In 1987, Florida wisely affirmed personal freedom by letting law-abiding
citizens get permits to carry concealed weapons. But this year, the legislature
decided it was not enough to let licensees pack in public places. They also
should be allowed to take their guns into private venues -- even if the property
owner objects.
The "take your guns to work" law says anyone with a conceal-carry permit
has a legal right to keep his gun locked in his car in the company parking lot.
Until recently, companies had the authority to make the rules on their own
premises. But when it comes to guns, that freedom is defunct.
The National Rifle Association says any corporation that forbids firearms in its parking areas is violating the 2nd Amendment. That may sound like a promising argument, since the Supreme Court recently struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as an infringement on the constitutional guarantee. It's not.
Now, as the article correctly points out, the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms from incursions by the government. It doesn't protect an individual from incursions from other individuals. The right to bear arms doesn't mean an individual has the right to step onto someone else's property with a gun if the owner doesn't want them to.
Of course, the article points out a much more practical problem with this law.
Conceal-carry licensees complain that if they can't keep their guns in their cars, they will have no protection on their way to and from work. That's true. But what about employees who walk, bike or take the bus? Since the law doesn't give them the right to take their guns into the workplace, they have to leave them at home. Should the state force companies to let workers carry pistols into the factory, office or day-care center?
This is not a place where the government should substitute its judgment for that of the property owners. One lawyer told The Bradenton Herald, "I have clients that have to carry out terminations. Sometimes that termination is volatile. A lot of places have a policy where they walk the terminated employee to his car. What if you walk the guy to his car that has a gun? I wouldn't want to be that supervisor."
So, what we have is a law that even forces employers to allow employees to carry a firearm on their premises as long as they have a conceal carry permit. Often times, employers have to fire employees. I will let the audience do the math on the nightmare that can eventually lead with the wrong employee.
12 comments:
It's this type of lunacy that creates problems for those of us who represent the sensible and reasonable approach to gun ownership.
Companies that currently forbid or permit the presence of guns on their property could work with gun owners to establish guidelines upon which a permit to allow a gun in a locked container inside the trunk would be far more reasonable than an attempt to force the company into allowing a gun owner to take his/her weapon any place at any time.
The permit I suggest would be reviewed every year and any employee who has displayed an emotional or mental problem would be prohibited from receiving such a permit or to have it revoked. As an added precaution, his/her vehicle, locker, etc would be subject to constant, but random searches to ensure that he/she did not violate the refused/revoked permit.
Before a gun owner takes his/her weapon onto the property of another individual, he/she should make certain that the presence of his/her weapon, under proper precautions is permitted by that property owner. An exclusion would be if the gun owner comes upon a crime in progress and his/her weapon will be of benefit in preventing the criminal from doing additional harm or damage or escaping.
Lunatics of the left want all laws concerning gun ownership and use written to delute or even abolish the 2nd Amendment while and benefiting the criminal. Lunatics on the right simply go to extremes and far beyond what is reasonable to protect the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. We are forced to deal with both extremes, which receive far greater media attention, while attempting to ensure that the 2nd Amendment is not destroyed in the process.
One group that is working overtime in their attempts to dilute or revoke the 2nd Amendment is the MSM. Yet, these same jerks abuse the 1st Amendment far beyond what harm occurs from abuse of the 2nd Amendment. The majority of deaths in Iraq since the fall of hussein can easily be lain at the feet of the MSM for their arrogant abuse of the "pen" in how and what they present as the news. The twisted and distorted reporting and outright lies have given the terrorist support while misleading the American people who in turn revoked their original support for President Bush and the US military. The next time you see the funeral or coffin of a US soldier who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, tell the next leftist "journalist" that you see that that deathis due to his/her immoral "reporting".
The way I understand rights is that you have a right as long as that right doesn't infringe on someone else's right.
As such, if I am scheduled to speak at a conference, you don't have the right to shout me down. Your free speech right has now infringed on my own.
The same thing is in play here. Just because people have the right to bear arms doesn't mean they are allowed to impose that right at someone else's property.
This law isn't merely dumb it is dangerous. It is only a matter of time before there is tragedy as a result of this law. The wrong person will be fired carrying and then tragedy will occur.
