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

Should the state know what's in your medicine cabinet?

My colleague Chris Tisch, who has written extensively about the abuse of prescription drugs in Florida, reports today that a bill in the Legislature to track prescriptions through a statewide monitoring system is running into trouble.

The measure is House Bill 1011, by state Rep. Jack Seiler, D-Fort Lauderdale. The bill would require a pilot project for prescription monitoring in South Florida, starting no later than 2009, which then would be expanded to the rest of the state. The idea is that "doctor shoppers" who try to get multiple prescriptions for the same drug would be caught by the system.

Tisch reports there are two reasons for opposition to Seiler's bill. The first is  cost, which supporters say could be offset by grants. The second concern is more serious -- does the government really need to know what is in the medicine cabinets of law-abiding citizens?

Prescription drug abuse is a modern and growing problem, linked to some 2,000 deaths a year in Florida, about a quarter of them in the Tampa Bay area. That is a tragic human cost and the cases Tisch has chronicled are heartbreaking.

On the other hand, to address it, we're talking about giving the government total access into the medicine cabinets of 18-million law-abiding people. Even though 35 other states have some form of this system, that's still no reason to embrace it automatically.

It is illegal in this state for the government to compile lists of law-abiding citizens who own a gun. So why should the government be able to know which homes on which block have which prescriptions in the medicine cabinet? Is personal freedom and privacy so easily surrendered in the name of fighting crime? Or do you think that the compelling state interest in fighting drug abuse overrides that privacy?

Sound like a Tuesday column to me...

Free speech and 'civility' at UF

The University of Florida has backed down on its demand for an apology from students who promoted a movie about radical Islam with a poster saying: "Radical Islam wants you dead."

I think this is a good decision, because if the university really wanted to be in the business of ordering people to apologize to each other when someone is offended, then it would have its hands full.

But I am curious as to the standard -- do you think there are ANY circumstances in which the university would be right to demand an apology for student speech? Lots of universities in modern times have some sort of code about not being racist, sexist, offensive and so forth.

For example, here is a passage from a document titled "Student Rights and Responsibilities" on the university's web site:

Organizations or individuals that adversely upset the delicate balance of communal living will be subject to disciplinary action by the University. Only in an atmosphere of equality and respect can all members of the University community grow.

Oh, really? So if you "adversely upset the delicate balance of communal living" at UF, you can be subject to university discipline? How does that square, then, with UF's backing down in this case? If the affected group had been Hispanic, Chinese, or African-American, would things be different? If cable-TV news or the state attorney general had not taken notice?

My question is whether the university needs to strike a balance between "civility" in campus life and free speech -- or whether there ought to be no balance at all, and students should be able to speak of each other any way they please. In either case, let's just make sure that it applies the same way to everybody.

The Hillsborough public access lawsuit

Here's a copy of the lawsuit filed by Speak Up Tampa Bay Inc., the operator of the public-access cable channels in Hillsborough County, against the Hillsborough County Commission for cutting off the station's funding: Download SpeakUp.pdf

The lawsuit says that Hillsborough's decision "completely censors all unincorporated Hillsborough County residents' abilty to produce, transmit and view television programming carried over public access channel capacity..."

At first blush, this seems like a difficult case to win. Do citizens have the "right" to force the government to give them a soapbox? If that were the only issue, the answer might be no.

But if the government is deliberately shutting down public-access BECAUSE of its content, and giving favor to other speech instead... then maybe there's a case.

Speak Up's lawsuit cites examples of public-access shows being criticial of the County Commission, and cites examples of comments in reply by county commissioners expressing their hostility toward public access.

On top of that, Hillsborough has decided to eliminate only the citizens' access channel, while keeping its own -- a channel that features government-produced programs with a completely absence of criticism of the government itself.

Speak Up's lawsuit argues that the county is violating the First Amendment by (1) specifically targeting and shutting down a citizen forum for criticism of the government on one channel while (2) preserving and funding a comparable channel that provides pro-government speech.

The argument is sounding better...

Mr. Justice Scalia

Dang! I wish I could have seen U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was in the Bay area Wednesday. I am a little bit of a Scalia groupie, in a limited way -- certainly he is one of the best writers on the court, and has a rare joy-of-battle about him. Now, this does not mean I think he is RIGHT about most things; in fact I think he has trampled over actual constitutional intent on occasion. A few of his opinions I have read seem downright crazy, but there have been other times I thought he was the only justice paying attention to what mattered. If I got to pick and choose which justice to have a beer with, he would be the one. I'd invite my friend and colleague Robyn Blumner, too.

