does anyone know anything about this (FL car storage law)

This is a discussion on does anyone know anything about this (FL car storage law) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This entire issue is one that could be considered a gray area. What it all boils down to is individual rights. However, when talking about ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: does anyone know anything about this (FL car storage law)

  1. #16
    Member Array KellyCooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    149
    This entire issue is one that could be considered a gray area. What it all boils down to is individual rights. However, when talking about employers, most people tend to look at them not as individuals and more as entities. When, everything is said and done, who goes home with the consequences of how the company is performing? Who put up the risk of starting it and maintaining it in the first place? The mere fact that you work for him/her/them does not make your rights trump theirs. (however misguided their intentions may be) Now having said that, it really only applies to the workplace itself. Your car is COMPLETELY different. That would in essence be pushing their rights onto you when away from work. The purpose of a car is to transport you from point A (being home)to point B (being work). Minus the 5% or less of your total commute spent parking/leaving, your car is used AWAY from work. Those employer rights in this case do NOT trump your individual rights. I believe the only real way to describe it is with the saying I have always heard while growing up. "your rights end where other's rights begin"
    ~~~the biggest deficit of the general public is a lack of personal accountability.. I have no one to blame for my actions, regardless of circumstances, except myself and by the same token I can hold no one else responsible for my protection and well being other than myself~~~

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    I think this has been gone over time and time again in many states. The fact remains that you are not required to take a job at any particular company. That is your choice, and by doing so you agree to abide by thier company policy while on company property. If you decide to break company policy and carry a firearm on thier property, in most states the courts will side with the company not the employee, like it or not, that is the current law.

    As far as how the company conducts searches, well that really is up to them, since it is on thier property.

    I don't see it as putting one right over the other, others see it differently. You don't have to go to work for the company, and you don't have to park on the company property, two simple solutions for those that don't like the current law in most states.

    Example. In Arkansas you are required to tell a person when you enter a residence if your concealed carrying. Now if you tell them and they say, I don't want you in here with that gun, or parked in my driveway with it either, are you within your rights to ignore thier request as the property owner? NO. Who's rights in this situation are more important?
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  4. #18
    Senior Member Array rabywk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    St. Louis Metro Area
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    They have property rights, and you have gun rights.
    So, seen another way, YOU are actually respecting THEIR right to NOT respect YOUR right!

    Why shouldn't THEY be the ones respecting YOUR right not to respect THEIR right?

    There's a circularity to this situation. It's rather like when one person accuses the other person of always wanting the last word. When the accuser gets the accused to yield to him the last word, now he can be accused of demanding the last word and the whole argument can re-start, just in the reverse direction!

    So why couldn't you argue that if someone's going to have to respect the other's right to not respect his right, it should be you who is able to flout the employer's property rights? Because if you yield, then you have said it's okay for him to demand his right to not respect your gun right.




    There are enough criminals out there who carry guns despite the fact that getting caught doing it could get them prison time, that I suspect there are probably many licensed gun carriers who brave the possibility of getting fired by an anti-gun employer so that they can have the enhanced safety that carrying a gun provides for them.
    It should be viewed as a compromise.

    Inside Building = Their Right Wins
    Outside Building = Your Right Wins.

    This is a 50/50 compromise for both parties.
    NRA Rifle Coach
    NRA Pistol Instructor
    NRA Personal Protection In the Home Instructor

    --- Some of the friendliest people I have ever talked to are gun owners and shooters and according to the gun activists we are the mass murders and felons of the nation???

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    rabywk, that's pretty much in line with what I said, is it not?


    farronwolf, the more I read from you about this, I have to say, the more it seems you really don't mind that they assert their rights over your rights when it comes to bringing a gun onto company property in your car. (We are not talking about bringing it inside.)

    It really does come down to "whose rights are given the power to win out over who else's rights." In this case, I don't think you've made a clear argument why the company's right to decide if guns can be in your car on their property should trump your right to have a gun (which is protected by the Constitution, explicitly, unlike the company's right--and does a company even have rights? It's not an individual...).

    Again, it comes down to the fact that someone (company or you) is going to be granted the power to have their right trump the other's conflicting right. WHOSE RIGHT SHOULD WIN OUT, AND WHY?

    If I have the right to carry a gun (and a license granted by the state, too!), and the company has the "right" to determine what people can bring onto its property, what clear argument is made that establishes that the company's right should take precedence over my own right?