A car is an individual's property. We are talking about people with a concealed carry permit, in other words, they are responsible people. the history of people who have concealed carry who use their guns in anger is very very small. On the other hand, bad people can buy or steal guns illegally and have a horrible history of gun crime.
In short, your fears are misplaced.
If you want to worry about property rights, then out of control environmental laws and regulations and the supreme courts support of using eminent domain to condemn property from an individual and sell or give it to another private company that will bring in more taxes to a local government are real threats to liberty.
Here is what confuses me - if the lunatic employee is willing to break the law about not killing people, why would he be constrained by the law to keep his gun off private property?
Let me answer both at once. A car maybe private property, but the parking lot that it is parked in is not the owner's property.
Second, people become a little crazy sometimes after being fired. These people may in fact have been rational prior to being fired. Companies probably have measures in place besides a person's word to make sure guns aren't brought onto their premises.
Other than the government, name a company that searches employee vehicles. I'll be surprised if you do.
Despite being on private property, a person's vehicle is also private property, and the rights to the contents of the vehicle belong to the vehicle owner.
I think despite what the company owner wants, it seems to me the vehicle owner's rights come first. Therefore, if the employee leaves their gun in their car, there's little the company can do about it that I would call constitutionally lawful.
The better way around this is to allow the company to locker the guns for the employee if they choose to.
Now let's take this a step further. What about a person that visits a business and carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit? You can't really do anything about that either, can you.
I think the bottom line is people can't dictate where anyone else can carry a gun as long as the person can legally do so.
The exception is private property of course. You can as the property owner ask the person to remove the gun from the property or leave altogether.
How about this one? Rental property owner doesn't like guns but rents to a person that has same. Who has the right to do what? I think you are going to find out that the rental property owner gives up the right to prohibit guns inside the rental property despite owning the property. The property owner might put a prohibition on guns in the lease, but I doubt it would hold up in court.
Another thing to think about is people with CCP's rarely commit crimes. Based just on this statistic why is there even an arguement?
Charlie Ehler
No the better way to do this is to allow companies to decide for themselves what people can and can't do at work. Once you are someone else's property you must respect that it is their property.
The whole premise of second-degree murder is the fact that is is spontaneous, non-premeditated, and/or perpetrated in a fit of rage. If the fired employee has the weapon in his car, he has the motive, the means, and the opportunity, and right there, that's murder in the second degree.
Besides employee termination, work itself can be very stressful - there are numerous instances where too much provocation can make an employee turn an easily accessible weapon on co-workers or himself.
Finally, if a person goes and buys property, they have the right to do whatever they want in that property, save for violating federal law, but this right of theirs allows them to control their property as they see fit. I can stop Howard Dean from giving a speech on my lawn because I don't like what he's going to say. I can infringe upon his right to free speech on my property.
I read the article, and I read all the comments, and I have a couple of questions.
So let's say I work for XYZ Corp. I have a CCW and would like to carry my gun at all times. XYZ sends out a memo stating that no weapons of any kind are allowed on the premises, including your car.
OK. Being a law-abiding citizen with a CCW, I obey (since I want to keep my job). So I leave my gun at home.
The parking lot has no security officers and is poorly lit at night.
I am approached by a mugger and he inflicts bodily harm on me, causing me numerous medical bills and lost work.
I obeyed the company's wishes, but do I have any recourse? Or am I legally and financially screwed. After all, if I pursue legal action against work, I will be terminated, regardless of the outcome. Thoughts?
Locking the gun in the trunk does little good up until the time you retrieve it. Which could be too late. If you make me lock up my gun, then you are taking away my ability to protect myself, so therefore it is YOUR responsibility to ensure my safety.
And like charlie ehler said, the fact that crime statistics showing CCW's as the antagonists are slim to none, then it's hard to maintain that stance.
As I've said over and over, gun control measures only affect law-abiding citizens. Lunatics and criminals will get what they need, when they need it, and could care less about your rules.
To mike volpe, we need stats on people going crazy when being fired. I've been let go twice due to downsizing or position evaporation. I was angry. Real angry. But guess what, I drove the speed limit back home and mowed the lawn. But never ONCE has my anger translated to rage.
