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

[Perd Hapley]

Disclaimer:  I'm talking about rights here, not laws.  The law is not perfect. 

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.

Where does the Const. state my right to take a gun onto another person's private property, whether in my car, or otherwise?  It does not. 

A "traditional" right?  Non-residential buildings?  I guess you can make anything sound good if you use enough big words.      There is no balancing act.  Rights cannot conflict, or they would not be rights.  Forcing a property owner to accept unwanted items on his property is a clear violation of rights.  A property owner forbidding arms is not.  Not in any way.  There simply is no right to bear arms (or to do anything else) in violation of another's property rights.  That would be a non-sequitur.  If exercising your rights violates those of another, you need to rethink something. 

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?

That's not a sticky wicket at all; it is clear as day.  The owner of the property may dispose of it as he wishes, which may include entrusting his property to the judgment of management or lessees, and the contracts to which they all agree.  And if they say "No guns," that stands, until the owner intervenes.  How is that not clear?  How would it work in any other way? 

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.

True.  However, any property owner has the right to eject visitors, guests, employees, or employers for any reason.  If you want to search my car, you have the right to make that a condition of entry into your property.  And if you want to forbid me to smoke in my home, or on the other side of the world, or to force me to admit that Barbara Streisand is the greatest thinker of this or any age, you have the right to make those conditions of employment in your privately-owned business.  And if you decide you don't like Norwegians, you have the right to exclude them. 

Disclaimer:  I'm talking about rights here, not laws.  The law is not perfect. 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

You're confusing a discussion of rights with a discussion of current law. 

And I don't want to "blur the lines," I want to make it clear that the line is itself silly.  There is no reason why businesses should be treated differently than homes, in this regard.  Or does making money suddenly change everything? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What's all this nonsense about common law?  "1,000 years of common law"    Property ownership didn't hardly exist 1000 years ago.  Local thugs called kings "owned" all the land 1,000 years ago, and they owned it because if you objected they could kill you.   Property ownership as we now understand it is largely a product of the age of reason, so it's only some 400 years old.

Common law is clear on the concepts of property ownership and, more importantly, trespass.  Ownership of a property is the right to exclusively control how that parcel of land is used.  This means that only people with a lease or an invitation from the owner may enter a property.  All others are trespassing.  The owner may invite whomever he wants, arbitrarily.  If the owner decides to invite all of the public except those carrying firearms, then firearm-carriers on the property are trespassing.  A property need not be utilized as a residence to be protected from trespass.

The protection of property rights is one of the prime benefits of living within a society as opposed to lone a man in living in nature.  Man enters the social contract in part to have his property rights protected by government, not to have them stripped from him as the Florida legislature has just done. 

I'll say it again.  This law a step in the wrong direction.  We have enough laws restricting our rights already.  Let's not invent new and foolish excuses to restrict our rights even further.

[MicroBalrog]

And on a complete tangent:

Why are armed security guards not standard at workplaces in the US? It seems common sense to me.

[wmenorr67]

One word,"MONEY!"

With the money needed to hire the guards plus the additional liability insurance needed, most companies don't want to spend it.

[MicroBalrog]

One word,"MONEY!"

With the money needed to hire the guards plus the additional liability insurance needed, most companies don't want to spend it.

Insurance companies here won't insure you if you don't have guards. And in some cases the law requires it.

[wmenorr67]

Yes but the cost difference associated with armed guards to unarmed is huge.

[Manedwolf]

I'm also curious as to how an employer would even know that an employee has a gun in their car, unless they search cars.

[wmenorr67]

Manedwolf, that is exactly what happened in Oklahoma.

It was at the Weyerhouser(sp) plant in SE Oklahoma and they were searching vehicles because someone blabbed.  A few employees had firearms, mostly hunting rifles since it was hunting season, in their vehicles and were fired.

Based on this the OK legislature passed a similar law to Florida's but it is held up in courts by the likes of Conoco/Philips.

[roo_ster]

If exercising your rights violates those of another, you need to rethink something. 

Yes, you do.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And on a complete tangent:

Why are armed security guards not standard at workplaces in the US? It seems common sense to me.

I think it's mostly because our workplaces are very safe.  Hundreds of millions of American go to work every weekday for 30 or 40 years without ever needing any security or protection.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes but the cost difference associated with armed guards to unarmed is huge.

How so?

You give people short proficiency courses (in Israel, they're shorter than the CCW courses people take in America, usually you fire 50 rounds and get it over with), issue them Berettas, and pay them an inch over minimum wage.

[HankB]

(Disclaimer: The following is my opinion, and is not necessarily representative of the law in your area.)

People with concealed carry licenses are licensed by the state to carry weapons for lawful self defense. That means the state recognizes that self defense may be necessary.

