Florida approves "take your guns to work" law - waits for gov's signature...

[K Frame]

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.
 
The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

"The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security.

Critics say the measure usurps business owners' rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

"This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments," said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky, and Mississippi have similar laws, although in Oklahoma, an appellate court barred the state from enforcing the legislation on grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.

"We are disappointed that politics clearly won over good policy," Mark Wilson, president and chief executive of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.

[charby]

What's hunting like in Florida? I have heard the fishing is great.

I might have to move there.

[Firethorn]

What's hunting like in Florida? I have heard the fishing is great.

I might have to move there.

Makes me proud that I 'moved' there a couple months back.  (I'm military, changed my state of residence to Florida after my parents & brother moved there).

[Manedwolf]

What's hunting like in Florida? I have heard the fishing is great.

I might have to move there.

I moved from there.

Don't move to south Florida unless you speak fluent Spanish. Last time I was there, some signs for offers in banks, as well as a sign advertising coffee in B&N were in Spanish only.

[Werewolf]

Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

It'd be interesting to see those studies...

[Manedwolf]

Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

It'd be interesting to see those studies...

I was wondering about that, too. Who did the studies? VPC?

[BlueStarLizzard]

Critics say the measure usurps business owners' rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

wouldn't this be solved if jerk bosses behaved with a little more respect for their employees?

[Manedwolf]

What stuns me is the disconnect from reality, in that they think a disgruntled employee coming to go on a rampage will obey the no-gun rule!  

[GigaBuist]

What stuns me is the disconnect from reality, in that they think a disgruntled employee coming to go on a rampage will obey the no-gun rule!  

It's work splendidly for the post office.

[Perd Hapley]

Florida approves the further rape of property rights.  Yah.  None of you are allowed to complain about smoking bans, anymore. 

[Nick1911]

I support individual rights.  As such, I don't believe the legislature should be able to tell business owners what they can and can not do on their property.

[Werewolf]

I support individual rights.  As such, I don't believe the legislature should be able to tell business owners what they can and can not do on their property.

So all you guys decrying this new law because it tramples on business owners rights are just as angry that various laws at the both the state and federal levels says those same business owners cannot tell you to leave your color at the door or take that yarmaluke off before you enter etc etc etc... Afterall a civil right is a civil right - right?

[Perd Hapley]

All you guys?  I only see two of us, which is a shame.  I respect the rights of business/property owners to decide who comes onto their property, and what they do there, even if those owners are bigots.  No one has a right to enter another's private property, or to work for someone who doesn't want them around. 

Seems pretty obvious, to me.   

For more info:  http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11802.0

[Nick1911]

I support individual rights.  As such, I don't believe the legislature should be able to tell business owners what they can and can not do on their property.

So all you guys decrying this new law because it tramples on business owners rights are just as angry that various laws at the both the state and federal levels says those same business owners cannot tell you to leave your color at the door or take that yarmaluke off before you enter etc etc etc... Afterall a civil right is a civil right - right?

Yes, exactly.   
Fistful summed it up very well.

If a business says "No weapons" or "No white/black people" or "No Smoking", that is their right.  In the case of a business, I believe that the free market will take care of it.  On private property that isn't a business (ie: my home), you aren't even allowed to be there without the owners permission (trespassing), why should you be entitled to  smoke a cigarette, carry a gun, etc?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Not being able to bring a gun to work in your car sucks, I agree.  But the solution isn't to use the force of government to strip other citizens of their rights as property owners.

[Wynterbourne]

Agreed. However, what about those states where your car is considered to be an extension of your home? I know from personal experience that Texas doesn't hold this to be true, but I believe New Mexico makes provisions for this. In those locations, which set of personal property rights should win out?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You can't drive your home onto my property and thereby claim my property as your own.

[Werewolf]

Not being able to bring a gun to work in your car sucks, I agree.  But the solution isn't to use the force of government to strip other citizens of their rights as property owners.

Are all rights equal?

Are some rights more equal than others?

The supreme court says we have a right to privacy. Which is more important, if for example the right to privacy conflicts with the right to freely assemble? Does one's right to life trump your right to free speech if your speech endagers one's right to life?

If a business owner invites the public into his business and doesn't guarantee the public's safety why does that trump the public's right to carry the most effective tool for self defense in the name of keeping his insurance premiums down?

I will not argue that owners of private property should have to allow anyone or thing on their property that they don't wish to be there. BUT property owners who invite the public onto their property should fall into a whole different category - they essentially make themselves public property. Unfortunately that's not the way the courts see it nor those it seems who believe property rights (a pure human construct) supercede the natural right of self defense and by association the right to life.

How on earth did we get there?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Private property is private property regardless of whether or not the owner invites the public in.  It's the owner's prerogative to invite in the public, or any subset of the public, or no one at all, whatever he wants.  It's also his prerogative to arbitrarily exclude any individual he wants at any time he wants.  Or it should be, in a free society.  Our society is anything but.

If you wish to have a gun on you at all times, you give up the option of entering private property for which the owner has stipulated no guns as a condition of entrance.  The owner can't force you to disarm, but he can keep you off his property if don't disarm (or for any other reason he likes).

The same holds for all the rest.  If you wish to retain your privacy, don't enter property for which the owner has stipulated searches as a condition of entrance.  If you wish to assemble, do it on public property, or on your own private property, or on someone else's private property for which the owner consents to your assemblage.

[K Frame]

But we're not talking about true "private property."

Businesses do not, and never have, fallen into the same sort of classification that private residences have.

There are no "A man's business is his castle" stipulations or traditions under English Common Law, very few in US Code, and, as far as I know, absolutely NONE in the Code Napoleon.

