Florida members: the guns in parking lot bill heads to governor!

[Garand Illusion]

Not if you value property rights......

I actually do ... and don't want to restart the thread that has already been beat to death here ... but with all the other rules a property owner with a business has to deal with, I think this is the least of them. If you want to start preserving property rights, instead of limiting CCW why not start with ADA, zoning ordinance, etc. ... and then we can talk about property rights.

The losers are property owners that can no longer control what is and is not allowed on their property.

True ... but they haven't lost anything tangible. And the public has gained the ability to defend itself in the manner intended when the CCW law was passed.

And bottom line is I'm not going to cry too much for property owners, who suddenly feel like their manhoods are 1/2 an inch smaller because there might be a certain kind of tool locked up in cars in their parking lots that they can't do anything about (how pathetic -- not like they knew what people had in their cars in the first place).

Just about every company out there has rules against guns in cars in place, simply because it's PC to do so. Not because there's any reason to have such a rule.

If we're going to make CCW and guns mainstream, we need to prove that these PC notions that guns are bad no matter where they are is wrong.

 

[wayneinFL]

Shouldn't the property owner of a vehicle have the right to decide what types of emergency equipment to keep in it?

I'm not saying the law supports it. It's pretty much established than an employer can require you to waive just about any right as a condition of employment.

"Really...so the market place wouldnt cure that?"

As far as employment goes? How will the market cure this when, by and large, employers do not allow guns? It's not as if leaving one anti-gun employer to work for another anti-gun employer is going to solve the problem.

Tomorrow for example, I'll drive 70 miles go in for my regular shift 7 to 4, then find a dark parking lot, sleep in the van, then work 11P.M. to 5 A.M., take a spongebath in a sink somewhere, then show up at the office for my regular shift at 7 AM Friday. Per company policy, I am not allowed to be armed from 5 AM Thursday to 6 PM Friday, whether I'm off work or not. Pretty much defeats the purpose of CCW.

Personally, I just break company policy. They can suspend or fire me for whatever reason they wish. Follow the policy and I can be fired. Tell them I don't like the policy and I can be fired. Disobey the policy and I can be fired. Boss just decides he doesn't like me and I can be fired. So where is the incentive for me to follow their policies?

I really don't think this new law, assuming it passes, and assuming it stands up in court, will make a nickel's worth of difference to employers or employees. Employers will simply make up some other reason to fire an employee with a gun in his car.

 

[FireMax]

jdc1244
The good Governor is not a conservative, real or otherwise – moderate at best, some say a closet liberal.

He is the definition of the new Republican. 1/2 Liberal and 1/2 Conservative.

Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of his former party.

 

[FireMax]

The losers are property owners that can no longer control what is and is not allowed on their property.

Do citizens lose their other rights if they come on your property? Of course not. They shouldn't lose their 2nd amendment right either.

I support this bill strongly.

 

[grymster2007]

They shouldn't lose their 2nd amendment right either.

They don't. They lose nothing. They make a choice; enter the property and abide by the property owner's rules or don't enter the property.

This notion that the 2A is more important than property rights is silly. Guns are property, so if you want to water down property rights then don't be surprised when your property (your gun) is subject to laws that render it useless. Which is exactly what's happening here. One of the fundamental utilities of property rights is denied to the owner.

Pretty durned simple, but simple don't work on this here gun forum, where for most, all that really counts is GUN.

This issue demonstrates that deep down, most people are really about themselves, regardless the stream of righteousness emanating from their lips.

 

[Water-Man]

The governor said yesterday that he would approve it.

 

[FireMax]

They don't. They lose nothing. They make a choice; enter the property and abide by the property owner's rules or don't enter the property.

A police officer doesn't have to disarm if they enter a person's private property. Why should a law abiding, licensed citizen have to disarm? It sounds like some people are taking the position of the anti-gunners on this issue.

 

[Master Blaster]

Everyone forgets the car owner has property rights too, heck some are in the bill of rights.

You folks who think the parking lot owner has rights but the car owner doesn't:

When you come to my house I have a set of manacles and a toilet brush waiting for you, I need someone to clean the bathroom, so I will assert my property rights over your person and take you as my slave

No? yet my employer is free to look at me and my property that way if he wants, and deprive me of my most basic rights as a human being because I am on his property..

Sounds Good Huh??

 

[Unregistered]

Do citizens lose their other rights if they come on your property? Of course not.

Yes, they do lose some of their rights as a condition of entry.

For example, If you come to my house and start cussing, I will throw you out. This violates your right to free speech, but its my house, my rules.

