Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop New Guns in Parking Lot Law

[Winchester 73]

Governor Crist just signed the bill last week .It's due to go into law July1.

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/NEWS0120/80421086/1075

Florida business groups try to muzzle guns at work
Associations cite conflicts with safety rules in lawsuit
By Paul Flemming • news-press.com Tallahassee bureau • April 22, 2008

TALLAHASSEE — Business interests Monday filed suit in federal court seeking to block the guns-at-work law Gov. Charlie Crist signed into law less than a week before.

The Florida Retail Federation and Florida Chamber of Commerce brought the suit in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee.


Rick McAllister, president and CEO of the Florida Retail Federation, said federal court was chosen because of the stark constitutional implications of the case. Similar suits in other states that have passed such laws still are on appeal. In Oklahoma, McAllister said, a challenge to a guns-at-work law was successful because it put state law in conflict with federal workplace safety regulations.

The Florida law is similar to legislation in several other states, including Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

But McAllister wants a bigger win.

“We don’t want to win on a technicality,” McAllister said. “We’d like there to be a clear decision on how constitutional rights are interpreted.”

The law allows employees who have a concealed-weapons permit to keep a gun locked in their vehicles at work, even if the employer wants to ban guns on the property.

Marion Hammer, an NRA lobbyist who was the prime mover of the legislation, along with its sponsors, Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, and Rep. Greg Evers, R-Baker, said as the bill worked its way to passage that it was merely a protection of existing Second Amendment rights.

Hammer could not be reached late Monday.

With Crist’s signature, the new law is set to take effect July 1.

McAllister said that in addition to the suit filed Monday, his group will seek to delay that.

“We’ll also be filing an injunction to set aside the beginning (of the law) until the court can make a decision” on the larger suit, McCallister said.

The two groups filed the suit on their own behalf as well as for their members. The Retail Federation has more than 11,000 member businesses. The chamber represents more than 139,000 Florida businesses.

 

[divemedic]

Until then, don't ask, don't tell. If you have a gun in your car at work, as long as you keep your mouth shut, your boss won't know. It isn't illegal to have a gun in your car, just against company policy.

 

[Dick1911]

While I understand that people want to carry to work and leave their guns in the car, I am having difficulty accepting that the State of Florida can over rule private property rights. I know that happens in many other areas, particularly environmentally related but I have issues with that as well.

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights. You certainly don't have full 1A rights at work, at least not without the employer excercising his right to give someone else the job you are working at. In most cases I think the employee can park off the premises and leave his gun in the car if the employer won't allow it.

What do y'all think? I'm still trying to logically settle this contradiction.

 

[Blackbeard]

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights.

I agree. However, the government already heavily regulates the employer/employee relationship, and those would seem to trump private property rights. I have free speech on my own land, but I can't tell my housekeeper she looks mighty sexy today.

 

[Dick1911]

I have free speech on my own land, but I can't tell my housekeeper she looks mighty sexy today.

Well, you can say that but your 1A right doesn't protect you from the consequences - just like slander is not protected from prosecution although it is your 1A right to say it (I think, although I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one even on TV - but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a few weeks ago ). The consequence isn't necessariy for the words, but the harassment, which doesn't have to be verbal to legally occur, so my companies lawyers have told me in many corporate training sessions.

To me it would be the same for 2A, your employer doesn't allow it on the premises, you can carry it there but if you are found out you are subject to being fired with no recourse. You have the right but must be willing to suffer the consequences of violating anothers right.

 

[MakAttak]

Well, you can say that but your 1A right doesn't protect you from the consequences - just like slander is not protected from prosecution although it is your 1A right to say it (I think, although I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one even on TV - but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a few weeks ago ). The consequence isn't necessariy for the words, but the harassment, which doesn't have to be verbal to legally occur, so my companies lawyers have told me in many corporate training sessions.

I agree this should be how this is handled: corporations can ban guns on their property, but individuals who are harmed because they were denied the ability to defend themselves may sue the company for disarming them.

Make the company face consequences for their ill-advised policy.

