And the fun begins.....

This is a discussion on And the fun begins..... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Com...arkingLots.pdf...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63

Thread: And the fun begins.....

  1. #1
    Member
    Array Cakewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    292
    Keep emotionally active. Cater to your favorite neurosis.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206
    How about a short synopsis please? Save us all the trouble and time of having to read all this legaleze.
    DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.

    Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
    NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
    Utah Permit Certified Instructor

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array deadeye72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Central Mississippi
    Posts
    4,283
    This should be fun.
    Glock 27
    BENELLI NOVA

  5. #4
    Member Array mustang00066's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah
    Posts
    107
    i wonder how far up through the courts this one will go?
    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    -Alexander Hamilton

  6. #5
    Member
    Array Cakewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by havegunjoe View Post
    How about a short synopsis please? Save us all the trouble and time of having to read all this legaleze.
    The short synopsis is the Florida Retail Association and the Florida Chamber of Commerce are going to spend gobs of money and waste a lot of time thinking they're going to win a lawsuit against an overwhelmingly approved law that hasn't even gone into effect yet.
    Keep emotionally active. Cater to your favorite neurosis.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    So according to the florida retailers association if you are mugged on the way from work to home, you have to tell the BG to wait while you rush home get your weapon and return to the scene of the mugging so you can exercise your rights under both the US and Florida constitution.
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    for those who didn't want to wade through the legalese...
    Quote Originally Posted by OSHA
    654. Duties of employers and employees
    (a)Each employer---
    (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employement and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
    (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standars promulgated under this chapter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Page 11-12 of OP Link
    Section 790.251 is in conflict with the requirements of the OSH Act. By requiring employers to allow the presence of firearms in the immediate vicinity of their place of employment and by prohibiting the employer from acquiring knowledge of such presence or acting on any information relating to such presence, section 790.251 creates a hazard in the place of employement that is likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees working in such place of employement.
    They are basically saying it's an OSHA violation to force the employers to allow guns in the vicinity of their property. They also alledge that it is a violation of their property rights because the parking lots are not public property, but that they are open to people on a conditional basis, and to remove the right of the property owner to conditionally allow use of their property is a violation of their 5th and 14th admendment.

    They alledge bunches of other violations, but those are 2 of the more interesting.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    for those who didn't want to wade through the legalese...



    They are basically saying it's an OSHA violation to force the employers to allow guns in the vicinity of their property. They also alledge that it is a violation of their property rights because the parking lots are not public property, but that they are open to people on a conditional basis, and to remove the right of the property owner to conditionally allow use of their property is a violation of their 5th and 14th admendment.
    creates a hazard in the place of employement that is likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees working in such place of employement.

    They claim that the mere presence of a gun is likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees working there....

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
    They claim that the mere presence of a gun is likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees working there....
    Well, if they have dishonest employees who try to mug/rape/assault people, then sure, the presence of a gun is likely to cause harm to the employees.

    Come on, now. OSHA applies to everybody...BG's too! We, as tax payers, have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for people to practice their chosen profession, and that's never going to happen unless we develop more gun free zones!
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  11. #10
    New Member Array emopunker2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    for those who didn't want to wade through the legalese...



    They are basically saying it's an OSHA violation to force the employers to allow guns in the vicinity of their property. They also alledge that it is a violation of their property rights because the parking lots are not public property, but that they are open to people on a conditional basis, and to remove the right of the property owner to conditionally allow use of their property is a violation of their 5th and 14th admendment.

    They alledge bunches of other violations, but those are 2 of the more interesting.
    I hate to have to admit it, but I agree with them whole-heartedly. If it's truly their property they should be able to do as they please. You have a choice whether or not to go there. If that means finding a new job...that's your problem, not theirs.

    We keep pushing more and more laws and all we're really doing is fubaring the system more.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,118
    Well, that’s kind of silly if you ask me. I’ll just go on carrying my pistol on me like I always have.

    On a none joking side:

    I feel that it’s the right of every CCL holder to be able to lock his pistol in his car, if the employer prohibits firearms in the work place.

    And this new “law” just legalized what most of us have always been doing.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,918
    The short synopsis is the Florida Retail Association and the Florida Chamber of Commerce are going to spend gobs of money and waste a lot of time thinking they're going to win a lawsuit against an overwhelmingly approved law ...
    Recent history seems to be eluding many of us... not just in this thread but in others related to it.

    Lose the lawsuit?

    The last lawsuit was won by their side.

    Tulsa World

    And it was done using virtually the same argument being used in Florida.

    Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules

    by: DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
    10/6/2007 12:00 AM

    He issues an injunction against an Oklahoma law.


    A Tulsa federal judge has ruled against the state in its attempt to make sure employees can take guns onto their employers' property.

    U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

    Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

    Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."

    Whirlpool, which later bowed out of the case, filed the lawsuit on Oct. 27, 2004, against Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Gov. Brad Henry.

    The company challenged amendments to the state firearms and self-defense laws, which, had they gone into effect, would have prevented business owners from prohibiting guns inside locked vehicles on company property.

    Whirlpool alleged that the legislation, which was to go into effect on Nov. 1, 2004, was unconstitutional and would undermine its policies to protect its workers.

