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

[xd.40sub]

NRA, Chamber Square Off On Guns In Cars
March 27, 2007; By Kevin Begos
TALLAHASSEE - Heading off to work? There soon may be no need to worry about the windshield note promoting membership in the Aryan Nations, the copy of Hustler on the front seat or the five rifles (one with bayonet) and two handguns strewn about the car. Under proposed legislation, anything that's legal to own at home could stay in your car at work, too - and the Florida Chamber of Commerce doesn't like that idea at all.
It's round two of a showdown that saw the business community and the National Rifle Association bitterly at odds last year.
The core issue is whether employees have the right to keep legal firearms locked in cars parked at the workplace. This year, the bill adds all legal personal private property - including, in theory,pornography or racist literature.
Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, says he originally wanted to make it clear that employees can keep legal or
licensed weapons in their cars and that it never was about taking a weapon to the workplace.
One thing everyone agrees on is that the revised version of the bill didn't calm opponents. In fact, it may have
made them angrier.
The bill title this year is "Relating to Individual Personal Private Property Protection." It states that "a citizen's
lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of certain private property within his or her motor vehicle
is essential to the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of
association, the free exercise of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms."
Monday, the Florida Chamber of Commerce announced a tongue-in-cheek "Bring Your Gun to Work
Day" and filled a car with weapons and other controversial, but legal, material.
"This bill is not about guns. This bill is a frontal assault on property rights," says chamber Executive
Vice President Mark Wilson, who sees it as a challenge to employers' fundamental right to set rules
governing their private property.
The constitutional rights of free speech and to bear arms take precedent, contends Marion Hammer, a lobbyist
who represents the NRA.
"People have these rights, and they are being violated by big business," Hammer said. She cited instances
where employees have been fired for having a gun locked in a car at work.
The bill has exemptions for schools, prisons and some high-security sites. Otherwise, employers would be
forbidden from penalizing or firing employees simply because they had legal material locked in cars parked on
company property.
Last year, numerous committee hearings resulted in a standoff between the NRA and the business community,
and the bill never reached a floor vote. Baxley hopes that changes.
"Give me a vote - up or down," he said, acknowledging that many of his colleagues would prefer not to do that.
Wilson said House and Senate leaders have told him that the bill is not a priority, and he agreed that many
don't like the idea of a public vote.
A Senate version of the bill is listed for committee discussion today.
WHAT'S NEXT
SB 2356 will be heard by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee today. The House version, HB 1417, has not
been scheduled for a hearing yet.
Sponsors:
SB 2356: Sponsor, Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, peaden.durell.web@flsenate.gov (850) 689-0556.
HB 1417: Sponsor, Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, dennis.baxley@myflorida house.gov (850) 488-0335.
Track Bills:
www.flhouse.gov; www.flsenate.gov





this would mean allot to me as my work place does not allow guns

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[retsupt99]

So I could sit in my 'shorts' and have a couple of beers during lunch at work? (as long as I went out to my car?>>>>)

[Sig 210]

"this would mean allot to me as my work place does not allow guns"

This is the law in Oklahoma. Whirlpool fought it, but faced with a boycott of their Sears branded products, they capitulated.

[Miggy]

Here you go:

CS/SB 2356 - Individual Personal Private Property Protection [LPCC]



GENERAL BILL by Criminal Justice and Peaden (CO-SPONSORS) Baker; Saunders
Individual Personal Private Property Protection [LPCC]: creates "Individual Personal Private Property Protection Act of 2007"; prohibits public or private entity from prohibiting customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any personal private property that is legal product when such product is lawfully possessed & locked inside or locked to private motor vehicle in parking lot, etc. Creates 790.251.
Effective Date: Upon becoming law

Last Event: 05/04/07 S Died on Calendar on Monday, May 07, 2007 7:02 AM

[Miggy]

Proposed law that we should keep track in Florida:

HB 49 2008
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
hb0049-00
Page 2 of 2
F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S
29 (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s.
30 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is
31 immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of
32 such force; however, such immunity shall not apply to injuries
33 to children and bystanders who are not affiliated with the overt
34 act. Immunity will be granted, unless the person against whom
35 force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s.
36 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her
37 official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in
38 accordance with any applicable law or the person using force
39 knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law
40 enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term
41 "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody,
42 and charging or prosecuting the defendant

The way I am reading this, you'd be liable even if the BG is the one causing the injury

[DasBoot]

If everyone would just keep their mouths shut about having a gun in the car to begin with, this wouldn't even be a discussion!
If someone KNOWS firearms are NOT allowed on the worksite, how or why would they let it be known that they have one in the car?

[KellyCooper]

Proposed law that we should keep track in Florida:


The way I am reading this, you'd be liable even if the BG is the one causing the injury

I read it the exact opposite......Basically it says you are immune from criminal prosecution or getting sued when defending yourself against an aggressor. (unless that aggressor is a LEO performing his duty). This does NOT apply to "collateral damage" to bystanders though.

