POLITICS - (FL) Senate OK's Guns-At-Work Bill
Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
-
- Levergunner 3.0
- Posts: 961
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:42 am
- Location: Kalifornia Sierra Nevada
POLITICS - (FL) Senate OK's Guns-At-Work Bill
If I wasn't so cynical, I would guess that it's an election year...
Tom
(FL) State Senate OK's Guns-At-Work Bill
In the three-year duel over whether citizens should be allowed to conceal their firearms in locked vehicles at work, state lawmakers have decided Florida business owners will have to bite the bullet.
Siding with the influential gun lobby, the state Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a compromise measure allowing employees to stash firearms in their parked cars, despite the objections or policies of their employers -- as long as they have concealed-weapons permits.
''This is about a legal person that owns a legal firearm parked in a car that is legal, out of sight and locked up in a parking lot. Not anything else. It is a preservation of rights,'' said Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, who sponsored the bill backed by the National Rifle Association. Already passed by the House, the bill now heads to the governor, who will decide whether to enact it into law.
Over the last three years, lawmakers have grappled with the so-called guns-at-work issue in which the Second Amendment right to bear arms has bumped up against private property rights, setting the powerful gun and business lobbies against each other.
In the end, the watered down version of the bill was crafted to deny either side an unmitigated victory or inconsolable defeat. Employers would be banned from prohibiting workers from concealing guns in their locked vehicles on company property, but employees must now carry a concealed-weapons permit to do so.
The provision means only some 490,760 current permit holders could legally keep their guns at work, of an estimated six million gun owners in Florida, according to numbers from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and estimates from the NRA.
There is no way for employers to determine who has a permit and who does not, however, since the information is exempted from public records laws, and the bill bans them from asking about it.
On the other hand, concealed-weapons permits would seem to vouchsafe the carrier has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and has a felony-free record in most cases.
''This is light years away from what they originally asked for,'' bill opponent Adam Babington, director of coalitions and initiatives for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said, referring to the NRA.
Marion Hammer, a Florida-based spokeswoman for the gun rights organization, said the permit requirement was indeed unwelcome, ''but at least [the bill] provides a mechanism for employees to be able to protect themselves traveling to and from work without being harassed or abused by anti-gun employers.'' She would not comment on speculation the organization will return next year with a bill to reopen the window to a broader range of gun owners.
Over the past several years, the NRA has been waging a nationwide campaign to pass similar laws in other states; Georgia lawmakers voted last week to send a similar measure to their governor for signing.
Business groups have heatedly opposed the bill on the grounds it impinges on their private property rights and their ability to lay the ground rules for employment.
''This makes no sense to me, why you would take away the property and management rights of businesses,'' said Rick McAllister, president and chief executive of the Florida Retail Federation. ``This is not about guns.''
The Florida AFL-CIO, which emerged last year as the NRA's proverbial bedfellow on the issue, agreed on that much, though for different reasons.
''We do not believe that private business owners have the right to force their employees or their patrons to give up traditionally protected rights simply to have a job or buy groceries,'' said Rich Templin, a spokesman for the state's chapter of the AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions.
In debating the bill Wednesday, some senators expressed concern about the safety of employees.
''A person should be secure in their place of employment to know that someone won't run out to their car and get their weapon and perhaps inflict danger upon . . . anyone who happens to be there,'' said Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa.
Election year politics may have played a role in the bill's swift passage, some observers said, as Republicans look to engage the party's base that holds dear the right to bear arms.
Although opponents say they were no less adamant in their opposition to the bill this session, they were perhaps less demonstrative. Gone were the many press conferences unveiling television commercials and new polls showing public opposition. The Florida Retail Federation last year filled up a car in front of its Tallahassee offices with guns and other materials to highlight the dangers of allowing employees to take them to work.
McAllister said this year their wasn't much of a point.
''We were told early on by House and Senate leadership they were going to pass this bill,'' McAllister said.
The Florida Chamber's Babington added other imperatives, such as property tax reform and budget cuts, had taken legislative priority.
''The guns-at-work bill isn't solving any problem in Florida. There is no crisis, or any outcry,'' Babington said, adding legislators wanted to be done with it.
Tom
(FL) State Senate OK's Guns-At-Work Bill
In the three-year duel over whether citizens should be allowed to conceal their firearms in locked vehicles at work, state lawmakers have decided Florida business owners will have to bite the bullet.
Siding with the influential gun lobby, the state Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a compromise measure allowing employees to stash firearms in their parked cars, despite the objections or policies of their employers -- as long as they have concealed-weapons permits.
