Proposed law: Companies can't keep employees from bringing guns to work

[JoeyRamone 0]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-guns1002,0,4768146.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

Proposed law: Companies can't keep employees from bringing guns to work


NRA-backed bills raise freedom, safety concerns



Jason Garcia
Orlando Sentinel

October 2, 2005, 5:54 PM EDT



TALLAHASSEE -- Florida businesses could soon face criminal charges if they try to stop employees from bringing guns to work in their cars, thrusting the state into a growing national debate pitting individual freedom against job safety.

Backed by the National Rifle Association, two state lawmakers have filed bills that would allow workers to have guns at work, as long as the weapons remain locked in their vehicles.

The legislation is modeled after an Oklahoma law that drew national attention when a number of major companies, including energy giant ConocoPhillips and oil-services conglomerate Halliburton, sued to have it overturned.

A Florida version could have similarly sweeping effects, particularly in Central Florida, where the region's largest employer -- Walt Disney World, with more than 57,000 workers -- does not allow its employees to bring guns onto park property. Universal Orlando, which employs 13,000 people, has a similar policy.

About 353,000 people in Florida, meanwhile, have concealed-weapons permits, according to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. That figure does not include people who don't need to obtain the licenses, such as police and military personnel.

Despite the battle in Oklahoma, supporters are lining up in Tallahassee. The House bill has already attracted 10 co-sponsors.

Backers say they are confident they will get the law passed during next year's legislative session, which begins in March. The NRA is among the most powerful groups in Florida politics, wielding an active grass-roots membership and having contributed $330,000 to the Republican Party since 1996, state records show.

In the past two years, the group has won approval for measures that protect gun ranges from being forced by governments to clean up lead pollution from bullets, prevent police from creating gun databases and allow people to shoot attackers without first trying to retreat.

Marion Hammer, an NRA lobbyist, said the group will make the parking-lot bills (HB 129 and SB 206) a priority in 2006.

"For a business to tell you that in order to come onto their property, you have to give up your constitutional right is wrong," Hammer said.

Born in Oklahoma

Debate about guns in workplace parking lots erupted in 2002, when 12 workers at an Oklahoma paper mill lost their jobs after managers found guns in their vehicles parked on site, a violation of company policy.

The state's Legislature responded by passing a law giving employees the right to keep guns locked in their cars at work. Several companies filed suit in a case still winding its way through federal court.

The issue gained national attention in August, when the NRA, which says it has 4.3 million members, launched a boycott of ConocoPhillips gas stations. The group also has erected billboards that read "ConocoPhillips is No Friend of the Second Amendment."

State Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, said he decided to file a Florida bill after learning of the issue through media accounts, NRA publications and conversations with Hammer.

"I thought it was a good time for Florida to go ahead and take a position," Baxley said. "What we're trying to do is avert what we see as some backdoor gun control."

Under the bills, companies that try to stop workers from bringing in their guns would be committing a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines.

Gun rights invoked

Supporters of such laws say they prevent companies from forcing workers to give up their constitutional right to carry firearms. It's important for people to have their gun close at hand, they say, citing examples where employees must walk through dark parking lots after work.

"An employer needs to recognize the right of its employees to lawfully defend themselves," said Rep. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, who is running for attorney general and has signed on as a co-sponsor to Baxley's bill.

A spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush said the Governor's Office hasn't reviewed the proposal yet.

In an effort to blunt opposition from businesses, Baxley and Senate sponsor Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, included provisions that would shield companies from lawsuits should an employee commit a crime with the gun kept in a car on company property.

"I would think that business folks would embrace this readily because it gives them immunity from liability," Hammer said. "They should be happy as clams."

An issue of safety

But some companies say banning guns from their property isn't an issue of gun control or of liability; it's an issue of safety. They point to reports such as one from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued earlier this year that showed shootings accounted for three-quarters of the 551 workplace homicides in the United States last year.

"If they have to get in the car and drive home to get a gun, chances are they are going to cool down a little bit," said Frank Mendizabal, a spokesman for Weyerhaeuser, which owns the Oklahoma mill that fired employees found with guns in their cars.