Employers who assert their property rights by prohibiting concealed carry are in effect certifying that employees are not in danger on their premesis, i.e., they are assuming complete responsibility for the safety of employees (Or visitors, or anyone else they allow on their property.)

By logical extension, if they prohibit firearms in cars, they're also assuming responsibility for the person's safety during their commute as well.

If they fail to provide for the safety of a person the state has recognized has a legitimate reason to have means of self defense, it is reasonably foreseeable that denying that person said means is recklessly endangering his safety. Hence, if said disarmed person subsequently suffers harm because of his state of disarmament, the disarmer bears full culpability for all harm experienced by the disarmee.

[Firethorn]

If they fail to provide for the safety of a person the state has recognized has a legitimate reason to have means of self defense, it is reasonably foreseeable that denying that person said means is recklessly endangering his safety. Hence, if said disarmed person subsequently suffers harm because of his state of disarmament, the disarmer bears full culpability for all harm experienced by the disarmee.

One of the reasons I've heard quoted for prohibiting carry by employees is 'insurance'.  I wonder, how long would it take for insurance companies to completely reverse their trend if some court found the business liable because they posted a 'no-gun' sign and policy and failed to protect somebody, thus making the insurance company pay out $$$$$?

On the other hand, are you guys aware of any insurance companies that actually require no gun policies?  Or is it just a myth propagated by managers and bean-counters who want to deflect blame?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My last landlord prohibited firearms due to liability and insurance.  I thought the landlord was BSing me, so I called their insurance provider to verify it.  Sure enough, the insurer had instituted several new requirements since I last renewed my lease, one of which was no firearms on the property.

[Perd Hapley]

(Disclaimer: The following is my opinion, and is not necessarily representative of the law in your area.)

Employers who assert their property rights by prohibiting concealed carry are in effect certifying that employees are not in danger on their premesis, i.e., they are assuming complete responsibility for the safety of employees (Or visitors, or anyone else they allow on their property.) 

No, they are not.  If you know you can't bring a gun, but you choose to come anyway, YOU took the risk.  YOU agreed to disarm yourself. 

Hence, if said disarmed person subsequently suffers harm because of his state of disarmament, the disarmer bears full culpability for all harm experienced by the disarmee.

That's absurd.  The "disarmee" disarmed himself. 

[wmenorr67]

Yes but the cost difference associated with armed guards to unarmed is huge.

How so?

You give people short proficiency courses (in Israel, they're shorter than the CCW courses people take in America, usually you fire 50 rounds and get it over with), issue them Berettas, and pay them an inch over minimum wage.

It isn't even the cost of the guards themselves.  Insurance rates for a company to have armed guards are more expensive.

[Matthew Carberry]

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?

Sorry I'm late. 

Yes, I believe such laws should be repealed.

Remember, civil rights laws were properly designed to prevent government policies from unjustly impacting citizens, like public buses, public buildings and the like.  To ensure equal treatment under the law by the "law".

Private businesses should never have been affected by them in the first place.  The market would have dealt with any problems once government was forbidden to support private racism by enacting unjust zoning and other laws.

If the government is required to license and treat the black-owned business exactly the same as the white owned one next door, the market will decide who succeeds, although that might be both.

Which is fine, people shouldn't be forced in their private life to associate with anyone.

[Matthew Carberry]

I'm also curious as to how an employer would even know that an employee has a gun in their car, unless they search cars.

If you knowingly violate a posted "no guns" sign or your agreed upon employment policy just becuse you can "get away with it" you are making yourself a liar/oath-breaker/untrustworthy individual.

That's not meant as an insult, I've been one more than once at my job and will be again.

But, I have decided I won't complain if I am caught and fired as I knew the rules and knowingly broke them.

Choosing to lie to your employer and break the hiring rules has consequences.  I was looking for work when I signed the contract that said "no-guns".  I had no "right" to a job there.  I could have kept on looking if I wanted the satisfaction of holding to my convictions about always being armed.

[Matthew Carberry]

If they fail to provide for the safety of a person the state has recognized has a legitimate reason to have means of self defense, it is reasonably foreseeable that denying that person said means is recklessly endangering his safety. Hence, if said disarmed person subsequently suffers harm because of his state of disarmament, the disarmer bears full culpability for all harm experienced by the disarmee.

One of the reasons I've heard quoted for prohibiting carry by employees is 'insurance'.  I wonder, how long would it take for insurance companies to completely reverse their trend if some court found the business liable because they posted a 'no-gun' sign and policy and failed to protect somebody, thus making the insurance company pay out $$$$$?

On the other hand, are you guys aware of any insurance companies that actually require no gun policies?  Or is it just a myth propagated by managers and bean-counters who want to deflect blame?

According to spacemanspiff on THR / TFL and an employee of a corporate insurance company, it's bupkus.
Even OSHA doesn't recommend "no guns" policies.