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

ruertar · June 25th, 2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Soon, Floridians will be allowed to keep a gun in their cars while they're at work.
But that's only if federal court doesn't step in, which the Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce are asking it to do.
Christalyn Davis says Sheffield's Body Shop in Tallahassee has never had any problems in the six years she's worked there, but says knowing a co-worker could have a gun in their car makes her feel safer just in case danger does ever arise.
Davis said, "We open up early mornings, we're here late at night at times. For your safety, yes, you should carry a firearm and you'll always be prepared."
Governor Charlie Crist signed the bill into law that makes it legal for employees to keep a gun in their locked car at work as long as they have a concealed weapons permit.
Rick McAllister, the President/CEO of the Florida Retail Federation, said, "By the legislature passing a bill that says that you can't make a company policy or procedure that prevents people from bringing guns onto the property that you own, that certainly is an invasion of private property rights."
The Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the gun law.
RICK L3
"We believe that the court will find that it is unconstitutional."
The law is set to take effect July 1st. The Florida Retail Federation and the Florida Chamber of Commerce made a second filing asking federal court to push back that start date until the court can make a decision on whether the gun law is constitutional.
That hearing is set for Wednesday at 3:00 p.m.
Guns would still be off limits at schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, military facilities and buildings that store explosives.

ruertar · June 25th, 2008, 05:07 PM

Sorry. I didn't notice the thread started by "David in FL": http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...-hit-poll.html

In my defense, the topic name isn't very descriptive.

MitchellCT · June 25th, 2008, 05:11 PM

Private property rights don't need any more erosion.

We lost enough of that in the Kelo case.

As pro gun as I am, I still think laws which tell private individuals they are unable to control their property in the manner in which they see fit are a bad idea.

If you don't like the company's gun policy, work with the union to alter it, or find a new job. Either way, on private property, against action by private individuals, your second amendment rights don't apply as to the property owner's anti gun rules.

NKMG19 · June 25th, 2008, 05:16 PM

If my company can provide me armed security from my home to work and then back home again then I won't take my gun with me to work. I commute 70 miles per day and there is a great chance something can go wrong during my commute. So I choose to protect myself.

Tally XD · June 25th, 2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

Private property rights don't need any more erosion.

We lost enough of that in the Kelo case.

As pro gun as I am, I still think laws which tell private individuals they are unable to control their property in the manner in which they see fit are a bad idea.

If you don't like the company's gun policy, work with the union to alter it, or find a new job. Either way, on private property, against action by private individuals, your second amendment rights don't apply as to the property owner's anti gun rules.

Does having total control of private property have any effect on criminals bringing guns onto private property? Also, as far as I am concerned, my vehicle is still MY property even if it is sitting on someone elses.

MattLarson · June 25th, 2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

As pro gun as I am, I still think laws which tell private individuals they are unable to control their property in the manner in which they see fit are a bad idea.

Then shouldn't you support the right of a vehicle owner to lawfully keep whatever they please in their own private property?

Matt

BAC · June 25th, 2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tally XD

Does having total control of private property have any effect on criminals bringing guns onto private property? Also, as far as I am concerned, my vehicle is still MY property even if it is sitting on someone elses.

That is going to be a very important point, because it will set precedent for any future pushes in either direction. Is my property not my property, either? If so, is lawfully-owned property kept on or about my person not still my property? This can go many directions, many of them good, some of them not. Roll up your sleeves, this one could be big for Florida.

Right now it's not illegal, per se, to bring a gun onto private property, but if you're told to leave and don't it's trespassing; the sign is just to let folks know that if they see you with one, they'll probably do something about you being there. If you work for a place and carry a gun and the employers don't like it much, or don't like you much, you can be fired. Legally you were alright, but by company policy you might not be.

I'm gonna see if I can find the lawyers speaking in defense of the law. I do like the directions this law is taking Florida law (although we still should have invoked Article 1, Section 8 of our own Constitution, not the 2nd-Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), and would be quite willing to defend it.

-B

ctr · June 26th, 2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

Private property rights don't need any more erosion.

We lost enough of that in the Kelo case.

As pro gun as I am, I still think laws which tell private individuals they are unable to control their property in the manner in which they see fit are a bad idea.

If you don't like the company's gun policy, work with the union to alter it, or find a new job. Either way, on private property, against action by private individuals, your second amendment rights don't apply as to the property owner's anti gun rules.

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.

FLSquirrelHunter · June 26th, 2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

Private property rights don't need any more erosion.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with (concealed) carry? No one is shooting my place. My property and its value is unaffected by the presence or absence of personal defense weapons. Employees are not my property; they choose whether or not to carry. (By the way, so do the people who shop or intend to rob.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

If you don't like the company's gun policy, work with the union to alter it, or find a new job.

When did the RKBA become a negotiable part of a labor agreement? A "right" is inalienable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

Either way, on private property, against action by private individuals, your second amendment rights don't apply as to the property owner's anti gun rules.

The US Constitution declared the RKBA in 1791. The right of a person to have property was not formally recognized therein until (after the abolition of slavery) in 1868. The context does not seem to apply to real property, but IANAL.

and ...

in Florida, we today have a situation (unchanged by the new law) which makes a retail owner able to prohibit carry by employees but not by customers. How does that make sense?

Beretta1526 · June 26th, 2008, 11:46 AM

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?

EXCELLENT point.

...and if I am to give up this right to carry when I enter an employer's property, do I then subject myself to a search of my person?

My biggest thing is that leaves me in a situation where I'm not able to protect myself. I may be barred from bringing my carry onto company property, but what about those people that come onto that property that are not employees. THEY are not barred from carrying on that property.

.

June 25th, 2008, 05:07 PM	#2
ruertar Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: central florida Posts: 295	Sorry. I didn't notice the thread started by "David in FL": http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...-hit-poll.html In my defense, the topic name isn't very descriptive. __________________ -r

June 25th, 2008, 05:16 PM	#4
NKMG19 Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 365	If my company can provide me armed security from my home to work and then back home again then I won't take my gun with me to work. I commute 70 miles per day and there is a great chance something can go wrong during my commute. So I choose to protect myself. __________________ 2nd Amendment Tees.com FloridaConcealedCarry.com NRA Member

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

June 25th, 2008, 05:11 PM	#3
MitchellCT Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 746	Private property rights don't need any more erosion. We lost enough of that in the Kelo case. As pro gun as I am, I still think laws which tell private individuals they are unable to control their property in the manner in which they see fit are a bad idea. If you don't like the company's gun policy, work with the union to alter it, or find a new job. Either way, on private property, against action by private individuals, your second amendment rights don't apply as to the property owner's anti gun rules.