[AJ Dual]

I guess I'm one of the torn on this.

the fact as others have pointed out, and we all know, someone intent on mayhem won't obey the law anyway, and it leaves the good people at a disadvantage, and that's irritating.

Although, it's only being able to keep it in your car, which only really protects you on your way to and from work. At work you'd have to run to your car and get it, and if you can do that, "GTFO and keep on going, and be 100% sure your family sees you again." would be prudent in a lot of those circumstances, unless I absolutely knew that I could make a difference, or who I'd be defending, like the Assistant Principal in (was it?) Paducha KY who did just that.

And I'd worry that the precedent of the gun/car storage could also later be used for lots of intrusive truly liberal, anti-business harebrained schemes in the future.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

But we're not talking about true "private property."

Businesses do not, and never have, fallen into the same sort of classification that private residences have.

There are no "A man's business is his castle" stipulations or traditions under English Common Law, very few in US Code, and, as far as I know, absolutely NONE in the Code Napoleon.

Granting public access into private property doesn't have to be a binary "all or nothing" sort of thing.  The fact that a given property isn't a private residence doesn't eliminate the owners right control how it's used.

There are plenty of circumstances in which a business limits access to certain people despite being open to the public:

A golf course, open to the public, might deny access to anyone who doesn't have proper attire or equipment. 

A DoD contractor might choose to prohibit people from bringing cameras on site.

A butcher shop or steakhouse can demand PETA protesters stay off the property, even though the business is open to the public and even though protesting is a protected right.

A bar owner might insist that his patrons not smoke while in his establishment.

A business owner might feel that prohibiting weapons was necessary to run his business successfully.  Perhaps his insurance makes it necessary.  Or perhaps that's just the way he wants to run his business.  Regardless, who are we to tell him he can't?

It's absurd to think a property/business owner cannot decide for himself how his property/business is used by the public.  Yet government is doing that more and more each day.  We're heading in the wrong direction.

[K Frame]

"Granting public access into private property doesn't have to be a binary "all or nothing" sort of thing."

But that is, in fact, exactly how you're approaching it.

I don't see this aspect of the law being addressed, either...

For the moment, and ONLY for the sake of this argument, I'll temporarily stipulate to the point that you hold, that "private" property conveys absolute rights.

What this law does is allows employees to keep firearms locked in their cars.

Those cars can also be construed to be "private" property -- that, of course, varies from state to state, I don't know how Florida looks at it.

But, what right does the employer have to say that the employee is forbidden from keeping a firearm in their private property?

So, in this situation, whose private property rights then become paramount?

The business owner? Business owners do not have a generally recognized blanket right to search the insides of privately owned vehicles, even if they are parked on the employer's property.

Then there's also the sticky wicket of what "private property" rights exist in situations where the facility is not owned by the company, but leased? Whose private property rights are paramount then?

Sorry, I'm with Florida on this one. A enumerated right in the Constitution should, in a balancing act between two groups, take precedence over a "traditional" right, especially if that traditional right isn't extensible to non-residential buildings.

But, let's for a second, take a look at a few of your examples:

The DOD contractor, for example. Restrictions such as those are not a matter of rights, there a matter of national security. Saying a gun locked in a car is a threat to national security is a stretch.

The PETA protesters? Protesters do not have a right to disrupt the operations of a business. It's a stretch to say that a gun locked in a car is going to disrupt business operations.

The public golf course? A golf course will generally only deny service to individuals who are dressed inappropriately in terms of safety or to protect the integrity of the grounds. They're not going to let someone play who's wearing ice skates, for example.

The bar owner certainly can ask patrons not to smoke inside the bar. But we're not talking about a gun owner brining his gun INSIDE the business. Locked in the car, remember?

"Regardless, who are we to tell him he can't?" And conversely, who is he to interfere with the second amendment rights of otherwise law-abiding citizens, especially when their terminus point is parking lot at the job site, and upwards 90%, or more, of their travels between the offices and point of origin are not work related?

It's equally absurd to think that simply because you have a business that you have a blanket "right" to interfere with the exercise of another's Constitutionally protected right, but not quite as absurd to think that 1,000 years of English Common Law and 200+ years of Constitutional law regarding private residences somehow magically morphs over to cover businesses.

[Perd Hapley]

Agreed. However, what about those states where your car is considered to be an extension of your home? I know from personal experience that Texas doesn't hold this to be true, but I believe New Mexico makes provisions for this. In those locations, which set of personal property rights should win out? 

You can't drive your home onto my property and thereby claim my property as your own.

Now that was a clear, concise, logical response. 

There is no need to conceive of rights as being in some sort of conflict, where we have to decide which one is more important.  You have a right to keep a gun in your car.  Yet you've no right to drive that car onto Sarah Brady's property.  And if she invites you, she has a right to forbid your gun.  You also have a right to say, "No thanks.  You can't guarantee my safety."  Or whatever. 

In this scenario, your rights are never denied.  Nor are hers.  If you agree to go onto her property disarmed, you don't lose your right, nor does she deny your rights.  You simply choose not to exercise your right in that situation.  And if Brady allowed you to bring your gun, she wouldn't lose her property rights.  Nor would her rights be denied.  She would just be choosing not to exercise her property rights as fully as she might have done.  And that's OK. 

[K Frame]

You're both confusing PRIVATE residential-type property with business use property. Actually, no, I don't believe you're confusing them. You're deliberately attempting to blur the lines between a private residence and a business.

They do not have similar levels of protection or recognition under the law. They never have, and they never will.

To suddenly equate the offices and manufacturing plant for Consolidated Blumpkins with the private residence of CB's CEO is, well, silly.