[xd.40sub]

If everyone would just keep their mouths shut about having a gun in the car to begin with, this wouldn't even be a discussion!
If someone KNOWS firearms are NOT allowed on the worksite, how or why would they let it be known that they have one in the car?

my vehicle is subject to search when entering or exiting the guard station. the company says no guns. if this law came into effect they couldn't restrict my guns so long as i left them in my vehicle

[havegunjoe]

People are loosing their jobs because they have a hunting rifle in their car for use after work. You get the good with the bad in that someone could have questionable material in their car too but the fact remains, IT'S THEIR CAR, not the companies. Just because you work for a company does not mean they can take your constitutional rights away from you. Property rights don't trump that.

[xd.40sub]

People are loosing their jobs because they have a hunting rifle in their car for use after work. You get the good with the bad in that someone could have questionable material in their car too but the fact remains, IT'S THEIR CAR, not the companies. Just because you work for a company does not mean they can take your constitutional rights away from you. Property rights don't trump that.

I agree with you but the truth is i would be fired immediately if they found a gun is my car. you know allot of people spend allot of time in there cars getting to and from work and i feel like the company is liable if something should happen to me while i was disarmed and forced to be a victim because of company policy. I have mentioned that a gun locker would be an acceptable compromise and they said the company would never go for it on company property.

[swift]

So I could sit in my 'shorts' and have a couple of beers during lunch at work? (as long as I went out to my car?>>>>)

Sitting in your shorts might violate the public decency laws unless you get shaded windows or blinds so that people can't see in. Having a couple of beers in your car would probably be more safe than driving to the local pub & back. However, if your employer sees you legally drinking in your car he may decide to start having mandatory "random" sobriety tests after which he'll "randomly" select you on the day you were seen drinking in your car. He could then fire you for coming back to work while intoxicated, but he could not fire you for having your gun & your beer in your car.

[bigiceman]

It is really very simple. It is about respect. I respect the rights of people to choose if a gun is brought into their building. I do so by not entering. If they are a busines, they don't get mine. If an employer does not want employees to have guns on the property they have the ability to make rules, and the ability to discipline any employee who breaks them. I do not have to work for any company that would restrict my ability to transport my firearms. If you don't like the work rules you leave, or you take your chances until you retire or get fired. It is a free country. They do not have the ability to restrict your right to bear arms or protect yourself, unless you make the choice to go there to work. Then you have said that you will obey their rules or face termination, no matter how stupid.

Living in Texas I think that the employee market would put anyone out of business who vigorously persecuted an anti-firearm in the vehicle law. They couldn't get enough workers.

[peacefuljeffrey]

So I could sit in my 'shorts' and have a couple of beers during lunch at work? (as long as I went out to my car?>>>>)

That would probably constitute a behavior and I'm sure that conduct is something that an employer can regulate.

The issue here is legal ownership and possession. And yes, I see this as a smudgy area of the law, but I favor my right to keep and bear arms more than an employer's right to dictate terms of being on company property even though I support both. The simple reason is that the goal is so specious, i.e. somehow they're making people safe by having a "no-guns" policy. Anyone with a brain can understand that prohibiting guns is one thing, and actually having people comply with the prohibition (particularly those bent on murder) is quite another -- and for that we'd be giving up our right to have our guns with us on the drive to and from work?!

Why should property rights trump gun rights particularly when we know that the property-rights / no-guns assertion won't save anyone's life or make the environment any safer?!

[peacefuljeffrey]

It is really very simple. It is about respect. I respect the rights of people to choose if a gun is brought into their building. I do so by not entering.

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.

If you don't like the work rules you leave, or you take your chances until you retire or get fired. It is a free country.

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.

[peacefuljeffrey]

If everyone would just keep their mouths shut about having a gun in the car to begin with, this wouldn't even be a discussion!
If someone KNOWS firearms are NOT allowed on the worksite, how or why would they let it be known that they have one in the car?

According to what I've read, some companies went around the parking lot with DOGS to sniff out guns!

I just don't see how a dog is supposed to be able to sniff something from inside a closed, locked car that drove through whatever environment of dust, exhaust, etc. How on earth can they say, "That's a sure sign there's a GUN in that car; open 'er up!"?

I presume that once the dog alerts, someone from security or management is supposed to have the authority to demand that you open the car and let them search it, or go looking for another job as you get terminated for "insubordination" or "non-compliance."

I'm with you: I think "keeping your mouth SHUT" goes a long way toward making sure your rights don't get nullified. (You can continue to exercise them as long as you don't let on that you are doing so.) But you can't always control the situation.

What if a carjacker loomed out from between rows of cars as you are getting ready to go home, and you end up having to use your gun, the one you're not supposed to have on work property? Sure, you'll be happy to be alive, but now they'll know that you were breaking the no-guns rule, and you might be in serious (work-related) trouble.