FL Right-to-carry Under Attack!

[camacho]

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE!

OUR RIGHT-TO-CARRY IS UNDER ATTACK!


DATE: April 29, 2008
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

In the fight for your firearms freedom, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation were determined to kill Florida's HB503, the bill that protects your right to keep a firearm in your vehicle for personal protection. They even threatened the Legislature and the Governor with a lawsuit. The Legislature was not intimidated -- they passed the bill. Governor Charlie Crist (R) was not intimidated -- he signed it into law. They stood up for you. They stood up for law-abiding gun owners and your self-defense rights against the big business bullies that were trying to eliminate them.



Six days after Governor Crist signed the bill into law, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation rushed into federal court and filed a frivolous lawsuit to try to have the new law overturned. They had already bragged to the media that they would spend huge amounts of money to fight to negate your constitutional and statutory rights.



On April 16 the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported: "The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation are ready to pay a legal tab they expect to total at least $250,000 to counter what they term an assault on private property rights."



They are relying on Disney, Publix, Walmart and other anti-gun corporate giants to fund their assault on the Legislature, Governor Crist, and on our right-to-carry.



We need your help to raise the money to fight this blatant attack on you and your right to protect yourself and your family.



PLEASE send a contribution TODAY. No matter where you live. No matter what city, what county, what state -- this is a fight that affects all of us. Right-to-carry laws are meaningless if corporate bullies are allowed to eliminate them on a whim.

Click to send a contribution today:
https://secure.nraila.org/Contribute.aspx?t=FLParking&key=183010010

 

[Mr White]

Walmart, an "anti-gun corporate giant"? I can see this thread deteriorating fast and getting locked.

 

[Guitargod1985]

Just because WalMart sells them to make a buck or two doesn't exactly make them pro-gun. It just makes them hypocrites kind of like Arnold Schwarzenegger and everyone else who uses guns to make money and then crap on the 2nd.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Walmart, an "anti-gun corporate giant"? I can see this thread deteriorating fast and getting locked.

Marion Hammer has done more to make concealed carry in Florida--and everywhere else in this country--a reality than anyone else has ever done.

When she speaks she deserves respect and attention, not sniping.

 

[Autolycus]

I believe that this is not completely truthful. It is more about Florida's take your gun to work law (I don't know of a better way to put it!). I am against the law as it is a violation of property rights.

 

[kimbernut]

Rtc Fl

I couldn't care less what Disney's policy is- just like Hollywood. I live 45 miles away and don't care if I ever return. Haven't been in 25 years. However Publix and Walmart I and my family visit weekly at home and when we travel throughout the southeast. I've been hearing of this for a couple of years now but I have yet to see any signs at any of the stores we have visited indicating that this is company policy .

 

[chieftain]

It just makes them hypocrites kind of like Arnold Schwarzenegger and everyone else who uses guns to make money and then crap on the 2nd.

You mean like folks who state they are pro gun then either don't vote, or vote Dimocrat?

Go figure.

Fred

 

[dmazur]

I believe that this is not completely truthful. It is more about Florida's take your gun to work law (I don't know of a better way to put it!). I am against the law as it is a violation of property rights.

This is the problem. The law doesn't permit carry inside the employer's buildings. It permits guns in locked vehicles in a parking lot.

The intent is to avoid violating the individual's right to protect himself going to/from work, when he is not on private property.

Try to think of the vehicle as the employee's private property and you may see where the law drafters are coming from...

 

[TooTaxed]

Please note that all of our gun massacres have been in locations where guns are known to be banned. The bad guys want as much time to shoot the "sheep" as possible before guys with guns show up.

One citizen with a concealed carry gun can ruin their day...like the lady who prevented a massacre in a church this last December. She shot the ba d guy after he had killed two people.

If you are unfortunate enough to be in such a place when a bad guy opens up, better hope there is a citizen with a concealed carry gun in the place to save your butt!

 

[Robert Hairless]

I believe that this is not completely truthful. It is more about Florida's take your gun to work law (I don't know of a better way to put it!). I am against the law as it is a violation of property rights.

Although it's undoubtedly interesting to know what you believe, Marion Hammer's statement is clear that she is talking about Florida's HB503. I believe that's what she is indeed talking about.

Since you don't "know of a better way to put it," instead of describing the new law as "Florida's take your gun to work law" you might want to consider putting it the way the Florida legislature put it in the law itself: "Preservation & Protection of Right to Keep & Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008."

Your way is far different from the legislature's way because the law does not allow an employee "to take a gun to work" against the employer's wishes. It allows the employee to have the legal means for self-defense up to but not into the employee's workplace. It does not give the employee permission to take the gun inside the workplace. The employee is not paid by the employer before entering the workplace, most certainly not from the time the employee arrives at the employer's parking lot.

The law prohibits the employer from violating the employee's own property rights in his or her own vehicle. Should the matter be of any interest, the law prohibits the employer from suspending the employee's Second Amendment rights within the employee's own vehicle.

As a matter of pure, unalloyed self-interest, people might want to value their ability to defend their own lives while traveling to and from work. That's part of what employers prevent when they presume to restrict employees from having the means of self-defense in their vehicles.

It's always astonishing to see people who consider themselves Second Amendment supporters siding with gun control legislation and attacking legislation aimed at reducing gun control.

 

[nicki]

Parking lot issue.

What we have is a conflict of a employee' right of self defense and the employer's property rights.

The reality is many of us have complicated lives. Many people don't just get up, drive to work, then drive directly home.

Many of us get up, we drop our kids of at the day care or school, we drive to work. We do our jobs, after work we take care of errands on our way home.

When we have restrictions on our ccw permits such as gun free zones that we have to go in as a matter of our daily rountine we are faced with either disarm or violate the gun free zone.

Many people work in areas where you can't easily park off the employer's property.

Many streets in business zones ban public parking on streets so for many people they have to park on company property unless they want to park their cars and then walk in a mile or so.

Now if you are a female, and your work attire is a dress and heels, this is a problem.

The parking lot ban needs to be repealed in all states unless employers want to be liable for protection of employees from the time they leave their house till the time they get home regardless of how many detours they take since a parking lot ban would effectlvely invalid a CCW permit.

Since Self Defense is a fundamental right, the parking lot ban nullifies the right of self defense.

Nicki

 

[Robert Hairless]

Since Self Defense is a fundamental right, the parking lot ban nullifies the right of self defense.

And that's one of the key points against the nonsensical argument that an employer has some kind of mystical "property rights" that are superior to the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

That right is fundamental and trumps all others. It existed before the Constitutional amendments, before the Constitution, and before the invention of nations.

It is the right to survive. When people are denied the means to defend their lives against criminals and madmen, self-defense is an illusion. It is a hollow promise.

With all due respect to the Florida Chamber of Commerce and its dedication to giving business the ability to make its employees defenseless, it's taking the wrong end of this stick and needs serious discipline by the citizens of Florida.

 

[Dave P]

Like Hairless said, calling it the "carry at work" law is very deceiving. I like "keep my gun in my truck" instead.


What words we use are very important: instead of a "high capacity magazine" which sounds scary to the sheep - use "full capacity magazine" instead.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Seems to me that the Florida Chamber of Commerce is engaged in an ongoing scheme to deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights and other rights.

Is this the end of Rico?

 

[markk]

I often ask those who are so in favor of "Employers' Property Rights" if they would feel the same way if the employer decided to ban Bibles (or any other book for that matter) from the cars in the parking lot. Would you still support their property rights (i.e.the parking lot) over your own (i.e. your car)?

Is it not enough that you are choosing to obey their request that you not carry inside their property (a request which carries no weight of the law, by the way), and now they want to complicate this by attempting to regulate what's in your car?

 

[mekender]

I am against the law as it is a violation of property rights.

employers have been violating employees property rights by telling them what they can and cannot keep in their cars... just because you park your car on someone else's property does not mean that your car and the contents thereof are no longer your property

 

[Robert Hairless]

Just to be fair about this situation, let us realize that the Florida Chamber of Commerce membership isn't yet trying to overturn legislation against other infringements of employers' property rights: the rights to expose their employees to deadly chemicals, to employ children, to use lead paint, to require 12-hour-workdays six days a week, to lock their employees into factories with no way to escape in case of fire, to build and maintain buildings that are fire hazards, and to serve tainted food to both employees and customers.

All that the Florida Chamber of Commerce wants is for its membership to retain their right to deny employees the privilege of defending their own lives before they start the work day and after it's concluded. Surely that is not such a big deal. Okay, so their employees aren't actually being employed at those times and aren't being paid then, but must we quibble about such details?

The law has encroached upon these and other sacred property rights for far too long. Florida's Chamber of Commerce can be counted on to roll back the clock on such laws and return Florida business to its proper dominance of all human beings who enter upon its domain.

 

[Byron Quick]

WalMart is anti-gun? I've open carried in several WalMart's here in Georgia, and have never been approached by either management or security about it.

The argument about employers' property rights doesn't hold water here in Georgia. By state law, my vehicle is considered to be an extension of my home. So it's my property rights which are being infringed when an employer tries to restrict my having anything at all in my vehicle.

We need laws that require balance from employers. They want to restrict concealed carry by employees? Fine. The law should require that in order to require an employee or customer to give up their means of self defense, that the business takes up that responsibility with severe civil-and criminal-sanctions if it fails in its assumed responsibility.

Now, the corporations' property rights are intact but somehow I think they'd still be screaming.

After a few board members, CEO's, store managers, etc. were sent to prison for failing to protect disarmed employees or custormers and a few multi-million judgments were sustained; the odds are that the anti-gun policies would change.

There, property rights are protected. Simple concept really, I have a right to life. That right implies that I have a right to the tools needed to protect my life. In accordance with your property rights, you decide to abrogate my right to protect my life. What could be more fair than that you assume that responsibility with civil and criminal penalities attached for failing to fulfill your assumed responsibility?

Of course, a property owner could easily avoid the entire matter by leaving the responsibility to protect my life where it belongs...with me.

 

[Robert Hairless]

WalMart is anti-gun? I've open carried in several WalMart's here in Georgia, and have never been approached by either management or security about it.

Marion Hammer was addressing a situation in Florida, not Georgia. I also think it's quite likely that Wal-Mart and the other companies she named are members of the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

She might also have had in mind the recent joint announcement by Wal-Mart and Mayor Michael Bloomberg that Wal-Mart would photograph all firearms purchasers and take other steps to record them. It's at least arguable that such measures do not reflect positive attitudes towards gun owners.

I think it's a mistake to divert attention and energies from Marion Hammer's point about the law to her characterization of Wal-Mart. Of course I might be wrong in that opinion. If it's more important to defend Wal-Mart than Florida employees who want to have legally permitted firearms in their own vehicles, then that's probably where the attention belongs.