POLITICS - (FL) Senate OK's Guns-At-Work Bill

[don Tomás]

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.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

Finally.

[Jason_W]

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.

[sore shoulder]

Doesn't this violate the rights of the property owner, though?

.

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]

Doesn't this violate the rights of the property owner, though?

.

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.

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]

Doesn't this violate the rights of the property owner, though?

.

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.

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?

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]

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.

[Rusty]

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?

[Old Ironsights]

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.

[Jason_W]

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.

Another good point.

That's not even accounting for all the federal subsidies some of these big boys get.

[Dirty Dan]

Nothing should trump the Constitution, 'cept the Bible.

[Jason_W]

Nothing should trump the Constitution, 'cept the Bible.

But once again, you can get into all kinds of trouble with that statement.

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.

[Dirty Dan]

Where the problem arises is reading things in that aren't there.

[meanc]

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".

[Jason_W]

JasonW,

I believe you're thinking way too hard on this one.

Yeah, I tend to do that

What's worse though, thinking too hard, or not at all?

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

JasonW,

I believe you're thinking way too hard on this one.

Yeah, I tend to do that

What's worse though, thinking too hard, or not at all?

well Jason,
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 $$$$$$$