TPing guns-to-work

Who knew toilet paper could be a terrorist target?

Georgia-Pacific — which churns out 39,000 cases of Angel Soft, Quilted Northern and other brands each day at its Palatka mill south of Jacksonville — is citing homeland security issues for refusing to heed a new state law allowing employees to bring guns to work and leave them in locked vehicles.

The NRA is outraged. "The rights of over 1,000 hardworking men and women are being violated over toilet paper," the National Rifle Association's Florida lobbyist Marion Hammer screamed in an e-mail to reporters this week.

The dispute is the latest example of a company bucking the law, which the NRA worked three years to get enacted. It went into effect July 1 upon Republican Gov. Charlie Crist's signature.

Most notably, Walt Disney World in Orlando has cited an exemption inserted into the bill for businesses that handle "explosive materials." In other words, fireworks. Universal Studios in Orlando claims it is exempt because it has a public school on the property.

The law is being challenged in federal court by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and other interests. During a hearing in Tallahassee last month, a judge said the law is so badly written it's "stupid." He is expected to rule this month.

Georgia-Pacific said Hammer is missing the point.

"It's not the products we produce," said spokesman Jeremy Alexander, acknowledging that toilet paper and Brawny paper towels are as innocuous a product as can be made.

The issue, he said, is the twice a month deliveries of fuel oil that arrive on a barge via a canal off the St. John's River. Each day, the mill burns up to 700 barrels of No. 6 fuel oil, also known as Bunker C oil. The mill produces 24-million tons of paper products a year.

"We are subject to Department of Homeland Security regulations," Alexander said. So protecting the oil means no guns.

"That's a lot of tissue paper," Hammer responds, artfully avoiding using a more crass term. "To suggest they are afraid a terrorist will blow up their fuel oil is ridiculous."

Georgia-Pacific points to a clause in the law (HB 503) that exempts any property upon which possession of a firearm is prohibited "pursuant to any federal law."

Because of its barge shipments, the company is governed under maritime security regulations and its facility security plan on file with the U.S. Coast Guard prohibits weapons, according to a memo employees received July 1, the day the law went into effect.

The Coast Guard on Tuesday confirmed the company has a security plan on file but would not discuss details. The same restrictions would apply to places such as the Port of Tampa.

Alexander points out that Georgia-Pacific has a few other plants in Florida and has not attempted to block the new law in those locations.

Comments

This was a stupid law. I hope every single business defies this law. It is clear, private property rights trump any right to bear ams. YOu dont have the right to come into my house with a gun. That would make every armed house invasion legal. This is a stupid law.

3:53 - not that I support the law, it has brought light on an issue that wasn't an issue...

However, the law does not make every armed house invasion legal... it merely protects someone from being fired from a job for having a weapon in their car... as long as they have a concealed weapons permit...

take some time to actually read the law before you comment.

4:02... yeah, but it still says that having a gun is more important than private property. That's silly since every American owns property... far fewer have guns. Plus the only reason you can "have" a gun is because of property rights (i.e. we recognize you own the gun). Property is the single most important implicit right in our country.

This law says that you as a propery owner can't decide what your employees can bring on to your property.

It's a stupid law signed by an equally stupid governor. Why is anyone surprised. Hopefully the federal court will actually do the right thing and get this dang thing off the books.

Yes, we know, it's everyone's given 'right' to carry their guns. However, when the first shooting takes place, we can all watch the news and see the same thing we always see "Well I just can't believe it. So and so always seemed like such a nice and calm guy/gal. I can't imagine them doing anything like this."

Is it really "private" property when we're talking in many respects about businesses that actively invite customers onto their premises? Seems like a distinction can be drawn between residential private property and business property.

I agree 4:20 100%. Their is definitely a distinction to be made!!!

4:20 - this law applies to businesses that are not open to the general public. You could own a factory that no customers ever visit and you still can't decide that guns aren't allowed on your private property.

Hell, under the current law your housekeeper can bring a gun on to your driveway and you can't tell him/her not to.

yes, its always private property if you have to be liable for accidents on it and pay taxes on it.

this law is farking stooooopid and douchebag's like Trey Treviesa made it happen.

