Florida's Gun Law Challenged-"Bring Your Gun to Work" law being heard in court:MERGED - Page 2

falcon1 · June 26th, 2008, 12:08 PM

By CATHERINE DOLINSKI

The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 26, 2008

Updated:

TALLAHASSEE - A federal judge declined on Wednesday to stop Florida's new guns-at-work law from taking effect on Tuesday.

The law, which Gov. Charlie Crist signed in April, will allow employees possessing concealed-weapons permits to keep guns in their vehicles while parked on their employer's premises. Not only will employers not be able to stop them, they won't be able to ask whether an employee has a gun in his or her car, either.

Florida's fight over guns at work, which began in the Legislature in 2005, has pitted conservative factions against one another. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, arguing that the law violates property owners' rights, asked for an injunction in federal court in Tallahassee on Wednesday. On the other side: the National Rifle Association and the state, arguing that the issue is a matter of an individual's right to bear arms.

See remainder of story here:
Judge Won't Stop Guns-At-Work Law

Note this judge reached this decision yesterday, before the decision was announced by SCOTUS today. Of course, he has not yet reached a final decision, but he has refused to grant an injunction to stay its implementation. I suspect DC v. Heller may inform his thinking in the matter.

Congratulations, Florida!! It sounds good for you!

Beretta1526 · June 26th, 2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by falcon1

Congratulations, Florida!! It sounds good for you!

Everyone golf clap.

.

Hopyard · June 26th, 2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by falcon1

By CATHERINE DOLINSKI

The Tampa Tribune

Published: June 26, 2008

Updated:

TALLAHASSEE - A federal judge declined on Wednesday to stop Florida's new guns-at-work law from taking effect on Tuesday.

The law, which Gov. Charlie Crist signed in April, will allow employees possessing concealed-weapons permits to keep guns in their vehicles while parked on their employer's premises. Not only will employers not be able to stop them, they won't be able to ask whether an employee has a gun in his or her car, either.

Florida's fight over guns at work, which began in the Legislature in 2005, has pitted conservative factions against one another. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, arguing that the law violates property owners' rights, asked for an injunction in federal court in Tallahassee on Wednesday. On the other side: the National Rifle Association and the state, arguing that the issue is a matter of an individual's right to bear arms.

See remainder of story here:
Judge Won't Stop Guns-At-Work Law

Note this judge reached this decision yesterday, before the decision was announced by SCOTUS today. Of course, he has not yet reached a final decision, but he has refused to grant an injunction to stay its implementation. I suspect DC v. Heller may inform his thinking in the matter.

Congratulations, Florida!! It sounds good for you!

Because Federal courts having jurisdiction over Oklahoma ruled against such a law, and it seems like courts in FL ruled in favor, this has the potential to go to the SC eventually to sort out the discrepancy across the country.

JimThomas · July 1st, 2008, 06:22 PM

Good News...

Law takes effect today that prohibits employers from barring guns in their packing lots. (in a gun owner's car)

Bad News...

It's being challenged by the Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce. The federal judge hearing the challenge said it "is so badly written it's "stupid"" or something like that. The articles I've seen don't have a direct quote, but do have a nice biased headline.

Federal judge calls new Florida gun law 'stupid' - 06/25/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

GHFLRLTD · July 1st, 2008, 08:39 PM

Disney says the following. Does anybody know the statute Micky is refering to?

Quote:

----- Original Message -----

From: WDW NewsRoom

To: #WDW X Corporate Executive Cast - Florida; #WDW X Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Vice Presidents; #WDW X Walt Disney Parks and ResortsDirectors; #WDW X Walt Disney Parks and Resorts General Managers

Sent: Fri Jun 27 XXXXXXX 2008

Subject: Florida's Guns-At-Work Legislation

Below is a memo regarding the Florida Guns-at-Work law, effective July 1, 2008. Please share verbally with your teams, as appropriate.

************************************************** ******************************************

To: Florida-site Executives Date: June 27, 2008
From: Shannon McAleavey,
Senior Vice President Public Affairs
Subject: Florida's Guns-at-Work Legislation

__________________________________________________ ___________________

On July 1, a new Florida law will go into effect that will allow employees with a conceal-and-carry permit to have a weapon in their vehicle at their place of employment. This law does not apply to Walt Disney World Co. owned and leased properties due to an exemption. This includes all theme parks, resorts, theme park and resort parking lots, Cast Member parking lots, administrative offices across the Walt Disney World(r) Resort, Downtown Disney(r), Disney's Wide World of Sports Complex, hotels on Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Celebration and the Disney Reservation Centers (Orlando and Tampa).

However, the law will apply to property owned by Reedy Creek Improvement District, Disney's Vero Beach Resort, the Disney Cruise Line Crew Member parking lot, the La Quinta warehouse on Orange Blossom Trail and Disney-owned liquidation stores off property. Because this is a Florida law, it also does not apply to Disney's Hilton Head Island Resort. Cast Members will continue to be prohibited from removing a weapon from their vehicle while at work. All Cast Members must comply with the gun policies in effect at the location they are visiting, regardless of where they work. For example, Disney's Vero Beach Cast Members must comply with the gun policies at a Walt Disney World Co. theme park when visiting that location.

Walt Disney World Co. continues to maintain a zero tolerance policy for guns and workplace violence. Possession of dangerous or unauthorized materials such as explosives, firearms, ammunition, weapons or other similar items on Walt Disney World Co. owned or leased property is grounds for termination (as outlined in the Employee Policy Manual).

A lawsuit filed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Florida Retail Federation to repeal the law is under review, and we are hopeful it will be overturned by mid-July. We support the ongoing efforts of the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation to challenge the legislation. The safety of our Cast and Guests is our top priority.

Please encourage your teams to practice safe behaviors at any location. In an emergency, Cast Members should dial 911. If a gun is seen or suspected to be at any location, Cast Members should immediately contact their local Human Resources representative or Walt Disney World Security at x1990 or 407-560-1990.

Thanks for your support in verbally sharing this information with your teams. I will update you when a final ruling is made in the lawsuit.

It is not indicated in the Section 790.06 (12)

Quote:

(12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Let's send some emails to Ms. McAleavey for clarification....

shannon.k.mcaleavey@disney.com

Colin · July 1st, 2008, 09:10 PM

Simple solution, any company that does not want people to store legal firearms in their car on their property, should do away with the parking lot. When you open up your property to employees and the public, your rights will be infringed to a degree. It's a balancing act, but I think it is reasonable to allow people to store their own property in their car. Another option would be for the company to provide safe transportation from the home to the worksite.

mcp1810 · July 1st, 2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctr

No way. Do I give up my First Amendment rights when I step on your property? How about my Fith Amendment rights, are they gone too, just because I'm on someone else's property? Get real.

Actually, yes you do. The constitution prohibits the government from interfering with your free speach. Not me. I can give you a list of prohibited topics of discussion, and if you ignore that list, you can leave my property or be charged with trespassing. You do not have a right to be on my property. By coming onto my property you are consenting to subject yourself to the code of conduct for my property.

As a condition of employment I can require you to answer all questions asked truthfully and to the best of your ability. You can comply or you can seek other employment. Since I am not the government and I am not using your self incriminating statement to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. I am simply deciding if you are going to work for me in half an hour or not.

Also you can forget your 4A too. You have no expectation of privacy (as I explain in my employee handbook you signed for on your first day....) If you are using my computer system I can read anything you send or receive over my server. I can monitor your conversations on my telephone. If you don't want me to hear, you can use your cell phone in the parking lot or the phone in the break room. Oh yeah, I can search lockers at any time too.

If you don't like it, don't accept the job.

Eagleks · July 1st, 2008, 10:37 PM

Here... we're arguing... if it's a public accessible parking lot... then the private property argument loses. It's Companies trying to put their agenda and beliefs over the individual's rights.... and doesn't have a thing to do with "protecting their employees" or any actual private property rights. It's time to tell Companies to quit squashing their employees rights.

falcon1 · July 1st, 2008, 10:49 PM

It seems that this case, too, might become a test case for to what level of scrutiny the Second Amendment right rises...private property rights cannot be used to justify race discrimination, due to strict scrutiny; and if SCOTUS says the Second Amendment right rises to that level, then the "it's-my-property" argument is rendered null and void. If the Second Amendment protection is only "heightened scrutiny" or "rational-basis," maybe the private property argument flies. We'll see.

As always, IANAL, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

mcp1810 · July 1st, 2008, 11:32 PM

Now all of this will vary from state to state. The scenario I was describing above is for here in Texas which is not a " Right to work" state. I would be an "at will" employer. When I was a union steward back in Maryland we had a lot of these issues come up, and I had to educate a lot of my co workers. Things there were also different in that I was working for the county government, not the private sector, so they were a lot more limited in what they could do as far as rules.

June 26th, 2008, 12:08 PM	#11
falcon1 VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee Posts: 4,482	From NRA-ILA Today (Judge Won't Stop Guns-At-Work Law)--Florida By CATHERINE DOLINSKI The Tampa Tribune Published: June 26, 2008 Updated: TALLAHASSEE - A federal judge declined on Wednesday to stop Florida's new guns-at-work law from taking effect on Tuesday. The law, which Gov. Charlie Crist signed in April, will allow employees possessing concealed-weapons permits to keep guns in their vehicles while parked on their employer's premises. Not only will employers not be able to stop them, they won't be able to ask whether an employee has a gun in his or her car, either. Florida's fight over guns at work, which began in the Legislature in 2005, has pitted conservative factions against one another. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, arguing that the law violates property owners' rights, asked for an injunction in federal court in Tallahassee on Wednesday. On the other side: the National Rifle Association and the state, arguing that the issue is a matter of an individual's right to bear arms. See remainder of story here: Judge Won't Stop Guns-At-Work Law Note this judge reached this decision yesterday, before the decision was announced by SCOTUS today. Of course, he has not yet reached a final decision, but he has refused to grant an injunction to stay its implementation. I suspect DC v. Heller may inform his thinking in the matter. Congratulations, Florida!! It sounds good for you! __________________ If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Candidus (in the Boston Gazette, 20 January 1772)

July 1st, 2008, 06:22 PM	#14
JimThomas Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Internet Posts: 53	Good News / Bad News in FL Good News... Law takes effect today that prohibits employers from barring guns in their packing lots. (in a gun owner's car) Bad News... It's being challenged by the Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce. The federal judge hearing the challenge said it "is so badly written it's "stupid"" or something like that. The articles I've seen don't have a direct quote, but do have a nice biased headline. Federal judge calls new Florida gun law 'stupid' - 06/25/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

July 1st, 2008, 10:49 PM	#19
falcon1 VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee Posts: 4,482	It seems that this case, too, might become a test case for to what level of scrutiny the Second Amendment right rises...private property rights cannot be used to justify race discrimination, due to strict scrutiny; and if SCOTUS says the Second Amendment right rises to that level, then the "it's-my-property" argument is rendered null and void. If the Second Amendment protection is only "heightened scrutiny" or "rational-basis," maybe the private property argument flies. We'll see. As always, IANAL, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it. __________________ If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Candidus (in the Boston Gazette, 20 January 1772)

July 1st, 2008, 11:32 PM	#20
mcp1810 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 1,154	Now all of this will vary from state to state. The scenario I was describing above is for here in Texas which is not a " Right to work" state. I would be an "at will" employer. When I was a union steward back in Maryland we had a lot of these issues come up, and I had to educate a lot of my co workers. Things there were also different in that I was working for the county government, not the private sector, so they were a lot more limited in what they could do as far as rules. __________________ "And what would you do with your brain if you had one?" - Dorothy

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 1st, 2008, 09:10 PM	#16
Colin Distinguished Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,385	Simple solution, any company that does not want people to store legal firearms in their car on their property, should do away with the parking lot. When you open up your property to employees and the public, your rights will be infringed to a degree. It's a balancing act, but I think it is reasonable to allow people to store their own property in their car. Another option would be for the company to provide safe transportation from the home to the worksite.

July 1st, 2008, 10:37 PM	#18
Eagleks Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Kansas Posts: 664	Here... we're arguing... if it's a public accessible parking lot... then the private property argument loses. It's Companies trying to put their agenda and beliefs over the individual's rights.... and doesn't have a thing to do with "protecting their employees" or any actual private property rights. It's time to tell Companies to quit squashing their employees rights.