''This is about a legal person that owns a legal firearm parked in a car that is legal, out of sight and locked up in a parking lot. Not anything else. It is a preservation of rights,'' said Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, who sponsored the bill backed by the National Rifle Association. Already passed by the House, the bill now heads to the governor, who will decide whether to enact it into law.
Over the last three years, lawmakers have grappled with the so-called guns-at-work issue in which the Second Amendment right to bear arms has bumped up against private property rights, setting the powerful gun and business lobbies against each other.
In the end, the watered down version of the bill was crafted to deny either side an unmitigated victory or inconsolable defeat. Employers would be banned from prohibiting workers from concealing guns in their locked vehicles on company property, but employees must now carry a concealed-weapons permit to do so.
The provision means only some 490,760 current permit holders could legally keep their guns at work, of an estimated six million gun owners in Florida, according to numbers from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and estimates from the NRA.
There is no way for employers to determine who has a permit and who does not, however, since the information is exempted from public records laws, and the bill bans them from asking about it.
On the other hand, concealed-weapons permits would seem to vouchsafe the carrier has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and has a felony-free record in most cases.
''This is light years away from what they originally asked for,'' bill opponent Adam Babington, director of coalitions and initiatives for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said, referring to the NRA.
Marion Hammer, a Florida-based spokeswoman for the gun rights organization, said the permit requirement was indeed unwelcome, ''but at least [the bill] provides a mechanism for employees to be able to protect themselves traveling to and from work without being harassed or abused by anti-gun employers.'' She would not comment on speculation the organization will return next year with a bill to reopen the window to a broader range of gun owners.
Over the past several years, the NRA has been waging a nationwide campaign to pass similar laws in other states; Georgia lawmakers voted last week to send a similar measure to their governor for signing.
Business groups have heatedly opposed the bill on the grounds it impinges on their private property rights and their ability to lay the ground rules for employment.
''This makes no sense to me, why you would take away the property and management rights of businesses,'' said Rick McAllister, president and chief executive of the Florida Retail Federation. ``This is not about guns.''
The Florida AFL-CIO, which emerged last year as the NRA's proverbial bedfellow on the issue, agreed on that much, though for different reasons.
''We do not believe that private business owners have the right to force their employees or their patrons to give up traditionally protected rights simply to have a job or buy groceries,'' said Rich Templin, a spokesman for the state's chapter of the AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions.
In debating the bill Wednesday, some senators expressed concern about the safety of employees.
''A person should be secure in their place of employment to know that someone won't run out to their car and get their weapon and perhaps inflict danger upon . . . anyone who happens to be there,'' said Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa.
Election year politics may have played a role in the bill's swift passage, some observers said, as Republicans look to engage the party's base that holds dear the right to bear arms.
Although opponents say they were no less adamant in their opposition to the bill this session, they were perhaps less demonstrative. Gone were the many press conferences unveiling television commercials and new polls showing public opposition. The Florida Retail Federation last year filled up a car in front of its Tallahassee offices with guns and other materials to highlight the dangers of allowing employees to take them to work.
McAllister said this year their wasn't much of a point.
''We were told early on by House and Senate leadership they were going to pass this bill,'' McAllister said.
The Florida Chamber's Babington added other imperatives, such as property tax reform and budget cuts, had taken legislative priority.
''The guns-at-work bill isn't solving any problem in Florida. There is no crisis, or any outcry,'' Babington said, adding legislators wanted to be done with it.
Tom
'A Man's got to have a code...
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
-John Bernard Books. Jan. 22, 1901
'A Man's got to have a code...
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
-John Bernard Books. Jan. 22, 1901
- Rimfire McNutjob
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:51 pm
- Location: Sanford, FL.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Doesn't this violate the rights of the property owner, though?
It's sort of like smoking bans in bars and restaurants. While I avoid establishments that choose to allow smoking, I still feel it should be up to the guy paying the mortgage and taxes what legal behavior to allow on his property.
Should I not have the right to prohibit whatever items I choose in my own home? Should this not extend to business owners as well.
If this sort of thing goes too far, it could become legal to stage protests and political demonstrations in your front yard. That would be annoying to say the least.
It's sort of like smoking bans in bars and restaurants. While I avoid establishments that choose to allow smoking, I still feel it should be up to the guy paying the mortgage and taxes what legal behavior to allow on his property.
Should I not have the right to prohibit whatever items I choose in my own home? Should this not extend to business owners as well.
If this sort of thing goes too far, it could become legal to stage protests and political demonstrations in your front yard. That would be annoying to say the least.