I'd bet in Palatka the odds of getting shot by a plant worker with a handgun on a Friday night is a lot higher than getting injured by a terrorist any day of the week.

4:27 - if that's true, then Disney is well within their right to say that an employee can NOT bring a weapon onto the property whether it's in their locked car or not.

So what about aircraft that have weapons on them and fly over private property?

THEY MUST BE STOPPED AND SEARCHED!

My weapon is locked in my vehicle, you don't know it's there... and if you try to break into my vehicle to see if one is there... you'll be introduced to by anti-theft device.

[Mickey]

The Florida Chamber is going to tear Hammer a new one. This is a stupid law filed by stupid people. Sen. Alexander is already working with the business community as well as property rights activists to correct this moronic law.

[Magnum]

Hey Mickey, the Chamber will not prevail. Americans have Rights that the chamber can't buy. As for Sen Alexander, he will be lucky if his secret honey doesn't take him for all his inheritance.

Hey, I would support my housekeeper having a gun with her... especially if she had a permit...

Maybe if I posted on my street that a majority of homeowners are also gun owners, the jerk who stole my lawn mower would have thought twice before even considering my neighborhood as a target.

Here's the truth:

This is a pecker contest where big corporations want to show they can flex their flab...er, muscle. And, the House had the balls to show they're not bought and paid for and still willing to advance a law that is central to a conservative agenda. (Senate: take note.)

Corporate Florida is burning a huge pile of goodwill on this. Very stupid. Wait until they need a real favor from the House. Crickets, crickets....

This isn't a right at all. You have no constitutional rights from private citizens (and their property). The constitution (and the 2nd amendment) protect you from the government.

If the 2nd amendment means property owners can't disallow guns on their property then it would follow that the 1st amendment means they can't stop employees from bringing truckloads of porn to work.

Alexander is doing the right thing. With him helping the Chamber, maybe they can get rid of this anti-property rights law. I know he and the Chamber have been meeting to figure out how to stop this crazy law thats takes away property rights.

[Froggy cricket]

10:35 Amen! If anyone can help the Chamber Its Alexander. I now they will help him in his re-election too.

ooops, know, not now.

Does the name Twilla mean anything to anyone here?

DWE knows where his dad hides the gun but cant tell u

[To the extreme]

Just taking this argument to the extreme....

If gun rights are secured by an amendment that refers to a "well regulated militia"

Could a private property owner consider this new law a violation of 3rd amendment rights prohibiting the forced quartering of troops?

Here's a thought... so if the property (business owner) refuses to allow employees to keep a gun locked in their car... do the employees have the right to demand a safe working environment free from the employer keeping a gun in his business?

Or is one of those “I can protect myself 'cause I'm da boss, but to hell with you low-life workers” kind of things?

[Omega83]

It's no wonder Time Magaizine writes an article on how assinine Florida and its leaders have become.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Priorities people....

11:24 - that is silly. You get to tell people what they may or may not bring on to your land because it is YOUR land. Your employees get to do the same thing with their homes (decide who and what may come on their property).

But it's MY car, and MY gun... and none of your damn business if I have a gun in MY car. Nor is it any of my business what YOU keep in YOUR car.

It is my business, my parking lot, my rules and if you don't like it, you will need much more than a gun to get your way. I may not be allowed to fire you for having the gun in your car, but don't even think for a minute that I can't find a reason to fire you.

YOUR car and YOUR gun are parked on MY property

Does the "castle law" apply to a business owner's property? If so, maybe the owner (who can't fire the employee for having a gun) could simply shoot him because the owner was scared for his life and property. What if the "place of business" is a man's home (castle)? It might be easier to kill some of these worthless employees instead of having to go through the pain of firing them. HHHMNMMMM! Use one stupid NRA law to fix another stupid NRA law.

[Gene]

Thank you Sen. Atwater for helping State Farm Insurance attempt to raise our rates by 47%. The toilet paper is going to come in handy.

My gun is locked in MY car... and it's none of YOUR damn business what's locked in MY car!

... just like it's none of my business that you're tagging the receptionist when YOUR wife is visiting her mother in Georgia.