"Guns Have No Place at Work":Gun Owners 1,Miami Herald 0

[Winchester 73]

The virulently gun hating Miami Herald and their parking lot suffered a severe setback today.This band of Socialists on the Editorial Board will never rest ;no matter how much common sense has been thrown in their face and how little blood is running in the streets with law abiding gun owners being armed.
Note the lies,distortions and half truths in the Ed.The Herald sinking to new lows.Note the comments following the editorial.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/488271.html

Guns unsafe at work
OUR OPINION: WEAPONS BAN CAN PROTECT EMPLOYEES, SAVE LIVES
Posted on Wed, Apr. 09, 2008
Who knew getting guns could be that easy? Recently Homestead police confiscated AK-47s, sniper rifles, semi-automatic pistols and more than 5,000 rounds of ammunition. The cache came from a 22-year-old man who says he traded weapons over the Internet.

Such easy access to firearms is exactly what businesses fear. It is too easy for a disgruntled employee or client to make good on threats by bringing a gun to the workplace. This is why many employers -- from Walt Disney to BrandsMart -- ban weapons on their private property. The bans promote safety and peace of mind.

Now the Legislature threatens to upset that peace. The House already passed a bill (HB 503) that would make it illegal for businesses to prohibit employees from keeping a legally permitted gun locked in their car on the company lot. The Senate is set to vote on it Thursday.

The bill would perpetuate danger. It clashes with federal mandates requiring employers to create a safe work environment. At the same time, it violates the right of businesses to manage their business.

Under the bill, employers can't ask workers whether they carry a gun in their car, even if the worker threatens to use it. The bill allows schools to have a gun ban, but the Senate rejected an amendment to allow child-care centers to do so. So school-age children have a greater right to safety than toddlers? That's nonsense.

Florida long has strived to be a business-friendly state. This bill is not good for business or state residents. The privilege of gun owners should not trump the right of workers to be safe or of businesses to decide what is permissible on private property.

Senators should stop this unnecessary bill. If it passes, urge Governor Crist -- [email protected] -- to veto it. Guns have no place at work.

 

[Darthbauer]

The person that wrote that article needs to be held up at knife point and saved by a CCW'er.

I cant stand stuff like this.

 

[glink]

The person that wrote that article needs to be held up at knife point and saved by a CCW'er.

Or not.

 

[Darthbauer]

Or not.

Just saying, something like that might be the only thing that would change someone's mind on hating guns.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

The privilege of gun owners should not trump the right of workers to be safe or of businesses to decide what is permissible on private property.

Oops, he meants the "RIGHT" of gun owners.

Big difference in right vs. privilege.

 

[feedthehogs]

Florida long has strived to be a business-friendly state. This bill is not good for business or state residents

Those who don't like this are free to leave the state so we can once again have a quiet peaceful state.

Empty out God's waiting room and send them packing.

 

[misANTHrope]

It is too easy for a disgruntled employee or client to make good on threats by bringing a gun to the workplace. This is why many employers -- from Walt Disney to BrandsMart -- ban weapons on their private property. The bans promote safety and peace of mind.

Yes, because words on a piece of paper somewhere will avert murderous rage. No one would ever dare to bring a gun into a place where they weren't allowed!

 

[Beagle-zebub]

Does anyone/I] ever go into a spontaneous, murderous rage at work and murder someone? I feel like we would hear about it if they did.

If people can't be trusted to carry weapons on the grounds that they might flip out and attack one another, why aren't there ever stabbings in the Boy Scouts? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teenaged boys go to camps every year, and they don't live in isolation. I can personally attest to friction existing between Scouts, but I've yet to ever hear of a stabbing.

 

[xsquidgator]

The hell with the Miami Herald. After several years of frustrating failures, a bill has made it's way to the Governor's desk, and it's likely he'll sign it! Go suck a lemon, Miami Herald, a good thing is happening.

After all, if our rights to keep and bear arms may be infringed "for the common good", then property rights may also be infringed for the safety and good of people who have to travel to and from a business that doesn't want guns on it's property. The guns stay locked up inside the property of the gun owner, the business owners can still have the "protection" offered by the no-gun sign, and we're all happy. We get to protect ourselves on the way to and from work, and the foolish business is still in just as much risk from criminals as before.

Next, we can work on expanding the places where legal concealed carry can go. Then perhaps those of us who work for holpohobe employers can be safe AT work and not just to and from work.

 

[orionengnr]

Can't seem to find a link to contact the "journalist" in question. And the quotes were not accidental.

 

[divemedic]

An anitgun editorial from the Herald:

must be Pitts

 

[kurtmax]

I'm actually opposed to laws like this. I think it violates private property rights. I don't have a right to bring firearms onto someone else's private property if they don't want me to.

There are already enough violations of private property rights like no-smoking laws, equal-treatment laws, etc.

I do find it hilarious, however, that these socialists rabidly support 'private property' when it suits their own purposes....

 

[Elza]

I don’t have a problem with companies exercising control over the work place even though I think they’re full of crap regarding their “reasons”. I feel the same way about my home. However saying I can’t park my car (said car being my property) on a company parking lot is pure BS. It’s just another useless, feel-good rule that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

They have tried to get such a law passed here in Texas but so far it hasn’t been successful.