Speaking at the Stetson Univeristy College of Law, Scalia made some observations about the original intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and expounded on the philosophy that the Constitution is not a "living" document, whose meaning changes with the fashions of the day, but which should be interpreted as closely as possible by the meaning that the Framers had in mind when they wrote it.

I dunno.

I am certain that the Framers intended for American citizens to have the right to bear arms, for example. But then we invented the machine gun, nerve gas and suitcase nuclear devices. If we are bound by original intent, then I suspect these are "arms" that must be protected, and that we either must allow them or rewrite the Second Amendment. The alternative is to apply a balancing test to the Second Amendment, just as we do the First or any of the others ("Fire in a crowded theater'') -- that is, applying time, manner and place restrictions that limit those rights, and allowing for the ol' Compelling State Interest in restricting the core rights... all of this analysis depends, it seems to me, on contemporary conditions, and not what happened to be the case in 1787.

"Cruel and unusual" is utterly undefined in the Eighth Amendment -- are we absolutely obligated to abide by the 1787 societal standard? Why not, then, public whippings or stocks? (I am an ancient historian, not an early American one, so if they had already gotten rid of stocks by then forgive me and correct me).

I confess to you that at times I do take a Scalia-esque perverse delight in fantasizing that, say, the Commerce Clause is used to declare a big chunk of the existing federal government bureaucracy unconstitutional...

I Am DEFINITELY On The Losing End Of The Mail On This One

More well-stated disageement with Thursday's column on guns at the workplace:

[Y]ou compared SB 2356 to legislation being considered that would ban political demonstrations from supermarkets. I find this to be a rather poor comparison myself. Banning political demonstrations would prevent disruptions and loss of business, something that SB 2356 would not do. A firearm that is legally carried in a vehicle (which you do not need a concealed permit for) must be out of sight and not immediately accessible. Simply put, no one would even know they were there. The other problem with
this comparison is that banning demonstrations would not infringe on the ability of the people to exercise their rights elsewhere, SB 2356 would. -- Eric Powell

If for a moment one grants that the rights of property owners must trump all other rights, then property/business owners could also choose to ignore child-labor laws and can refuse to hire blacks or women. Anti-discrimination laws would suddenly be invalid. Acording to your premise, since Amendment 2 can be invalidated by property rights, slavery could exist on private property, beyond the dictates of Amendment 13 of the Constitution. -- Lee McGee, Jeanerette, LA

If I am walking from my car to WalMart, Publix, etc., I do not ever think about how many of the cars in the lot might have guns in them, and if every car has two or three, it is unlikely that I will ever know it. On the other hand, if I see Girl Scouts, band members, sports team members, petitioners, etc., I know that I am going to be "confronted" by them at some point. Whether I am happy to see them or not does not change the fact that they are going to be an obstacle which is "obstructing" my path to the store. Since one affects the customers 100% of the time and the other most likely will never affect them, I would think that the store's concerns should be different. -- Robert S.

Hopefully the concerned business owners are working diligently at obtaining the required permits to install clearly visible roadway signs proclaiming, "All lawful gun owners are encouraged to shop elsewhere as we support the rights of criminals to assault, rob or rape law abiding citizens who will be powerless to defend themselves on our property." -- Don

Do you really think that a madman will decide not to commit a crime because there is a law against it? You have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens with guns. Criminals have everything to fear from law abiding citizens with guns. -- M. Trcic

More Reader Comments, With The General Theme Of: Booooo!