    People are quick to say that the company has the right to say what goes on, on its premises. But we all know that is not an absolute right. For example, if the company tried to tell you that you couldn't work there because you're a Catholic, they'd be in deep doodoo. Likewise if they stepped on various other rights that are yours. They cannot just make ANY arbitrary rule about terms of being on their property--there are limits. So why, if we know that certain restrictions can be placed on what they can restrict, is it so hard to believe that maybe they should not be able to restrict, by administrative fiat, our right to keep and bear arms??

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Another important question is this:

    If we don't "have to" work at a given company (because we don't like their gun policy), what if we begin to find that everyplace we might go work has enacted the same policy with regard to depriving us of our rights?

    It's one thing to say that we can seek employment elsewhere; but as the policy spreads (I don't know of employers that explicitly protect the right to have guns on the property) it becomes harder and harder to be able to work anywhere that does not curtail our rights. What happens where there is no choice for working at a rights-protected company?

    "Well, you have the right to become self-employed."

    Well, that's the same as saying that if you want your rights and employment at someone's company at the same time, you are denied.

    I don't buy this, "If you don't like it, you're free to leave," nonsense. It's a rationalization, and I don't think it's valid.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Peacefuljeffery

    Ok, I will try to explain this in terms you may be able to relate to, since you failed to address my Arkansas law example and who would prevail if asked to leave a residence.

    No, a company can not discriminate against you for being a Catholic, but the company can stop you from practicing your Catholic faith, IE having a Mass said on their property. You have the right to freedom of religion based on the constitution but you don't have the right to practice it on someone elses property against their wishes.

    If the Baptist's want to go over the the Jewish Temple, and hold a service, does the constitution give them the right to do that, NO. That isn't keeping them from being Baptist, it is just making sure that the Jewish Temple doesn't have to let them have a service there.

    If in fact you are working or parking on private property, most states respect the property owner rights regardless whether they are an individual or an entity, over that of the individual regardless of whether it is a 1A, 2A or whatever issue you want to bring up.

    Just as a company or individual has a right to keep someone from saying certain things on thier property, or asking them to leave, they also have the same right when it comes to 2A issues.

    That is not taking away your right as an individual, it is simply saying that your individual right does not take precidence on someone else's property. If your on most public property or on your own private property, then you are free to exercise any right you see fit within the law.

    Whether you are inside the building or outside the building if your on the property including the parking lot, it is still their property, not yours. Even if it is in your car, your car is still on thier property.

    This doesn't seem that complicated to me. I may not agree with the company policy regarding no weapons, but as a business owner and property owner, I certainly see the legal justification for the current law in most states.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  8. #22
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    One thing to keep in mind is that a company does not have to provide a place for you to park nor does it require you to drive to work. An employer provides parking as a perk to employees and as such can maintain control over that parking area if it is thier property. If you don't like it you can park down the street away from their property and walk the rest of the way like millions of other Americans do. If you are provided free parking consider it an extra benefit amd do as the owner of the property wishes. Otherwise make different arrangements.

    I would be curious to know what percentage of Americans are provided free parking at thier jobs.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108

    This is a really tired argument;

    Of course, the property proponents say that they can dictate whatever, whenever however as if their property were some sort of fiefdom, with themselves being the benevolent ruler.

    This, in itself is a fallacy. The first Ten Amendments to our constitution are the Bill of Rights; they are enumerated as such in order of their importance. In fact, property rights (such as land ownership) are only discussed in the context of illegal seizure without due process in the 4th amendment; at no other place in the constitution is "property rights" discussed in the context or the terms I have seen posted so far. You will find property rights laws in state and federal code laws, where such things belong.

    What I am alluding to here is that the Bill of Rights was written with the intent of enumerating the personal rights and freedoms in accordance with their strength and level of importance. It was never intended that paltry things like "property rights" should ever be able to subrogate or trump constitutionally protected freedoms where individuals are concerned.

    If the logic held true that any property owner could dictate 100% of the conditions 100% of the time on their property, we would cease to exist as a nation, pure and simple. Any property owner could violate anyone, anywhere, anytime. This, in large part is already happening everywhere in our country in every aspect of our lives. From blatant invasions of privacy through drug and alcohol testing to "conditions of employment" to Homeowner associations, our country is slowly being destroyed as we speak.

    The simplest way to put it is that we have turned our nation over to lesser men. Do you honestly think that the founding fathers would have tolerated the crap that concerned "property owners" are pulling today? What do you think was going on in Europe that caused so many to leave? Those violations are precisely the reason why they formed this nation to begin with, and placed in protections against the times when these freedoms would inevitably be violated, because we are after all, human. Our history since has proven time and time again that these protections have saved us from ourselves.