    Then-U.S. Chief District Judge Sven Erik Holmes issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 29, 2004, which prevented the amendments from going into effect while the court further analyzed the issues.

    In June 2005, Henry signed HB 1243, which exempts employers from legal liability if the use of a gun stored in a worker's vehicle results in injury or death at the work site because of the acts of a third party.

    Whirlpool Corp. opted out of the Tulsa lawsuit in November 2004, and the Williams Cos. and ConocoPhillips took over as the primary plaintiffs.

    Williams later dropped out of the lawsuit, leaving ConocoPhillips, which is based in Houston but employs more than 3,000 people in Oklahoma, to carry on with the case.

    Tulsa attorney Steve Broussard, representing ConocoPhillips, said Friday that the company is pleased with the ruling.

    Kern concluded that the proposed changes to Oklahoma law conflict with -- and are legally pre-empted by -- the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act.

    That federal law requires employers to lessen hazards in their workplaces that could lead to death or serious bodily harm. The measure also encourages employers to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.

    According to Kern's opinion, Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota and Kentucky have passed similar laws, while 13 states have rejected such measures.

    Kern's opinion is the first to address the constitutionality of these laws, it says.

    Rep. Jerry Ellis, D-Valliant, the principal author of the 2004 bill in the House, said Friday, "I guess federal judges can do anything they want. They don't have to worry about the voters."

    He said disgruntled workers who shoot people in the workplace are going to do so no matter what laws are on the books.

    Ellis said this week's decision increases the chances that someone will kill a lot of people before law enforcement personnel can respond to a 911 call.

    "A hand on a gun is better than a cop on the phone," he said.

    Ellis also said the ruling decreases the chances that employees can protect themselves on the way home from work.

    Assistant Attorney General Sherry Todd said Friday that Kern's opinion likely will be appealed.

    Roughly 1,000 people are killed at work each year, and guns are used in 80 percent of those deaths, according to the American Bar Association.

    The ABA went on record earlier this year supporting the right of employers "to exclude from the workplace and other private property persons in possession of firearms or other weapons."

    Proponents of such company policies point to a 2003 massacre in Mississippi.

    In July 2003, a Lockheed Martin employee abruptly left a training session at the company's Meridian, Miss., plant and retrieved a shotgun and semiautomatic rifle from his truck in the employee parking lot.

    He opened fire on co-workers, killing six and wounding eight. Afterward, authorities retrieved three more guns from his truck.

    Brian Siebel, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was quoted by the Associated Press earlier this year as saying, "Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common event. A gun is available in the parking lot for an employee who may be unstable and who reaches a snapping point."

    Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has embarked on a state-by-state campaign to get legislatures to enact laws that require employers to allow their workers to bring guns onto company parking lots.

    "When you get off work at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock and you're driving home, you have the right to protect yourself if you're accosted on the highway," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president has said.

    The amendments to Oklahoma law were made after forest products giant Weyerhauser Corp. fired eight employees in 2002 when guns were found in their cars on company lots in Oklahoma. Federal courts later upheld the firings.



    David Harper 581-8359
    david.harper@tulsaworld.com





    Copyright 2008, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved

  15. #14
    Member Array imatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by InspectorGadget View Post
    So according to the florida retailers association if you are mugged on the way from work to home, you have to tell the BG to wait while you rush home get your weapon and return to the scene of the mugging so you can exercise your rights under both the US and Florida constitution.
    According to a lot of employers in most states, that's exactly the case.

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    I hate to have to admit it, but I agree with them whole-heartedly. If it's truly their property they should be able to do as they please. You have a choice whether or not to go there. If that means finding a new job...that's your problem, not theirs.
    As I said in the Jared Jeweler post, I firmly believe that the owner of private property, be it a corporation, company, or individual should have the right to whatever rules they want on their property, with a qualifier.

    For example, an individual person does not have rights on my property. The First Amendment does not prevent me from making somebody leave my house or business for saying something I don't like. The First Amendment does not allow the press free access to my kitchen so they can write a news article on what is in my Fridge. My property, my rules. Take it or leave it.

    Here's the qualifier...I do not believe that individual, company, or corporation should receive federal or state funds, or have that property be used for any federal or state purpose. I believe it to be unconstitutional for my tax dollars to be used to fund an establishment where I am not permitted access.

    I also believe it is unconstitutional to force me to disarm by requiring me to enter a location where the 'bearing' of arms is prohibited. A courthouse is one example which I may be required to enter, but my 2nd amendment right is infringed upon.

    I can choose to find another employer, I can choose to frequent a different store, but I cannot choose another courthouse.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. The Wait Begins
    By foots402 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 16th, 2011, 02:40 PM
  2. Now The Wait Begins
    By whm in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: December 11th, 2009, 10:34 PM
  3. The wait begins
    By Random in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2009, 12:36 PM
  4. Wait Begins
    By tbeubs17 in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 25th, 2008, 08:55 PM
  5. So it begins..
    By Jay in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 27th, 2006, 09:55 AM

Search tags for this page

free speech private property publix plaza new york state

Click on a term to search for related topics.