Posted on 04/11/2008 1:39:08 PM PDT by neverdem
It would be prudent for members of your Editorial Board to at least read the Constitution before claiming that HB 503's protection of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the right of self-defense erodes another constitutional right. What other right does it erode? The answer is none.
Your editorial, "Gun bill would allow one constitutional right to erode another" (Tuesday), is not only based on a false premise, but it also clearly misrepresents the proposed legislation.
Nowhere in either the U.S. Constitution or the Florida Constitution are businesses given this mythical right they claim they have to control everything on their property. No such right exists. And nowhere are businesses authorized to usurp constitutional rights of individuals.
Nor do businesses have the right to search private vehicles of customers or employees. Or to ban the lawful possession of firearms or any other legal property in a private vehicle simply because the vehicle is parked in a parking lot provided for customers, guests and employees.
Do law-abiding people have the right to carry and store firearms in their personal vehicles for lawful purposes and keep those firearms locked in their vehicles in parking lots? The answer is yes.
The U.S. and the Florida Constitutions both give citizens the right to keep and bear arms and the right of self-defense. Further, F.S. 790.25 (5) specifically authorizes the carrying of firearms in private vehicles for lawful purposes.
Then, do business owners have a right to pre-empt constitutional and statutory rights? The answer is no. But they are doing it anyhow, and it must be stopped.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Florida Alert: Your Personal Protection Could Mean Your Unemployment
Friday, April 11, 2008 1:22:54 PM · 23 of 23
archy to neverdem
She asked me what I could do to help her. Unfortunately, I was helpless.
United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Section 1983:
Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18,
Chapter 13, Section 242:
Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
If I run a bar and wish to throw out someone who constantly uses my place for loud harangues against society, I have the right. If, as the same owner, I wish to prevent my patrons from being armed in my place of business, I have that right as well.
I believe zealously in the Second Amendment. Without it, the others are perishable. But that protection should be from the actions of encroaching government power. It should not be, nor do I believe it is, a license to carry my weapon anywhere with no regard for the consideration of the private property of others.
That does not mean that they don't need protection from the actions of private citizens.
From the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”
We institute Governments to protect our rights from the actions of others.
We have Bills of Rights to protect our rights from the actions of governments.
When there is a conflict of rights, we have legislative bodies, courts, elections and so forth that are supposed to come to an equitable arrangement.
Bump for later
If you invite the public onto your private property here in Florida you can't legally prevent the carrying of licensed concealed weapons. There is a list of prohibited places in the law (bars are one of them) but most public places are not.
You still can't have a gun in the school parking lot.
Yes.
It should not be, nor do I believe it is, a license to carry my weapon anywhere with no regard for the consideration of the private property of others.
This purpose of the law is to prevent employers from violating the private property, the vehicles of the employees, IIRC.
Offer the wives/girfriends/dates of accompanying off-duty police officers a free drink in you establishment and advertise it. That should take care of your problem whether or not any actually show to take advantage of the offer.
Anyone drinking there will assume that one or more of your customers are off-duty cops.
That's why the founders envisioned a small government of limited powers, not the sprawling monstrosity that we have today.
Your car is your property, not the property of others. What lawful property is in your car is your business, not the business of the person in whose parking lot you park it.
And the lot in which you park your car is the property of the owner, and you are parking there under his permission, so he has the right to set the rules as to what you bring in--and the conditions of doing so.
There are certain legal limits to the restrictions one may impose when one openly invites the public onto one's property.
If the parking lot had a fence and a manned gate with a prominent "Defenseless Victim Zone" sign posted along with all the other conditions of entry onto the property, perhaps including physical search, they might have some wiggle room on this, but an open parking lot with multiple entrances and no access control is another story, and that represents the vast majority of businesses across the state.
And aside from that, a corporation is a creation of the State, so while in some respects it retains the rights of its pseudo-person status, it is entirely subject, as a creation and privilege of government action, to the regulatory action of the government.
And besides, is the gun-banning business willing to be strictly liable if someone they've "contractually" disarmed is harmed by a violent criminal to, from, or while at their place of business? If a battered wife is brutally assaulted by her infuriated ex-husband (who also has access to the unguarded parking lot) while getting out of her car on her way to her cubicle, will that business pay the full sum of her medical bills and lost pay?
If they didn't wash their hands of the obvious consequences of disarming lawfully armed individuals, there wouldn't be such public and legislative outrage about this situation.
More concisely - I’ve seen this discussion framed as a “right to a safe workplace” by banning guns. But that’s almost Orwellian - the only safety that banning the guns of licensed, background-checked law-abiding citizens insures is the safety of a violent attacker.
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.