If a Mormon or Hari Krishna or whatever shows up and starts practicing his religion on my front door step, I will through him out, and therefore violate his freedom of religion.

If a group of youths show up on my front lawn and try to have a party, I will throw them off, and violate their right to free assembly and association.

What people don't seem to understand is that there is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal with a man agreeing to voluntarily give away his rights in exchange for something.

 

[Yellowfin]

It strikes me that some are not on our side..

 

[STAGE 2]

Don't worry folks. If this passes, it will be invalidated soon after. States are prempted to regulate this due to OSHA.

 

[STAGE 2]

No? yet my employer is free to look at me and my property that way if he wants, and deprive me of my most basic rights as a human being because I am on his property..

Yup. Don't like it, then find a job elsewhere or park on the street.

 

[Unregistered]

No? yet my employer is free to look at me and my property that way if he wants, and deprive me of my most basic rights as a human being because I am on his property..

He is allowing you onto his property based on certain conditions, including that you work while you are there and that you agree to leave your guns at home. Do you still think you would be allowed to be there if you refused to work? No, he would fire you and throw you out. There are also other limitations he is very likely placing on you. For example, he probably will not allow you to stop working, pray for a few hours, and then try to witness to other workers and try to convert them. This limits your right to your religion, doesn't it?

 

[Yellowfin]

I agree, except that the purpose of being able to keep one's carry gun relates more to what one does before and after work, not during. It is absolutely in their interest that you work dilligently, effectively, harmoniously, and safely. However being able to resume one's non-work life immediately upon being off the clock is not something that is within their interests to curtail.

 

[STAGE 2]

I agree, except that the purpose of being able to keep one's carry gun relates more to what one does before and after work, not during. It is absolutely in their interest that you work dilligently, effectively, harmoniously, and safely. However being able to resume one's non-work life immediately upon being off the clock is not something that is within their interests to curtail.

100% correct, except your non work life begins when you leave their property. You can't punch off the clock and stand in the parking lot and campaign for your particular candidate. The same applies to firearms.

 

[gc70]

The same applies to firearms.

The status quo appears under attack by the democratic process.

 

[Yellowfin]

If people were actively displaying firearms in the parking lot, as if they were selling them, then that would be a point but that's not the matter at hand. The matter pertains to being able to leave their property in the same manner as they were before they were on it, and how to have continuity of rights in such a manner as not be disrupted from it. If parking can be had off their property, then that's an obvious solution. When that's available that's quite good. But what to do when it's not? Obviously I'm not omniscient--or on every city's zoning board at the very least--but I can say with some certainty that there are many cases where it's simply not practical and in some not possible for people to make that accommodation. So they shouldn't have the same options as someone who can? I should fortify the matter a bit: we're not talking about someone's Walkman or favorite chewing gum here. We're talking about a preferred means of safety. That has principles, conviction, and entire state of being attached to it. It is not a simple matter of changing a shirt or combing your hair differently. I doubt most people or even a percentage worth mentioning are in on this for the novelty of it. It is not something that is optional for the pure sake of option. It certainly can be, and we very well could be in the abstract about this, but for my intents and purposes of those to whom this directly applies it is not, and for those who may derive future benefit--and hopefully that will be all of us-- it should certainly be dealt with as a matter of present necessity.

 

[Don P]

Curious here

What is the difference between a employee having a hand gun locked up secure in his/her car in the parking lot and a customer comming on the parking lot with a CCW and conducting a business transaction inside the building? Most already know this but the only people that will be permited to have a secured hand gun in there vehicle are those who have a CCWP.
Are the employee's at any more or less possible danger with customer with a CCW verse's the employee?
Don't ask-Don't tell!

 

[divemedic]

This has already been discussed to death. The fact is, the law is here, and absent a court challenge, it is the law. Don't like it? Don't open a business, or don't have a parking lot. Problem solved.

I do not think that a court challenge under 15USC1910 will prevail. I have read the decision by Kern (a Clinton appointee- that should tell you a lot about this law and why it is not about property rights) in the OK case, ands I do not think it will fly.

 

[Unregistered]

Any easy way around this law would be for business owners to lease or sell their parking lots to a second corporation, which then charges employees to park there. The business therefore does not provide parking, and the law would not apply. If someone violates the agreement of "no guns", it would be between them and a seperate company, for whom they don't work. Then their lease money would be forfeited, the lease terminated, they could be arrested for trespassing if they don't leave, and they would have to figure out a different place to park.