 

[BattleChimp Potemkin]

If your company doesnt care about your well being, then to heck with em. Dont ask dont tell is correct Divemedic.

I would rather be fired, then be killed needlessly. Someone comes in spraying, I get my gun out of the car, go ahead and fire me. That is not the worst that can happen .

 

[Dick1911]

I agree this should be how this is handled: corporations can ban guns on their property, but individuals who are harmed because they were denied the ability to defend themselves may sue the company for disarming them.

I'm down with that!

And if I don't like the company policy I can go elsewhere as well. I have mentioned my dislike of my company policy concerning handguns on ocassion, but unless a large number of employees do so there won't be any change. We even had an HR meeting where it was stated "I've never known anyone that needed to shoot there way to or from work". Actually, there was a case about a year ago where a female employee was kidnapped from a public lot and later murdered. If she had been carrying she may have been able to save herself. I don't carry and leave it in the car because it is a public lot with no real security and breakins are not unkown. I'd hate to have my gun stolen and she may have felt the same but I don't know.

I've also told my wife that she should sue the company if I come to a violent end while working or travelling on business and a weapon could have made a difference. I doubt she would do it, however.

 

[romma]

Well, there is nothing preventing the property owners from banning parking in their lots.

So if a property owner will not accept a car as an extention of ones home, then ban parking on company property...

 

[jlbraun]

Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop Federal Law Banning Colored Water Fountains

 

[Standing Wolf]

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights.

My life is my property, as is my car.

 

[Ozarks]

Conundrum

This is a great example of a conundrum. Obviously a person really doesn't want to offend someone's property rights. However, what about travel to and from work? Does someone's property rights trump someone else and their right to defend themselves while traveling to and from work?

We are mostly gunnies here, I think. So, would you wish to disarm a visitor to your privately owned property while they travel both to and fro? Please remember you can't disarm a Fed, or an LEO...

 

[Dick1911]

Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop Federal Law Banning Colored Water Fountains

A good point but a somewhat different issue as you cannot leave your skin color in your car or at home.

My life is my property, as is my car.

Quite true, and a private individual or company can legally ask that you and your car remain off their premises. Logically, why would a handgun be different?

So, would you wish to disarm a visitor to your privately owned property while they travel both to and fro?

No, I wouldn't, but I don't understand how that impacts what someone else can do.

I just don't see how to decide which right is more of a right, although by definition all rights would be equal. But this is one issue where two individuals right are in conflict and how do you logically decide who wins? I personally would respect my neighbors property rights and not carry on his property if he asked, but that's me.

Any Leagle Eagles out there that can comment?

 

[Mousegun]

"If I don't like the company policy, I can go somewhere else"

That sounds wonderful until practicality kicks in. Most of us just can't or don't "go somewhere else" because it wasn't a cake walk getting the job we have now.

If the protesters in the 60's and 70's just went somewhere else, our eyes would still be closed to the BS that our goment was bestowing upon us at the time and the investigative reporters wouldn't have uncovered the dirty dealings that were going on. Hopefully, this kind of coverage helps keep the boys in office on the straight and narrow.

As far as keeping guns in cars in the parking lot goes, your beloved company will not cover your bacon on the way home or even for the most part, in the workplace.

By accepting the "no guns" policy without protest, we are simply caving in. They, like the goment are stripping us of 2 A rights. We are quick to climb Washington and the State for this travesty but seem to accept our employer's so called right to disarm in the name of personal and rights of the master (employer).

Protests to these policies should ring out loud and clear and don't ask, don't tell should be the plan of the day.

 

[ptmmatssc]

Can someone point me in the direction of "private property rights"? Like , where is it in our constitution? What amendment is it under?

One thing I'm trying to understand is how a corp , who is the property owner(not all the time , but many are ), having been GRANTED rights , can supersede individual rights , which are "inalienable" (not granted) . Kinda funny how something not alive and breathing can have "rights" just as an individual .

 

[Dick1911]

I believe it's all in the 5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

However, it appears to state that you cannot be deprived of property without due process. Is trespass ony covered under state law? Another question for the legal types.