    So don't bore me anymore with all the legalese concerning everyone's "property rights" because it doesn't make you or anyone else God. Remember, we are one nation, under God, and our most important rights start with the first ten amendments, not our state and federal penal codes and tax laws.

    At least for now......
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    So don't bore me anymore with all the legalese concerning everyone's "property rights" because it doesn't make you or anyone else God. Remember, we are one nation, under God, and our most important rights start with the first ten amendments, not our state and federal penal codes and tax laws.

    At least for now......
    The "Under God" wasn't adopted into the pledge until 1954 by Eisenhower after the Knights of Columbus pushed the issue. May be before your time, but anyway, some factual info for you. Most courts do not agree with you and you have not made a good arguement for your point, only stated your opinion.

    By the way, I happen to have a K of C license plate on my Jeep with the phrase "One nation under God" on it.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Peacefuljeffery
    It's "peacefuljeffrey".
    Copy and paste if you must, but it's a courtesy to spell someone's name right.

    No, a company can not discriminate against you for being a Catholic, but the company can stop you from practicing your Catholic faith, IE having a Mass said on their property. You have the right to freedom of religion based on the constitution but you don't have the right to practice it on someone elses property against their wishes.
    It begins to sound like you support the idea of people having their constitutional rights only on their own property.

    Well, at least, not on OTHER people's property. That leaves their own property, or public property. And we have seen ARBITRARY restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights on public property. (National parks, for example. Polling places, for another--as though people would be drawing guns to force others to vote the way they want them to.)

    So, what if the public got a referendum and banned carry of firearms in public places, because hey, "the public" "owns" the public places. Majority rules, and they tell you that sure, you have a constitutional right to guns, and you can feel free to practice it--as long as you're in your own home, and nowhere else!

    You seem to support the whittling-down of our right. I'm just calling it like I see it.

    And you seem unwilling to address my basic concern, which is, "Why, in a contest of which right should win out, should their right to dictate behavior on their property trump my right to have a gun?" You're setting up their property right as some sort of "greatest among equals." You act as though it is a fait accompli, that it's just academic that well of course property rights come before gun rights. WHY, is my question. You have not established why the company has the prerogative to use their one right to shut down someone's other right. Why is their right preemptive, and mine is not?

    If the Baptist's want to go over the the Jewish Temple, and hold a service, does the constitution give them the right to do that, NO. That isn't keeping them from being Baptist, it is just making sure that the Jewish Temple doesn't have to let them have a service there.
    Of course that's reasonable. But taking away the Baptist's right to hold services in the Jewish temple does not deny the Baptist his right to practice his faith. It's not analogous to a gun owner carrying in a certain location. Take away the right to carry in x, y or z location, and you actually do nullify any meaning that the right to keep and bear arms has! What good is a so-called "right" when anyone, anywhere, can just nullify the practical application of it by saying, "Not on my property"?

    If in fact you are working or parking on private property, most states respect the property owner rights regardless whether they are an individual or an entity, over that of the individual regardless of whether it is a 1A, 2A or whatever issue you want to bring up.
    You're setting yourself up as somewhat of an expert on it, so I'll ask you again to explain the justification for that logic. Why did it turn out that way, instead of the property owners being told, "Hey, that's his right to carry a gun, so go jump in a lake if you don't like it"?

  12. #26
    Member Array xd.40sub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    magna, ut
    Posts
    307
    peacefuljeffrey is my new hero. i completely agree on his line of thinking. if everyone has the right to restrict my right to Cary a gun, I couldn't leave the house. You can't go anywhere that isn't owned by someone. is that how the 2A was meant to be read the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it makes others uncomfortable and this said "other" has laid claim to the ground you Wish to pass. bull puckey, what does shall not be infringed mean to you,well lets see

    shall: Determination or promise. Inevitability. Command. A directive or requirement. To have to: MUST

    not: " In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal or prohibition"

    be: "Make: cause to become"

    infringed: "To encroach upon something."

    Another way then to state the concept of the Second Amendment would be:

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms must in no way or to no degree become encroached upon."

    Now look up "encroach": "To intrude gradually on the rights or possessions of another."