That the law could protect companies from lawsuits is irrelevant because immunity "doesn't prevent someone from being shot," he said.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the proposal a "ridiculous" attempt to ignore property rights in favor of gun rights.

"Companies in America should maintain the right to be able to say, 'No guns in the workplace,' " he said.

Businesses wary

The Florida bills will likely face similar opposition from businesses.

"We would be opposed to any effort that would prevent us from determining who can or cannot bring weapons onto our property," Universal spokesman Tom Schroder said.

Bill Herrle, a vice president for the Florida Retail Federation, said the group questions whether the proposal would conflict with existing employment law and property rights.

"We are going to have some concerns with this," Herrle said, though he said the Retail Federation has yet to discuss the issue with lawmakers.

Disney spokeswoman Kim Prunty said the company has not examined the legislation. But she defended Disney's no-guns policy as "in line with our top priority, which is the safety of our cast members and guests."

Despite all its successes in recent years, Hamm predicted that the NRA has picked a fight it is unlikely to win. As strong a force as it is in Tallahassee, he said, big business is even stronger.

"They've decided to take on the only lobby in America that is arguably more powerful than them, which is the unified business lobby," Hamm said.

[mnealtx 0]

I'm of mixed mind on this. One the one hand, it allows people to protect themselves at work. Reducing "Unarmed Victim Zones" is a good thing.

I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights, though. Of course, they've been doing that for decades, so what can you expect?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

Bad idea. Ignore the question of gun rights - I don't care. It's the employers private property. They should be able to say who enters that property and mandate rules for behavior once there. If they feel it's unacceptable to carry a firearm on their property - well, it's their property. If that means they lose money then capitalism and the almighty free market economy will kick in.

[wmw999 2,447]

How about the post office?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How about the post office?

Wendy W.

One analysis:
Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, Chapter 40, Section 930

Quote

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

Subsection (d) reads:

Quote

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. (accentuation mine)

So, if you are carrying for a lawful purpose (self-defense *IS* considered a lawful purpose) and there is no state or local law prohibiting it, you *SHOULD* be covered.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no cases brought forward to test the theory, though...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JoeyRamone 0]

I think it is a bad idea, oh ya, i had a bad day so i went to my car, got my gun and shot my boss in the ass....

[rushmc 23]

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

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


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jdhill 0]

Quote

it allows people to protect themselves at work

How does it do that? If I have to lock my gun up in the car while I'm in the office, it provides my no protection while I'm at work... it actually has the potential of leaving my gun vunerable to theft... it would, however, allow me to carry my gun to and from work, which would provide protection during those travels...

Another issue... this would really only effects businesses that own their property... if they lease space in an office building, they can only regulate behavior within that lease space, which rarely includes the parking area.

While some landlords may have a rule prohibiting weapons on property, few if any actually have any way of enforcing the rule, or even a desire to do so.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think it is a bad idea, oh ya, i had a bad day so i went to my car, got my gun and shot my boss in the ass....

And if you're determined to do that, is the fact that it's against company policy REALLY going to stop you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

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


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

But in the case of *THIS* proposed law, it is the COMPANY that is stepping on the employee's rights, not the gov't...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

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


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

But in the case of *THIS* proposed law, it is the COMPANY that is stepping on the employee's rights, not the gov't...

I agree with you but, do we not use laws daily to prevent companies/people/governments from crossing lines?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

it allows people to protect themselves at work

How does it do that? If I have to lock my gun up in the car while I'm in the office, it provides my no protection while I'm at work... it actually has the potential of leaving my gun vunerable to theft... it would, however, allow me to carry my gun to and from work, which would provide protection during those travels...

Another issue... this would really only effects businesses that own their property... if they lease space in an office building, they can only regulate behavior within that lease space, which rarely includes the parking area.

While some landlords may have a rule prohibiting weapons on property, few if any actually have any way of enforcing the rule, or even a desire to do so.

J

Agreed - the proposed law does nothing to make employees safer *at the job*, but during their travel to/from work. My bad.