On this morning's column on a proposed state law that would make sure employees could their guns locked in their cars at work, and that employers could not have no-guns-on-premises rules:

If a person wants to do harm at his/her place of work and break already existing state laws against killing or injuring people, does Troxler really think that telling the person that weapons aren't allowed on the property going to stop anything?  -- Butch

Liberal idiot.....  -- e

So if you want to carjack a person or just rob them or simply kill them the best place to do it would be while they are traveling to work. The perps can rely on their victims being unarmed at those times. It's Open Season on victims during the comute  -- Richard

I was hoping you could enlighten us as to your personal experiences as a Times employee.  Do your bosses randomly search your car in the parking lot, or only on special occasions?  Do they ask you for a key or just break out the slimjim and go at it?  Do they look in the glove compartment, trunk, inside containers such as briefcases, file folders, etc.?  Are you subject to discipline if they find a Tampa Tribune in there? -- Chris Casper

People that have a right to carry a concealed weapon have undergone extensive training in the rights and liabilities o0f doing so.  They have had a through background investigation done and have paid well over $100 dollars for the permit.  Criminals that do the workplace shootings are just that......criminals!  They usually have a stolen or illegally gotten firearm.  Do you think that a sign saying "no firearms allowed" is going to make them obey that rule? -- Richard Petruschke

Pretty smart comments, 'scept for that one name-callin' guy. I like Chris' the best. So far, Chris, no, the Times has not been searching our cars in the parking lot -- but what if it announced such a policy? I would have the free-market choice either of quitting or parking somewhere else, or subjecting to the search. Pretty much like the choice I have everywhere else our society has gone overboard on searching and "security precautions.'' Seems just as invasive to me for employers to require employees to urinate into a cup for drug testing. At any rate, since the Legislature is always telling me how important Private Property Rights are, it sure is odd how quickly those rights are being cast aside here... it is no coincidence that the Chamber of Commerce is horrified at this bill and deeply opposes it, while supporting a bill of the opposite philosophy, allowing businesses to keep out First Amendment type activity such as petition gathering.

Thanks for the comments; I'm sure there will be more.

The Readers: Do Take Your Guns To Town, Son; No Redner Regrets; Oh, And By The Way, You Stink

My column this morning mocked a bill in the Legislature that would prevent employers or businesses in Florida from banning guns on their property. Employees or customers could keep a gun locked in their car under the proposed law.

I said it was ironic that at the same time, the Legislature also is considering a bill to allow Publix, Wal-Mart and the like to ban petition gathering by the public on their grounds. In other words, a property owner has a right to kick out the First Amendment, but even private property rights have to give way to the Second Amendment. I figure the two are of equal importance.

Here's part of an interesting reply from reader Roger Gulbransen of Gainesville, who thinks I make a false equivalence:

Just as the fight over hiding names and addresses last year pointed out that it doesn't take a license for someone to shoot a gun at work or home, if someone is mad enough at their employer, they would be just as apt to bring a gun with or without permission to have a gun locked in their car at work.

Not being allowed to have their gun locked away while they work means that license holders have no defense while traveling to/from work or shopping on that trip to save gas.

I don't equate the overwhelmingly law abiding license holders with the Hare-Krishna's and political wannabes . Those folks have a plethora of 'public' owned places to practice their solicitations.

Thanks, Roger. Meanwhile, most of the e-mail and comments have run against Joe Redner, the famous nude-club owner from Tampa who finished second in a Tampa City Council race against incumbent Gwen Miller. For example:

I've always thought Redner's political runs were mostly ego-driven. Every pimp craves respectability.  Joe Redner seems to have a compulsive need and a knack for publicity, and I think one must admit the local press including the St. Pete Times and Creative Loafing have been his enablers.  -- Z

I'm still catching lots of flak from Tuesday's column, in which I disagreed with the faculty decision at the University of Florida to deny former Gov. Jeb Bush an honorary degree. Check out today's letters to the editor page for even more. Most folks think Bush shouldn't get an honorary degree on the basis of his track record as governor. One comment-poster at the end of the column also disagreed, at least I THINK so anyway --

if howard troxler had a single creative thought in his head it would die of lonliness  -- Travis

If you didn't catch my live chat on Tuesday, you can still read the transcript of comments, questions & my replies here. A few comments are still trickling in, including this one:

I would like to know why the Times never publishes a letter criticizing Bill Young. I have only been in St. Pete 12 years now but even when he tried to explain why he never did anything about Walter Reed the paper did not call him on it. Is there some kind of "give Bill Young a Pass" card that I do not know about? -- schauer

No offense, schauer, but the reason I include your question here is because it is a prime example of modern rhetoric: The assertion of the thing that is Simply Not True. In the past month we have run letters both criticizing and supporting Young; I have copied over the texts of some of them in reply to your question.

Best wishes to all and happy Thursday,
Howard