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
- sore shoulder
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 2611
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:51 pm
- Location: 9000ft in the Rockies
Some states go so far as to consider your vehicle an extension of your home, mine is one, and it follows that in CO you can carry a gun in your vehicle anywhere and we also extend that to folks traveling through our state FYI. Using that very Consitutional precedent it follows that no one can tell you what you can have in your car. Where it becomes sticky is what you have on you when you get out of the car. I maintain you cannot tell me what I can have on my person, however you can certainly tell me I cannot be on your property. The difference is the 2A protects that right to be armed, so an employer basing employment on exercising your 2A right is in fact unConstitutional and a violation of your civil rights, just as it would be unConstitutional to base hiring/firing on race or free speech. Of course I understand there are limits to free speech, or more precisely consequences. However there are plenty of legal consequences for misuse of a firearm, or even threats. If you threaten to punch a co-worker you can be fired, and prosecuted.Jason_W wrote:Doesn't this violate the rights of the property owner, though?
.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independance, July 4, 1776
11B30
11B30
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
That is a valid counterpoint. However, I always thought the constitution only protected you from the state and not the private individual. At best, wouldn't an employer firing someone for exercising the second amendment bring on a discrimination suit?sore shoulder wrote:Some states go so far as to consider your vehicle an extension of your home, mine is one, and it follows that in CO you can carry a gun in your vehicle anywhere and we also extend that to folks traveling through our state FYI. Using that very Consitutional precedent it follows that no one can tell you what you can have in your car. Where it becomes sticky is what you have on you when you get out of the car. I maintain you cannot tell me what I can have on my person, however you can certainly tell me I cannot be on your property. The difference is the 2A protects that right to be armed, so an employer basing employment on exercising your 2A right is in fact unConstitutional and a violation of your civil rights, just as it would be unConstitutional to base hiring/firing on race or free speech. Of course I understand there are limits to free speech, or more precisely consequences. However there are plenty of legal consequences for misuse of a firearm, or even threats. If you threaten to punch a co-worker you can be fired, and prosecuted.Jason_W wrote:Doesn't this violate the rights of the property owner, though?
.
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
- sore shoulder
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 2611
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:51 pm
- Location: 9000ft in the Rockies
In a perfect world, yes, but we live in topsy turvy world now so no. You can only press charges against your employer now if you are a Muslim or illegal immigrant.Jason_W wrote:That is a valid counterpoint. However, I always thought the constitution only protected you from the state and not the private individual. At best, wouldn't an employer firing someone for exercising the second amendment bring on a discrimination suit?sore shoulder wrote:Some states go so far as to consider your vehicle an extension of your home, mine is one, and it follows that in CO you can carry a gun in your vehicle anywhere and we also extend that to folks traveling through our state FYI. Using that very Consitutional precedent it follows that no one can tell you what you can have in your car. Where it becomes sticky is what you have on you when you get out of the car. I maintain you cannot tell me what I can have on my person, however you can certainly tell me I cannot be on your property. The difference is the 2A protects that right to be armed, so an employer basing employment on exercising your 2A right is in fact unConstitutional and a violation of your civil rights, just as it would be unConstitutional to base hiring/firing on race or free speech. Of course I understand there are limits to free speech, or more precisely consequences. However there are plenty of legal consequences for misuse of a firearm, or even threats. If you threaten to punch a co-worker you can be fired, and prosecuted.Jason_W wrote:Doesn't this violate the rights of the property owner, though?
.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independance, July 4, 1776
11B30
11B30
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
All I worry about is the chance that this could extend to other privately owned establishments, such as a residence.
For instance, if I invited a recently made "friend" to my house and they promptly informed me they were an active member of NAMBLA, could I not legally throw them out?
What about if the local PETA chapter found out I'm a hunter and started their whole "meat is murder" schpiel on my front lawn?
I'm all for the second amendment, but I feel that private property rights have to trump the constitution.
For instance, if I invited a recently made "friend" to my house and they promptly informed me they were an active member of NAMBLA, could I not legally throw them out?
What about if the local PETA chapter found out I'm a hunter and started their whole "meat is murder" schpiel on my front lawn?
I'm all for the second amendment, but I feel that private property rights have to trump the constitution.
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
Most likely it's going to be a moot point anyway. With our PC Governor I doubt he'll sign the bill.
He won't even allow them to play our state song "The Old Folks at Home" otherwise known as "Way down Upon The Swuannee River" because in the second verse ( the one nobody ever sings) it uses the word "DARKIES" in a phrase. there is a move afoot right now to find a new state song. I wonder how much that's going to cost us?
He won't even allow them to play our state song "The Old Folks at Home" otherwise known as "Way down Upon The Swuannee River" because in the second verse ( the one nobody ever sings) it uses the word "DARKIES" in a phrase. there is a move afoot right now to find a new state song. I wonder how much that's going to cost us?
