Florida House passes mandated parking lot gun storage in vehicles at work

[Liberty1]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2008/03/26/0326xgrguns.html

Here is the NRA, IMO, being a little too single issue oriented to the detriment of private property rights. What would be more constitutional would be laws which recognize or enhance the liability for disallowing an individual on your property from bearing arms peacefully for self defense purposes. Why do we need to destroy some rights to prop up 2A?

Florida House agrees to let some gun owners bring weapons to work
Click-2-Listen
By Dara Kam

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

TALLAHASSEE — Gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association won a victory today with the Florida House's passage of a contentious bill that would allow employees to bring their guns to work.

The measure (HB 503) is a watered-down version of what the NRA had hoped for but is seen as a compromise that the Senate is also expected to sign off on.

Under the proposal, employees and visitors who have state-issued concealed weapons licenses would be able to bring their weapons to work and leave them locked in their vehicles.

The measure would exempt certain businesses from having to allow the guns, including schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, defense-related businesses and those that deal with explosive materials.

Also exempted would be company-owned or leased cars.

The business community, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce, has vigorously objected to the measure, saying it pits the property rights of employers against the Second Amendment rights permitting guns.

[CCWFacts]

My opinion: I think this is really the wrong fight for the NRA to be fighting. This seems to put them against private property interests, and just seems like the wrong fight.

[Patriot]

My opinion: I think this is really the wrong fight for the NRA to be fighting. This seems to put them against private property interests, and just seems like the wrong fight.

My libertarian streak is welling up. BUT all sorts of "rights" related stuff gets indirectly forced on private property owners and businesses (equal protection, ADA, etc.). Why should 2A rights be any different?

[Liberty1]

Because were go private property right go the rest. If the gov. controls private property and how you choose to use it, it is not yours. All basic rights need to be defended. Whats next? San Fransisco telling people how to store their guns on their own property? Oh!:eek:

[socalguns]

My opinion: I think this is really the wrong fight for the NRA to be fighting. This seems to put them against private property interests, and just seems like the wrong fight.

I don't follow.
You allow employees, visitors etc etc to park their private property
in your parking lot. Why do you get to look inside their cars
for LAWFUL content you don't like?

[sfwdiy]

Because were go private property right go the rest. If the gov. controls private property and how you choose to use it, it is not yours. All basic rights need to be defended. Whats next? San Fransisco telling people how to store their guns on their own property? Oh!:eek:

I think there's a quantifiable difference between private PERSONAL property and private property that is used in the course of business. When running a business of any sort, especially if that business is a retail establishment, access to the property by the general public is a requirement of running that business. I can understand that some business owners don't feel comfortable allowing employees or customers to have firearms on their person while in the place of business, but if a business opens their lot to the general public they have no right to inspect the content of locked, unoccupied vehicles.

Private, personal property is a completely different issue. My house and the land that it sits on are mine only, and they are not used for any public purpose. It is completely within my right to require any visitor not to carry firearms onto my personal property in any way. (Actually, I require that visitors DO carry firearms. No gun, you can't come over and watch the game. :gunsmilie:) All kidding aside, once you open your property for the purposes of commerce with the public, you have to make some concessions. Handicapped access is one. Respecting the 2A rights of your customers and employees should be another.

--Ben

[pnkssbtz]

My opinion: I think this is really the wrong fight for the NRA to be fighting. This seems to put them against private property interests, and just seems like the wrong fight.

And that would be the spin the anti's would like to make, right?

I can't see this as a 2nd amendment vs. private property issue since the private property owners are not the government and have no bearing vs. 2nd amendment issues.

I do see this, not as an issue of "private property" rights, but self defense rights. Sure private property rights come into play, but what is going on is that the opponents are saying their rights of publicly accessible private property exceed your rights to protect yourself.

[razorx]

This goes back to NRA needs to decide what does it want to be. A social networking organization that protects it's right to "play" with guns OR a serious 2A organization as it's top focus. If 2A is not the top focus, there will always be excessive dilution with all of it's efforts for gun rights. Compromise is necessary, but when your charter and organization are not aligned to a singular vision, apathy and warmness of luke are what you get.

Still without the NRA, we would be in much worse shape, however it is time to take the next step.

[Glock22Fan]

Unless you take spare cans with you, you can't really drive more than a tankful of gas without going onto private property to refill. Makes a mockery of the federal firearm transport laws if firearms, safely stored in locked boxes or trunks, can't be transported into gas stations or public parking lots. From here, why not employers' parking lots, as long as they are outside any secured area? If they are safe on the roads, they are safe in Conoco/Philips forecourts or Wayerhauser's parking lots.

[DedEye]

What about the private property rights of the CCW holders as far as their cars and what they have stored in them?

[postal]

Was it fla?..... that had a teacher with a pistol in their POV in the parking lot that was dismissed?

Does fla have "school zone" issues for ccw?

All I remember was a teacher with a CCW with pistol in locked vehicle was dismissed....

Seems this legislation does have a point now-

[LAK Supply]

So property ownership now trumps others' right to be able to defend their lives?

[Liberty1]

This is a huge topic with many facets. I concern my self mainly with government intrusion into my rights. I have the right to not let someone search through my car. But the property owner has the right to not let me on their property without a search. This doesn't concern government at all. This is a private matter between me and the property owner unless I'm refusing to leave which becomes a trespass issue for the government to force my exit.

What this law is doing is interfering with the private contracts between businesses and those with whom they contract to act as employees. If it is important to enough employees they can make it a collective bargining issue. If a company wants your talents and you're worth it you can have this written into your contract. Or go work for someone who has the same values as you do and they will then benefit from your expertise and a happy work place.

Using the government to control other private persons and their property whom we have not convinced through logic or boycott to see things our way is morally wrong. Again I don't see a problem with recognizing the liability the private property owner has for their restriction and increased responsibility (and liability has a strong effect on businesses), but this law should be found unconstitutional as a violation of property rights. Same with ADA, quotas, and the rest of the social engineering which pits groups against groups that Washington does to increase their power over us. We all loose in the end.

"I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" amen. My place of business would also read "no shoes, no shirt, no gun = no service - antis hit the road!":D

[mymonkeyman]

Another way of seeing it is every parking lot exists because the government allows cars to go on its roads. Would you prefer a bill that prevented any vehicle from going on the road if it was ever parked in a parking lot that prohibited CCW permit holders from legally storing their firearms in it? That would not directly infringe any private property right, would be aimed at the same goal, but would do it completely a**-backwards way. The bill as passed is essentially equivalent and much more enforceable.