    It is my opinion obviously that no one should be granted the power to prevent me from protecting myself. Some have said well you don't have to work there. well I guess i really don't, but i would rather continue to pay the mortgage. That is not the point do I have to search for a pro gun employer and a pro gun grocery store and on and on and on in order to exercise this so called right of mine.
    do what you can with what you have where you are at (theodore roosevelt)

  13. #27
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. - Ron Paul

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    It's "peacefuljeffrey".
    Copy and paste if you must, but it's a courtesy to spell someone's name right.

    You seem to support the whittling-down of our right. I'm just calling it like I see it.

    And you seem unwilling to address my basic concern, which is, "Why, in a contest of which right should win out, should their right to dictate behavior on their property trump my right to have a gun?" You're setting up their property right as some sort of "greatest among equals." You act as though it is a fait accompli, that it's just academic that well of course property rights come before gun rights. WHY, is my question. You have not established why the company has the prerogative to use their one right to shut down someone's other right. Why is their right preemptive, and mine is not?

    Of course that's reasonable. But taking away the Baptist's right to hold services in the Jewish temple does not deny the Baptist his right to practice his faith. It's not analogous to a gun owner carrying in a certain location. Take away the right to carry in x, y or z location, and you actually do nullify any meaning that the right to keep and bear arms has! What good is a so-called "right" when anyone, anywhere, can just nullify the practical application of it by saying, "Not on my property"?

    You're setting yourself up as somewhat of an expert on it, so I'll ask you again to explain the justification for that logic. Why did it turn out that way, instead of the property owners being told, "Hey, that's his right to carry a gun, so go jump in a lake if you don't like it"?
    Sorry for the misspelling, hope it didn't hurt your feelings too much.

    No, I don't support lessening anyones right to carry. I just don't see that that right prevails over other rights.

    Because the courts have ruled that the companies or private property rights prevail. I am no legal expert or judge, just telling it like it is.

    Just like I don't have to allow the KKK or Lewis Faracan (sp) to come to my property and exercise their freedom of speech, I am not required to allow someone to carry on my property if I were to so choose. I am not stopping them from exercising freedom of speech, they can do it all the want from the street. The companies are not saying that their employees can't own or carry firearms, that would be like not hiring a Catholic, big no no.

    Are you suggesting that I should have to let someone come onto my property and speak, or practice their religion against my wishes?

    There is a difference in "practicing" your religion and "being" that religion. Unless I put someone on a rack or tie them to a stake I am not trying to stop their ability to be a certain faith, just limiting where they can practice the religion.

    By the same token, property owners are not keeping you from owning or carrying your firearms, they are however limiting access to their property if you so choose.

    You may not agree with this, but most of the courts do not see it the same way you do. That is where my basis for the argument comes, the courts and the law.

    Do you in fact think that I should be able to come over to your house or wherever and start exercising my right to free speech, even if you say to leave the yard or house or whatever, if I want to keep talking?

    If so, give me your address and I will send some of my clients who seem to never want to shut up over to your house and you can deal with them. Then I am sure you would think property rights prevail over the free speech right.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  15. #29
    Member Array xd.40sub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    magna, ut
    Posts
    307

    farronwolf

    The argument that this thread was started on is that my vehicle is my property. As long as I leave my gun in my vehicle it is in my property. If I park my car on your driveway when I come to visit is it still my car?
    do what you can with what you have where you are at (theodore roosevelt)

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,768
    Yes it is still your car, but your car is parked in my driveway. Just because the gun may be in your car doesn't make it your driveway. If you walk into my house, is it then your house, no, your there because I permit you to be there. Just like employers permit employees to park in their parking lot. When the car occupies the parking space, ownership doesn't change hands.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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. Gun Storage
    By Luis50 in forum Basic Gun Handling & Safety
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 15th, 2011, 07:07 PM
  2. car storage
    By bunker in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 11:21 AM
  3. Ammo Storage
    By KyLineman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: December 29th, 2009, 09:32 PM
  4. Home gun storage... what if?
    By Chase2b in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 30th, 2009, 01:26 PM
  5. Gun addict needs help with storage
    By bugs100 in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 20th, 2005, 06:27 AM

Search tags for this page

car storage laws florida

,

firearm storage in a car in florida

,

fl law on storage of cars

,

fl vehicle storage laws

,

florida auto storage law

,

florida car storage laws

,

florida handgun vehicle storage

,

florida law on car storage

,

gun storage laws in oklahoma

,

rules for gun storage in vehicle in florida

,

storage laws in florida on cars

,

vehicle storage laws fl.

,

vehicle storage laws florida

Click on a term to search for related topics.