through the job, you think you see a gun locked in my tool truck, and order me to leave your place. -- I tell you that you are violating our contract, which has nothing in it about guns - or your ability to search my truck for weapons.
Now even if you can avoid paying damages in court, - was it worth your while to make an enemy for life?
You're lying tommy, if you weren't you'd be able to provide proof...you haven't because you can't; it does not exist.
"No, it's about having a gun in your trunk while you're working."
No one is telling you that you can't have a gun in your trunk while you're working, you just have to park someplace other than at an employer's property who does not want guns on his property.
See, it's about convenient parking no matter how desperately you try to twist the truth, or no matter how many times you repeat the lie.
"Employers who ban guns are subject to everyones scorn, Luis."
Fine, scorn them...I do as well.
Your scorn does not negate their rights to set rules of access to their property.
By the way, the Second does not mandate gun ownership to all Americans, and many Americans chose not to own a gun.
Are they the subject of your scorn as well?
"I was asked to take an oath to 'protect & defend' 51 years ago Luis. That oath to the US Army is still valid as far as I know."
And the moment that the government moves to infringe on my right to bear ams, or seeks to abrogate my property rights in an unconstitutional manner, I expect you to defend the Constitution as I will defend the Constitution. But the government is not infringing on anyone's rights here...other than the property owner's rights.
I expect you to defend my property rights, rights that are as "surely a right of mankind as liberty" to quote Thomas Jefferson.
I expect you to acknowledge that "the great and chief end therefore, of men uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their Property" as John Locke said, and that "wise and just governments" will "equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights" as James Madison (father of the Constitution) said.
"No."
You don't get to tell me "no" tommy, not if I am carrying a gun, because you can't violate my Second Amendment rights and not allow me in your house.
You yourself said so...the Constitution does not allow you to keep me from going into your house if I have a gun on me.
So, if I want to go into your house, against your wishes, for whatever reason I want to go into your house for, as long as I stand on my rights under the Second Amendment, you may not stop me.
Furthermore, I want to use your computer to post on FR, so you can't violate my First Amendment right by not letting me into your house.
Those are YOUR rules.
You brought a firearm into my property without my express permission, you violated the contract by not adhering to the posted rules of entry.
Do you have ANY respect for other people's property rights tommy?
Most liberals don't, and I can see you scorn for property rights all over this thread.
You posted that as a contrator, you would willingly violate posted rules of entry to private property, and that you would sue me should I throw you off my property for violating my rules on my propety.
You have no shame in admitting that you have no respect for the rights of others, not enough respect to seek the authorization which may have been given and instead threaten to bring a suit against me for having the temerity of expecting you to be enough of a man to either seek my express permission, or not take the contract based on your objection to my posted rules.
And the answer to your question tommy is that I would have no problem making an enemy out of such a scumbag.
You had no problem making an enemy out of me.
You want your rights respected?
Respect the rights of others.
For the same reason I'd just as soon shoot a slaver as look at one. I don't like others who think they can arbitrarily strip another person of their Rights. Which is exactly what you are doing when you tell your employee they must make themselves defenseless as a condition of parking in your parking lot. You are telling them their personal safety is worthless to you and they will submit themselves to your "benevolence" and possibly die, or ignore your arbitrary restrictions on their equal Rights and possibly run afoul of your hoplophobic paranoia.
So, don't take the job.
There are more people who do not keep guns in their cars, than people who do.
There are many, many employers who place no such restriction on their employees.
Why can't you work for an employer who does not restrict your ability to keep your gun in your car while you park on his property, and let those employers who don't want guns on their property hire people who don't care whether they can have a gun in their car or not?
Good question. All sorts of scenarios can be created to stump either of us. One of the responsibilities of concealed carry is not to alert others that you have a concealed weapon. Employers can provide lockers, or other suitable areas to keep weapons (although this is not the preferred solution - just a compromise for the moment.
Assume you invite some friends or acquaintances to your home to socialize. If one or two of your friends carry a gun, would you demand they leave your property and leave the weapon at home? Or would it be more reasonable to request that the person leave it in his automobile? Or in a safe area of your garage/basement/closet?
No, you are.
It's you who are advocating the violation of property rights in the name of convenient parking.
What is reasonable to do in my property is my decision, no one else's.
Dang. What's with all the school yard "I know you are but what am I" crap on FR these days.
I'm not advocating that you cannot own property. I'm not even saying that you can't write the rules for said property. What I take offense with is your malicious attitude towards firearms owners keeping their personal self defense weapons INSIDE their own privately owned vehicles.
I still need to protect myself too and from your place of business. Unless you want to provide an armed escort, keep your nose out of my vehicle.
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.