 

[Winchester 73]

must be pitts,or journalist

No,No, here are the culprits:the Herald Editorial Board:

EDITORIAL BOARD
David Landsberg
Publisher
Joe Oglesby
Editorial Page Editor
Juan Vasquez
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
Jim Morin
Editorial Cartoonist
Nancy Ancrum
Editorial Writer
Susana Barciela
Editorial Writer
Kathleen Krog
Editorial Writer
Zulay Domínguez Chirinos
Copy Editor

 

[chris in va]

Does anyone/I] ever go into a spontaneous, murderous rage at work and murder someone? I feel like we would hear about it if they did.

Yes. It happens.

 

[Winchester 73]

Yes. It happens.

How often,out of a workforce of over 150(give or take a few) million Chris?

 

[Soybomb]

However saying I can’t park my car (said car being my property) on a company parking lot is pure BS.

How come? Its their property, shouldn't they be able to ask you to put on a frilly dress and sing "I'm a little tea pot" if you want to park on their lot? If you don't like it, don't park there or don't work there.

I'm not a supporter of this, my property, my rules. If you don't like it your freedom is just over the property line. It seems like asking government to be big brother (har) and demand that your employer stop enforcing dumb policies is outside its purpose. I'm no more a fan of this than I am of laws that ban smoking in privately owned establishments.

 

[DWARREN123]

If they knew what they were talking about then they would not be liberal.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Under the bill, employers can't ask workers whether they carry a gun in their car, even if the worker threatens to use it.

I'm calling BS on this one. Even if the worker threatens to use it? Sounds like an out and out lie to me.

But hey, it's about time that corporations get the smack-down on callously and freely trampling our collective, human rights.

 

[Guitargod1985]

I'm no more a fan of this than I am of laws that ban smoking in privately owned establishments.

Last time I checked you could light up when you get it your car. Furthermore, no employer ever tries to tell an employee not to have cigarettes (which are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution by the way) in their own car.

 

[jrfoxx]

The way I see it, a business's private property is FAR from the same as someones home or personal land.business make certain concession on LOTS of things in order to BE a business, especially those open to the public.

I'm not a supporter of this, my property, my rules.

If that property is an individuals home or land, I agree, if its a business open to the public, I disagree. Would it be ok if say Mcdonald's decided thier new "rule" for thier "private property" was no blacks, jews, muslims, or women may enter or work there? I willing to bet 99% of the population would FREAK over that. But why? thier property thier rules right? Why can the law say they ban on not employ those mentioned above from a business, but they can bar people from exercising thier 2A right to bear arms and protect thier safety? A business a just not the same as ones home. there is no law I'M aware of that says I cant ban women, blacks, muslims, and jews from my home. again why? Because the 2 places simply are not the same. One is truly "private property" while the other is privately OWNED, yet open to the PUBLIC property.dont want guns on your property? then dont make your property a business open to the public. dont want women on your property? same thing.
There are some things a business can control and ban, and some things they cant.This is just another of those things. They can ban free speech all they want. We allow that. They cant ban women and blacks. We dont allow that. All that has happened now is that another "cant ban" was added to the long list of "can't bans" that already exist for a business. There is also a long list of "can ban" things, and I'm sure things are added and removed all the time. Why should guns be a special case of "can ban" only, when free speech isnt?Why can civil rights/equal oppertunity be a "cant ban only?, but guns arent? See what I'm saying. Society have agreed upon "can" and "can't" thing for businesses. This just switched an item from one list to the other, just like what happened with blacks in the 60's.

sciety has also agreed the "can ban" list for your personal home and property includes nearly everything, while the "cant" list is pretty darn short. Its that way because they just arent the same.

All that said, what goes on what list is 100% based on peoples opinion and judgement. There will ALWAYS be those who think a "can ban" thing should be a "cant", and vice versda, not matter WHAT it is. The rules for business are based on majority opinion, and thus are not set in stone anywhere.

So, the above happens to be MY opinion, and apparently that of at least a majority of those elected to make the rules for the peole of Florida.Other people and other places will disagree, just like here in OR where we have no such law as FL is trying to pass.Apparently here, my opinion happens to be in the minority.If I dont like it, I can a)do nothing and live with it, b)move to someplace like FL, c) get the law changed.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

So, I take this to mean we refuse to go the boycott or competition route?

 

[Pilot]

All these newspapers are dieing a not so slow death for a reason. They don't report news, they have a far left liberal agenda that they interweave with so called news outside of the editorial page. The sell this "news" as fact instead of opinion. Its deceptive and people have figured that out. They are going down with the mainstream TV network news organizations like CBS who is outsourcing their news to CNN.

 

[Mousegun]

jrfoxx, you nailed it.

 

[xsquidgator]

I'm actually opposed to laws like this. I think it violates private property rights

It does abridge private property rights, a very very slight amount. So what? Our individual rights under the 2nd A are abridged ALL THE TIME in the name of public safety. We may not think it's reasonable, but probably better than 50% of the public thinks that some sort of gun control which interferes with the 2A is ok, short of complete bans. Well, apply the same standard to property rights.

This bill is a MINUSCULE infringement on property rights. As we all know, a business locations prohibition on firearms does NOTHING to make that business safer from gun violence. Gun violence, if it occurs in the workplace, will occur whether or not the business allows firearms on property. All of prohibition does is to prevent the law abiding employees from being able to protect themselves while traveling to and from work.

The full and unfettered exercise of property rights of a few people/businesses in this issue would have a widespread effect on the 2nd Amendment rights of millions of people. Property rights, in this case, take a back seat to 2nd Amendment rights, and properly so. No rights are absolute, and this bill is a very reasonable compromise. As a FL resident, I welcome this bill and have been as active as I could be calling and emailing the Governor and my state senators and representatives.