Guns at work: let the lawsuits begin

The Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce already have filed a lawsuit against the new "take your guns to work" state law. The business groups argue that a property owner, such as a business or employer, has the right to set a no-gun policy or his or her own property. My own thinking is that I do not have the "right" under the First Amendment to march around a Publix parking lot with an anti-Publix sign -- in other words, property rights are balanced against individual rights. At any rate, here's the lawsuit: Download guns.pdf

Comments

[S & W]

This is just more wasted time and tax dollars on an irrelevant issue, while we face very relevant issues that go unattended.

No matter what the result of this waste of time and tax dollars, if there is no companion bill that allows employers to search an individual’s car… it is moot. I highly doubt businesses across Florida will invest in a guard shack and vehicle search system at every jobsite entrance.

Please stop wasting our time, money, and recourses on this baloney, and do something substantive for God’s sake… like dealing with baggy pants, or bestiality issues, or… oh, never mind.

[Don Mott]

It will likely cost a lot more tax dollars defending it. The state of Oklahoma tried to pass the same law. It was overturned by the courts and appealed by the state. Last I heard it is still tied up in the court system...5 years later, and from what I understand this suit is basically the same as the one filed there. Nice to see the pols in Tallahassee spending our money so wisely while the NRA is stuffing their pockets with money.

[guy]

Eventually the anti-gun lobby is going to bring some issues before the Supreme Court that is really going to bite them in the rear.
I believe that all present gun laws existing right now,will be found to be unconstitutional.
Any law that "Infringes" on my right to own and bear "Arms" will be found to illegal.
That means I could own a Sherman tank if I so desired and had the funds to bring it in front of the Supreme Court.
The biggest joke ever was the"Assault Weapon Ban".
There was absolutely nothing that did anything but make the appearance of the weapon illegal. grips etc.
I believe the founding fathers knew, that polititions could take over the country and use the military to abuse the peoples rights, thats why they said "An armed Militia neccessary to a FREE state" is used'
Any ways it is the second thing they put into words.
I believe that,
The people of our country have the right to bear arms, of any kind anywhere in a safe unthreatening manner.
Now thats scary but true.

Guy U. Nash~~ National Rifle Association lifetime Member.

[Don Mott]

If you are the same 'guy' who regularly posts on Howards blogs I have sensed that you are a sensible and rational person. So you should be able to understand that this issue has nothing at all to do with gun ownership or the 2nd amendment but every thing to do with private property owners rights. I'm sure that if the government were to pass a law telling you what or who you can or cannot allow on your property you would be howling, and rightly so. So why is a business owners rights less important than a private persons?

[guy]

Don, Florida law allows for law abiding Citzens to carry a weapon in their car.
there are certain conditions that must be met for safety.
There has been a zero degree, of incidents where crimes were commited by legal guns, but many case's where serious crime has been prevented.
You are talking parking lots where crime is prevolent.
Both my wife and daughter carry weapons in their cars.
Don if you look around you, things are not like they used to be.
And people are being preyed upon and that is a daily reality right here in St.
Pete. Sad but true.

"From my cold, dead hand!"

[guy]

Don~ also these two ladies are both experts with handguns and practice regularly at the police pistol range.
Make one not worry as much I assure you.

[guy]

Is that you up there Charlton?

[guy]

Also these are petty and biased lawsuits that have 0 merit.
If there is an incident where this is found to be the cause there would be a case, but these people are far left hardliners trying to make sure that just the criminals are armed. A never ending Saga.
The west wasn't won, with a registered gun.
Sam Colt was the first "peacemaker".
Was that first letter writer,
Smith & Wesson. Hmmm

[Don Mott]

Guy I'm with you on all that, really. Hell, God made some men small and some men big but Mr. Colt made them all equal. I am a very firm believer in the right to own guns. But I also believe that when rights are removed the removal of rights will expand. As I said this is about property owners rights and not the right to own guns. If the government told me that I, by law had to permit someone on my property carrying or doing something I do not like I would be up in arms, (no pun intended). I am all about self protection, self preservation and all that but when one groups rights intrude on my rights I become concerned that the government is stepping too far over the line. Once that happens where does it end.

[Don Mott]

Oh and by the way guy, these lawsuits must have some merit since as I stated the one in Oklahoma has been in the courts for about 5 years. Courts take a bit more care in protecting folks rights than state legislators do. So if you don't mind your tax money being spent that way more power to you, I prefer the money be spent on something useful like say education, care for the elderly and children, hospice etc.

[Howard Troxler]

Howard here, relieved not to be talking about the stadium. I believe the Second Amendment must protect an individual ownership right, and not just the right of some "militia" -- merely the contemporaneous definition of "community" at the time of the framing.

In this case, there is a balancing. May an employer, or a business that is a place of public accommodation, have a no-guns-on-our property policy? My first analysis is that this is akin to the fact that no property owner is forced to tolerate the First Amendment rights of another ON THEIR PROPERTY. I do not have a "right" to march around in a Publix parking lot with a "Publix stinks" sign, nor do I have a "right" to tell my boss to go $#$% himself -- a condition of my presence there is that I comport myself with the company policy.

Now, turning around and arguing against my own point -- couldn't Publix, then, have a bumper sticker policy, saying that it will only allow customers with bumper stickers with which the company agrees? (Sorry to be picking on Publix, by the way; they're my favorite.) I dunno, that seems wrong -- customers should not forsake ALL freedoms as a condition of entering a place of public accommodation.

And owning a gun is a freedom no less dear or fundamental than free speech. The difference being, nobody can go out and get a speech out of their car and kill you. Sigh. There is still a balancing test here -- is there a compelling state interest in restricting the right? Can be, can be. But in this case, the state is NOT restricting it, but enhancing it, and I think the "price tag" for being a place of public accommodation is to allow the exercise of that right...

Hmm, I think I just talked myself into an opposite opinion... (grin).

[guy]

Howard, while you are thinking straight, I can get you a reduced price, trial membhership in the NRA or SIGMA X (the SIlent Gun MAjority) this month only.
Put those stickers on your car and watch the hoods avoid you.

[Don Mott]

Howard while I disagree with your logic I would like to say this. As S&W stated this is a waste of time and taxpayers money. Since the law as originally designed would pertain only to concealed weapon permit holders and the guns would have to be locked in vehicles it is basically useless. What business or employer checks cars for concealed weapons? But now it will be tied up in the court system at considerable cost to the taxpayers as I stated before. And as I stated before as well, if the state intrudes on one right what will stop them from intruding on others as time passes? As far as I have been able to learn this became an issue when some hunters were fired out in Oklahoma for having rifles in racks in the back window of their pickups on their employers property. This law does not cover that. The Oklahoma legislators law is still in the courts 5 years later. That's a lot of money for government attorneys who could be doing something more useful and money that could be more wisely spent. And as I've read, the recent lawsuits filed here mirror the ones filed there. So expect a long fight where the only ones who make out are the lawyers as usual. It is a waste of time, a waste of money and an intrusion on property owners rights that was certainly not needed. I am probably mule-headed but I don't see how anyone could look at it any differently.