But let's say for the sake of argument that a CCW gets fired and somehow "loses it" and starts on a rampage. Unlikely, but stay with me. And, for the sake again, XYZ allows it's employees to carry inside with a CHL. But that day, this fictional CCWer just happened to think he was an onion and all of his coworkers were breath mints. (I'm trying to stick to the "losing it" motif, I'm assuming that's what happens to people when they get fired.) So he pulls out his gun and starts waving it around trying to decide who to shoot. What happens then? I haven't a clue. But don't be shocked when a bunch of CCWers suddenly leap up to defend themselves and their red Swingline staplers.
[no fictional people were harmed during this comment, all animals were supervised by the ASPCA and have been spayed or neutered.]
I am curious about this loaded hypothetical. Not only does this hypothetical company not allow guns, but you are now walking at night, and they don't have a guard on duty. I am no lawyer but in this case they would likely face all sorts of problems in a suit.
I don't understand your point. This isn't about some nuts that believe in taking someone's rights away. This is about respecting private property rights.
Everyone can have a hypothetical. How about a hypothetical in which the company allows folks with CCW to carrry. They are now walking in the same dimly lit parking lot. They think they are approached by a mugger and shoot only the person is another co worker.
What is your point?
If you are so for the 2nd amendment that you disregard property rights, you don't have any idea what a right and freedom is. It is ironic for some to call those that are trying to protect property rights nuts.
Just because someone has a CCW doesn't mean they can walk into my condo with a gun if I don't want them to. Or do you believe that they can walk onto someone else's private property with a gun without the owner's permission?
Mike, it boils down to fear and assumptions.
I'm all for property rights. I run a business and and have to enforce those rights at least twice a month.
I was merely playing devil's advocate.
You mentioned, "Second, people become a little crazy sometimes after being fired." I left the debate over property rights to address that issue with a hypothetical, maybe poorly. But it's that kind of general thinking that many of our politicians have today. Violence is everywhere. It's always been there, and it's never going away. But making rules to try to ebb the flow of violence only endangers those who listen and heed the rules.
But how does this correlate to property rights? (shrugs) If the owner of said property doesn't want guns on his land/buildings then that's his right. Clearly. And as a law-abiding citizen, I will comply.
MY question was, if someone DOES think he's an onion and starts shooting up the place, who has recourse? I will do my best to research this tonight, but I think it's a valid claim. If I come to your condo (hopefully invited), and leave my gun the car, what recourse would my family have if I'm killed in a home invasion? I know, another hypothetical, but based in reality.
And another assumption you make, "Everyone can have a hypothetical. How about a hypothetical in which the company allows folks with CCW to carrry. They are now walking in the same dimly lit parking lot. They think they are approached by a mugger and shoot only the person is another co worker."
Any CCWer or anyone familiar with self defense will have issued verbal commands (quite loudly) asking their intent. We don't just shoot into the dark. The purpose of the dimly lit parking lot was there to illustrate the fictional company's lack of concern for safety, not because every pro-gunner loves playing "Whack-A-Shadow-Mole."
Those of us who choose to legally carry a gun make assumptions that violence can strike at a moment's notice. No references needed, it's a fact. And we want the ability to have a level playing field.
Those of you (you included based on your assumptions about people in general) who are against gun ownership and personal carry make assumptions based on perceived immaturity. Clearly we can't handle the responsibility to let's ban them. Just because someone wrote on the wall doesn't give property owners the right to take away our magic markers. (Don't read too much into that, simple analogy, although in the hands of my 2 year old niece they are considered weapons of mass destruction.)
Just like in free speech, there's a difference between freedom and decency. We allow free speech here. But if it shows a lack of decency, then we have a chat with the employee.
Same can be said for legal gun carry. We're not waving them around in the air, whipping them out to see who's is bigger. They're tucked, out of sight, in a holster. It's about exercising decency with the rights we're allowed to have.
If a company sets a policy and that policy leads to violence, then certainly the company should be held responsibl. Still, it is that company's choice to set that policy.
We can all make hypotheticals, however if a company sets policy and that policy becomes tragically erroneous it is the company's responsibility. When the government forces a policy upon a company that is potentially dangerous, that is unacceptable.
I am for small government. I don't want the government forcing anything on a company. I want company's to make decisions for themselves. That's what I am mostly for.
Post a Comment