 

[lacoochee]

The ability of the government to pass laws that trump the rights of private property owners who have made their property open to the public is well established. I cannot imagine that a court would over turn this new law in Florida, given the precedent that would set regarding the ability of a business to ignore other legislation dear to those same courts hearts.

Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop Federal Law Banning Homosexuals Only or Catholics Only Water Fountains

This law would be more analogous to the parking lot law, you can leave your "gayness" or your religion behind when you come to work. After all if you don't tell anyone how would they know? In many states and municipalities, these are protected groups.

Concealed carry permit holders are a special group and as such also may be in need of special protection under the law. We tend to forget because so many of us carry because we can, that many of the holders of concealed carry permits do so because their lives are under ACTIVE threat of being ended by ex-spouses, stalkers, former arrestees, crazed former students, etc., this law is about safety.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Okay consider this. My company prohibits firearms in employee vehicles. At the same time, the parking lot is full of "park at your own risk" signs. So it is okay for them to tell me what I can have in my car yet claim they have no liabity as to what happens to my car (or me in my car) on their property?

So what if your employer wants to ban cigarettes on their property. Can they prohibit you from having them in your vehicle too?

If the cops search my car at work and find drugs, who gets arrested, me or my employer. It's "his" property after all.

My car and what is in it are my property and my business, not my employers.

 

[Blackbeard]

Kinda funny how something not alive and breathing can have "rights" just as an individual

The shareholders are living and breathing individuals, and they have rights. They own the building. Their property rights are just as valid as a sole proprietor's.

 

[.cheese.]

I think this is moronic. This new law doesn't even really do much anyways.

It just makes it illegal to fire somebody for legally having a gun in their car. It doesn't make leaving a gun in the car any more or less legal, it just affects the ability of a business to fire an employee over it. In addition, it doesn't cover people carrying guns into the workplace either. It's in their freakin cars for crying out loud. Unless there is a bomb or something seriously illegal like drugs in somebody's car, the contents of that vehicle are nobody's business IMO.

Businesses shouldn't be wanting to fire people for taking their own safety seriously in the first place.

I mean, what are they thinking?

"Uh... yeah, Bob. Listen... um. All of us in the office are feeling a little uneasy about you taking the whole 'life' thing so seriously. In fact, I'd say that your regarding your own life as so precious is creating a hostile work environment. Unless you can mellow out and come to the conclusion that if somebody wants to kill you, they should be able to without any struggle on your part - we're going to have to let you go. Sorry."

??

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Oklahoma's law of a similar bent was overturned based on OSHA safe workplace requirements it is currently under appeal at the dist. court level
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071006_1_A1_hHeis85083

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here Is The Answer To The Conundrum:

Corporations are a construct allowed/created by state and some federal law. Corporations(all companies) do not have rights. Corporations only have those powers that are granted to them by the law. A state legislature or Congress itself cannot grant rights to a company, not even property rights the company might own or lease. State governments and Congress only have those powers granted to them by their respective constitutions. Even We the People can't grant rights to our governments, therefore, our governments cannot grant any rights those governments do not themselves have.

Corporations exist at the whim and by the graces of government. I know. I own a chapter "S" corporation now and have owned a chapter "C" corp and two sole proprietorships in the past.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[sacp81170a]

What if you own stock in the company? Are you not then one of the property owners?

 

[.cheese.]

depends on the type of stock. You can own equity and not legally own property.

 

[mekender]

While I understand that people want to carry to work and leave their guns in the car, I am having difficulty accepting that the State of Florida can over rule private property rights. I know that happens in many other areas, particularly environmentally related but I have issues with that as well.

If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights. You certainly don't have full 1A rights at work, at least not without the employer excercising his right to give someone else the job you are working at. In most cases I think the employee can park off the premises and leave his gun in the car if the employer won't allow it.

What do y'all think? I'm still trying to logically settle this contradiction.

the state of FL considers your car an extension of your home for the purposes of self defense inside it... under that logic, the car is off limits to such a prohibition... the car remains an extension of your house in all cases even if it is parked on someone else's property... therefore, the contents of your car are private just as your home would be