If you're gonna be stupid ya gotta be tough-
Isiah 55:8&9
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
Isiah 55:8&9
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
- Old Ironsights
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 15084
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Waiting for the Collapse
- Contact:
If a company has sold stock, it is not "private" - it is "publicly held" and it's property is not "private".
i.e., if I can buy a share of it, I own part of it, and as an owner, what I say goes.
For Mom's Diner and Bob's Grease Monkey Shop I would agree with you. But when it comes to these big employers - publicly held companies - they don't have standing as far as I'm concerned.
i.e., if I can buy a share of it, I own part of it, and as an owner, what I say goes.
For Mom's Diner and Bob's Grease Monkey Shop I would agree with you. But when it comes to these big employers - publicly held companies - they don't have standing as far as I'm concerned.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Another good point.Old Ironsights wrote:If a company has sold stock, it is not "private" - it is "publicly held" and it's property is not "private".
For Mom's Diner and Bob's Grease Monkey Shop I would agree. But when it comes to these big employers - publicly held companies - they don't have standing as far as I'm concerned.
That's not even accounting for all the federal subsidies some of these big boys get.
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
But once again, you can get into all kinds of trouble with that statement.Dirty Dan wrote:Nothing should trump the Constitution, 'cept the Bible.
OI made a good point about companies that go public. However, if private property rights do not trump constitutional law, you could potentially run into the problems I listed in an earlier post.
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
Most likely it's going to be a moot point anyway. With our PC Governor I doubt he'll sign the bill.
Rusty, here's a quote from Crist.
TALLAHASSEE -- The guns-at-work bill is on its way to the governor -- who said he's likely to sign it -- after the Senate passed it Wednesday with little debate and a 26-13 vote.
"I'm probably gonna sign it," Crist said afterward. "The 2nd Amendment is very important." The governor acknowledged the intense lobbying war that preceded the bill's passage, but added "people being protected, that's very important to me."
Source: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... 09030/1075
[
JasonW,
I believe you're thinking way too hard on this one.
Unless your home is used as a business with a city/county business license on an appropriately zoned property, I think you're in the clear.
This is more a "common sense" bill extending the rights already bestowed to the law abiding Floridians under Florida Constitution.
And BTW, ol' NAMBLA boy's least concern would be how his civil rights are being trampled and more about the trampling my foot does on his head. Same goes for the PETA people, especially if they were "TRESSPASSING".
...and I don't think he even knows it...Walks around with a half-assed grin...If he feels fear, he don't show it. Just rides into hell and back again.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Yeah, I tend to do thatmeanc wrote:
JasonW,
I believe you're thinking way too hard on this one.
What's worse though, thinking too hard, or not at all?
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
-
- Site Sponsor
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:05 pm
- Location: Lampasas, Texas
- Contact:
well Jason,Jason_W wrote:Yeah, I tend to do thatmeanc wrote:
JasonW,
I believe you're thinking way too hard on this one.
What's worse though, thinking too hard, or not at all?
It appears that I do too. I just posted this on the SASS wire.
I personally don't think it's a good idea to pass a law requiring the land owner/company owner to allow this. That can have many far reaching unintended consequences. You wouldn't want the government telling you that you had to allow someone on your property would you?
I think the better way to handle this is to assign liability to the land owner/company owner in the event that his "No guns policy" causes you harm as you travel to and from your work place at his business. If you are heldup ,carjacked or assaulted and it was the Company policy that prevented you from getting to your gun you should sue them. Also, if the Heller case is ruled in our favor you will be more likely to win this lawsuit.
Right now, the primary reason these companies have these policies is in the event a crazed employee goes on a shooting spree at work the "No guns policy" can help avoid lawsuits. They would be more easily sued if they allowed workers to have guns on their property.
I know it doesn't make sense because a good guy could more readily stop something like this from happening if he had access to his gun, but the insurers and lawyers aren't concerned about who gets shot. They are more concerned with huge lawsuits after the fact.
Suing them before the fact is what will change this. The bottom line is the bottom line $$$$$$$
Steve Young aka Nate Kiowa Jones Sass# 6765
Steve's Guns aka "Rossi 92 Specialists"
205 Antler lane
Lampasas, Texas 76550
http://www.stevesgunz.com
Email; steve@stevesgunz.com
Tel: 512-564-1015
Steve's Guns aka "Rossi 92 Specialists"
205 Antler lane
Lampasas, Texas 76550
http://www.stevesgunz.com
Email; steve@stevesgunz.com
Tel: 512-564-1015