Actually, many companies prohibit on company property - their right under current property law, and certainly no deterrent to someone intent to do harm.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

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


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

But in the case of *THIS* proposed law, it is the COMPANY that is stepping on the employee's rights, not the gov't...

I agree with you but, do we not use laws daily to prevent companies/people/governments from crossing lines?

Agreed - but where do you draw the line between "A company can do THIS, but not THAT" ?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...But in the case of *THIS* proposed law, it is the COMPANY that is stepping on the employee's rights, not the gov't...

Hmmmmm, in light of private property laws, what gives you the "right" to bring weapons onto my private property?

This is MY land and I will not allow you to bring your weapon onto my property. Oh you think you have a "right" to bring the weapon? Go away and then sue me.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

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


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

But in the case of *THIS* proposed law, it is the COMPANY that is stepping on the employee's rights, not the gov't...

I agree with you but, do we not use laws daily to prevent companies/people/governments from crossing lines?

Agreed - but where do you draw the line between "A company can do THIS, but not THAT" ?

"Where" is a good question! (emanate domain comes to mind!) In this case it is my belief that the company crosses a constitutional boundary.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Essentially you have two opposing rights.

1) the right of an individual to keep and bear arms

2) the right of a landowner to decide who is allowed onto their land

Who's right trumps who's?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

...But in the case of *THIS* proposed law, it is the COMPANY that is stepping on the employee's rights, not the gov't...

Hmmmmm, in light of private property laws, what gives you the "right" to bring weapons onto my private property?

This is MY land and I will not allow you to bring your weapon onto my property. Oh you think you have a "right" to bring the weapon? Go away and then sue me.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make before - at what point do personal rights override corporate rights, or vice versa?

Private property is a no brainer - you say "no guns", then "no guns" it is. I do not know if corporations have the same right to deny, however.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Essentially you have two opposing rights.

1) the right of an individual to keep and bear arms

2) the right of a landowner to decide who is allowed onto their land

Who's right trumps who's?

Again, a good point to debate but, the constitution says you have a right to carry (in my mind) it does not say "unless a property owner says no!"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Private property is a no brainer - you say "no guns", then "no guns" it is. I do not know if corporations have the same right to deny, however.

When it comes to owning land it doesn't matter if it's a corporal entity or an individual - they're still the land owner and they still get all the rights over that land that the individual would get.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Again, a good point to debate but, the constitution says you have a right to carry (in my mind) it does not say "unless a property owner says no!"

Equally though landowners have the right to determine who steps onto their property - that right isn't fettered by a clause which reads "unless they have a gun in which case you have to let them on".

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Essentially you have two opposing rights.

1) the right of an individual to keep and bear arms

2) the right of a landowner to decide who is allowed onto their land

Who's right trumps who's?

On further thought.....one could argue I guess that if you allow them on your propery they should be allowed to carry....but, if you do not like this situation you do not have to allow them on the property to begin with

Private and corp properties different?

Got me thinking.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Again, a good point to debate but, the constitution says you have a right to carry (in my mind) it does not say "unless a property owner says no!"

The property owner can set whatever conditions they want on allowing access to property... companies have to balance that with attracting and allowing customers and employees on to the property... but it is theirs to balance, not the governments.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

....trying hard not to be "stuck on stupid"....

Same here... but I have to put my hand up and simply say I can only guess at the US Constitution.

Under the circumstances it does not appear possible to reconcile these two rights (ignoring all those arguments about whether or not the right actually exist in the first place etc that have already been done ad infinitum in other threads).

It would certainly seem though that there are simply two sets of rights which conflict. Not holding any seat in any US court I can't say for sure which right wins. As an Englishman however I certainly have an instinctive wish to say an "Englishman's home is his castle" and side with the landowner.

What greater right can there be for a man than the right to own land and deal with it as he wishes so long as he does not harm his neighbour? I certainly wouldn't wish to start doffing my cap to someone who wished to enter my land simply on the grounds that he had a gun with him.

Indeed, I suspect in other circumstances many gun rights activists would suggest that they would be well within their rights to open fire upon any such individuals.

It's an odd thing when rights conflict.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

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


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

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


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

True, but that is not what we are talking about are we? you like to redirect don't you........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln