Florida - Take your gun to work, UPDATE

[Anexio]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKN2937687220080729

"TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Florida employers cannot bar their employees from keeping guns locked in their cars at work but businesses can stop customers from keeping firearms in cars while shopping, a U.S. judge has ruled."

Read the article and tell me I missed something. How it the world is the manager of Publix going to know I have a gun in my glovebox when I park in their parking lot?

More from the article: "Studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer homicides than those where guns are banned." I'd love to see a link on that one. I'm wondering, are purely innocent people getting shot and killed or are bad guys that foolishly brandish a weapon getting shot and killed?

Personal note, when a bad guy brings a gun into the work place and threatens staff because he's pissed of at FICA and then gets summerly shot, that to me is not homicide.

Gun stats have to be one of the most fucked up one sided datasets I've ever seen.

[madeline_con]

1. The Publix manager won't know until

you're attacked and defend yourself. Guess who goes to jail, you or your attacker?

I'm just speculating, but it sounds like the next step.

[2KS2KHonda]

2. Almost every gun massacre occurs in a 'gun-free' zone.

No criminal or insane person would ever think of violating those areas.

[jeff30997]

3. Happiness is a warm gun ...

Happiness is a warm gun mama
When I hold you in my arms
and I feel my finger on you trigger
I know nobody can do no harm...

[MrModerate]

4. Regardless of one's opinions on gun ownership . . .

This sounds like a stupid ruling. The business is clearly going to be held liable if an employee improperly transports or uses weapons stored on the business's premises -- but they're prohibited from making it a condition of employment that their staff can't bring weapons to work?

Absolutely mindless.

[TPaine7]

8. It's hard to see how they could be successfully sued now. . .

"I was obeying the law" sounds like a sturdy defense to me. If the business can't find a lawyer able to win with that ammunition, perhaps they should go out of business. In fact, an actual trial should be unnecessary--it should be dismissed in this layman's opinion.

[aspergris]

12. no, you need to look at civil law.

and please tell me how they are "clearly going to be held liable".

and no cites from Boston Legal or LA law please.

Sorry.

Cite ACTUAL law, not theories drawn from teevee drama

[MrModerate]

33. Actually I don't watch Boston Legal and . . .

hasn't LA Law been off the air for a decade or more? Clearly you know lots more about TV law than I do. Do you play a lawyer on TV? I don't.

It strikes me as highly likely that the victim of a gun crime committed by an employee who carried the weapon on an employer's premises would probably sweep up that employer in any lawsuit that eventuated. "Held liable" was probably the wrong term -- if the employer was successful in defending themselves.

But would they be sued? I'd say so.

[tburnsten]

34. "victim of a gun crime"

Like a murder or assault? trust me, those are already quite illegal, regardless of what weapon is used in the commission of the attack.

They wouldn't be sued, any judge other than Jack Weinstein would toss that claim right out the window. And since it's a florida law, I'm not sure how weinstein could get involved, unless maybe it was a NY tourist who was attacked.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Anyone can be sued for anything?

Look at the lawyer that sued a dry cleaner for millions over a lost suit.

David

[MrModerate]

62. I rest my case . . .

You'll get my bill in a few days.

[pipoman]

63. I would agree

with this and it wouldn't matter if the employee shooter was a squeaky clean ccw holder or a felon with an illegal firearm, the employer would likely be named in a civil law suit by virtue of the 'deepest pockets' strategy.

I do believe that this type of legislation goes a long way toward limiting the employer's liability. As I said in a previous post, if the employer allows employees to keep legally possessed firearms in their vehicle in the absence of a law like this and an employee brings the gun in an injures or kills someone, liability may be pinned on the employer for the policy. If an employer doesn't allow employees to legally keep a firearm in their vehicle and a ccw holder is injured or killed on the way to or from work when a defensive weapon may have been an effective defense, the employer may share in the liability because the policy effected the employee's ability to defend his/herself on their own time. I believe this law would eliminate the liability in the latter scenario and would effectively limit their liability in the first.

[pipoman]

13. Clearly won't be held liable.

You can't be held liable for something you have no control over. This only applies to vehicles parked on company property, not carrying a gun into the premises. My employer can't search my car on his property (with damned few exceptions like prisons and mental hospitals), why? Because it isn't his car. If I can legally carry a gun in my car by permit or statute it isn't my employer's business if I do. If I am prohibited from owning or carrying a gun, it doesn't matter if I am on company property or not, I am still in violation of the law.

My state has a similar law as do a number of other states. It stems from employers being held liable for employees who may legally possess and carry a gun not being able to do so because they are going to/coming from work. While on the trip to or from work they are involved in an incident which they may have been able to defend themselves had their employer not stripped them of that ability by having a no guns in cars policy. So it in fact limits the employer's liability.

[SteveM]

36. I doubt they would be sued, esp. if they post some "gun-free zone" (nt)

[Sancho]

5. Does this apply to school teachers?

:sarcasm:

[spin]

32. Armed trained school teachers might stop...

gun massacres.

Gun free zones merely attract nut cases looking for a shooting gallery.

[AlinPA]

6. All this fighting about guns is annoying. Sometimes I think we should let anyone and

everyone who wants a damn gun anywhere have one or even a hundred have a big ass shootout. I'll lay low for awhile.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. So the meek can inherit the earth? But that's so...

new testament!

Can't have THAT.

[AlinPA]

10. Hard to believe after I wrote that bad post that I once claimed to be a new testament type of a guy.

[SteveM]

37. I'm not sure what you mean...

"everyone who wants a damn gun anywhere have one or even a hundred have a big ass shootout. I'll lay low for awhile."

People who want guns can get them now in large quantities, and there is nothing to keep them from meeting up for any reason. Yet, "...a big ass shootout" hasn't occurred. No one has to wait for anyone to "let" them.

[AlinPA]

42. There are laws preventing people from getting guns. If they are removed,

anyone and everyone can get them. What pisses me off is this constant bickering about gun laws. Remove them all and then see what the hell happens.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire¬arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

[SteveM]

43. Interesting idea. Probably not much would change if laws were removed.

But I nevertheless agree that gun ownership should be limited to non-felons and those who are mentally competent, and imposing conditions on commercial sales. I'm not sure about the limitations on "government buildings" as they seem to be magnets for the "trench coat crowd." (According to the NYT, Dylan Kleburg's last conversation with his father before the former shot up Columbine High was over the then-pending CCW law in Colorado. They both agreed that it should NOT become law, though I rather suspect for different reasons.)

BTW, have you seen discussions here about "universal qualifications" (or some other label) for firearms? The idea goes something like this: everyone who obtains a driver's license or other official I.D. is automatically run through the NICS system. If a citizen "passes," an easily-identified code is marked on the I.D. If the individual then purchases a gun -- even from a private seller -- he/she must present the I.D. to the seller, and the seller must keep the I.D. number on record (under penalty of law) should a police trace of that gun ever be conducted. In this manner, gun owners would not truly be registering their guns, yet the NICS test could be applied universally to eliminate so-called "loopholes." And Instead of gun-owners standing out like an oasis in the desert, potential gun-owners would become the desert, open to government scrutiny only by due process. Under worst-case scenarios, a government bent on confiscation would have to wade through tens of millions of citizens who were approved, but didn't exercise the 2A right to keep and bear arms.

[AlinPA]

44. Thanks. I was just irked partly because I just came off a long fishing trip where two guys

sat in the back seat arguing for 150 miles about gun rights, laws and who should own them and where you can carry them and it got unreasonable. One guy said there should be zero laws and let the mentally incompetent, felons and criminally insane have them and that he would take his chances with it rather than have the 2nd amendment violated. He didn't agree that there should be a law about the type of weapon either (sawed off shotguns, missile launchers would be OK for him - and 90% of the people in the Sportsman's club where I belong agree with him) They have pictures up of various Democrats with cross-hairs over their faces.

I was just letting off steam here about that argument.

(It is a pleasure to read your post since you are reasonable - sorry I wasn't in that post)

[MicaelS]

9. Stupid

What do these businesses plan to do? Have security guards search every vehicle in their parking lot? Easy way to lose lots of potential customers.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. The ruling is about as silly as the whole 'take your gun to work' campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I conceal/carry, but my employer has a strict policy against ANY weapons at work. I must accept that policy as a condition of employment. If I violate it, I could be found guilty of a class C misdemeanor (trespassing). And that is exactly the way it should be. I can always go work somewhere else that doesn't have this condition of employment, if I felt it was that important.

This policy probably saves my employer a lot of money on the liability policy. Not my place to question or challenge that. I'm free to work somewhere else.

[aspergris]

14. no

your employer has the right to govern your conduct at work.

he does not have the right to forbid you to exercise your constitutional right to carry before and after work. By banning you from having your gun in your car, he has effectively done that. That is the logic of this decision, and it is sound.

Generally speaking (there are exceptions to an extent) an employer can put great limits on your behavior at work, even when those behaviors are traditionally seen as constitutional rights. For example, he can say NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS at work. Clearly he can fire you for violating that rule. But he cannot prohibit you from doing so OUTSIDE work.

Same concept.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. No, I can do that.

I just park across the street. If I were to park on company property, then yes, they have the right to make that condition upon employment. Can't do it for customers, because they don't have to agree to any contract or anything to enter the business, but to work there, I do.

So I just park elsewhere, if I have something in the car. Doesn't even have to be unsafe, I can pay for secured parking.

[aspergris]

23. you are making all sorts of assumptions

That there IS parking across the street. That it is safe to park there.

And yes, as the court correctly concludes they CAN'T do it to employees because they are , de facto, preventing them from exercising their constitutional rights OUTSIDE work.

It's really that simple.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. That doesn't make any sense.

Free speech isn't protected at work. I can get fired for saying plenty of things. Why would the 2nd Amendment apply, if I am parking on someone elses property, and they don't want me there if I am carrying a gun?

Public property, fine. They shouldn't have the right to search my car there. They shouldn't even ask to. but this law puts private property owners who happen to employ people in a position that I would not be in as a homeowner.

[aspergris]

27. for the reason already explained

your boss can say "no politics at work".

He CANNOT TELL you you can't have political signs inside your car (let's say you go rallies before or after work).


That's the point. Because by banning you from keeping your gun in your car on their property, they are EFFECTIVELY banning you from having it in your car before and after work (directly to/from).

Your car is a piece of private property ON another's private property.

and with RARE exceptions (like certain security industries), your employer does NOT have the right to search your car on their property.

Do you think they do?

You need to study more const. law. Hint: they don't.


I also find it ironic that you are arguing for expanded corporate power over individual rights and privacy. But not surprising. When it comes to the vital civil right of RKBA, it's through the looking glass arguments over and over.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Bullshit.

I never said they had the right to search my car. I DO have the right to park somewhere else.

What if I commute by bicycle? Do I now have the right to either leave a firearm locked to my bike on the bike rack, OR carry a gun to my cubicle? Of course not.


My employer can also fire me for having political signs in my car, if they feel. It would have to be westburo baptist church type stuff to warrant that attention, but they could absolutely shitcan me for it if I did.


Again, private property. I am parking on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The people who own that property have the right to place conditions on whether I use it or not. I have the right to go anywhere else. I have the right to get another job. Etc.


Edit: My subject line may have been a little harsh. My previous response left open the possibility I thought my employer could demand to search my car. They cannot (Edit 2: but they COULD fire me if I refused, in this state. At-will employment. They just woldn't cite a reason for the firing). But I can think of two easy situations where the contents of my car could come to my employer's attention; If someone breaks into my car, and the contents are visible when security investigates, or if they see 'missing firearm' on the police report, which they would probably get a copy of.

[SteveM]

39. I'm not sure they could fire you, even "at-will"....

True, they could get a "tip" that you have a gun and fire you for no reason. But if they want to search your car, and you refuse, and then they fire you, you might have a cause of action; to wit, I was fired because I was exercising my Fourth Amendment rights.

[aspergris]

47. with VERY limited exceptions

an employer cannot have a policy such as "if you park your car on our property we have the right to search it".

the previous poster CLEARLY does not understand the law (but that's already clear).

It is ENTIRELY different for an employer to have a policy- no guns in cars on company property

and

for them to have the right to search your car.

The former does NOT imply the latter.

The previous poster seems to think a policy prohibiting X gives some sort of tacit authority to search for x in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Simply not the case.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. I'm well aware of the law.

I think you might have some trouble with reading. I never said they could search the car. Have another look at post 28, and stop putting words in my mouth.

[aspergris]

52. still wrong

"My employer can also fire me for having political signs in my car, if they feel. It would have to be westburo baptist church type stuff to warrant that attention, but they could absolutely shitcan me for it if I did."

um, no. NOT if it is concealed from sight, they can't. they cannot fire you for POSSESSION of a political sign.

they can certainly prohibit DISPLAY of political signs on their property.

But you are wrong if you think they could fire you for finding out you had political signs in your car.

They could not.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. That the signs would be visible from the exterior of the vehicle was implied.

That's not a display, but it's discoverable by security just walking by.

I never said they could search the car. That was the whole point of giving examples where security might become aware of the contents WITHOUT a search.

[aspergris]

54. no, you still conflate two issues

you said they could fire you for having political signs IN your car.

i said - no they can't.

Now, you say you meant DISPLAYED.

you keep conflating these two issues.

My point is that you are wrong if you think that you could be fired for POSSESSING them (in your car or elsewhere on their property or not) if they were CONCEALED.

That is wrong.

regardless of how they find out - you tell them, somebody else tells them, etc.

And fwiw, based on the instant decision, the same is true of guns in your car.

Businesses can rather tightly regulate speech on their property by their employees. They cannot regulate POSSESSION of the signs.

Similarly, if they were able to say "no guns in your car" they would be regulating in a de facto sense, your conduct OFF property. bearing in mind RKBA is a fundamental private right - that's unacceptable.

same concept.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. You keep pretending I said things I didn't.

A 'display' and something being merely visible from the outside of my car, are two different things. Plastering it across my back window would be a display, a pile of signs laying on the back seat would not be a 'display'. But if it's visible from the outside of the car, it's easily discoverable without a search.

In the case of a firearm, if it were visible, stolen, or the vehicle was broken into, and the weapon was left visible when security investigated, then they could easily discover it without a search and fire me.

I would further argue that they could ask to search my car and if I refused, they could fire me, due to the employment laws in this state.


If you have a problem with anything I actually said, let me know. Otherwise feel free to stop imagining things.

[aspergris]

57. Yes, I do have a problem. You misrepresent what you said

This is what you said. It's a direct quote:

"My employer can also fire me for having political signs in my car, if they feel"

You didn't say DISPLAY. You said "in your car". Which is naturally analogous to your (false) belief based on the instant case about them firing you for having a gun in your car.

Why don't you actually READ WHAT YOU WROTE before you accuse me of misrepresenting your words.

I just DIRECTLY QUOTED YOU.

"My employer can also fire me for having political signs in my car, if they feel"

no... they can't.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. If they become aware of those signs yes they can.

I listed, in the same post, conditions under which they could become aware of any material in the car, without searching it. If you aren't capable of keeping the context of the entire post in your head, that's not my problem.

Use a little fucking common sense, how in the hell would I completely conceal political signs, like the example I gave of those westburo church assholes. The signs are huge.

I never said they could search the car without my consent.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Nice edit.

I never said anything about the signs being concealed. BECAUSE I never said they could search the car. The signs and the firearm would have to be exposed by some third party, or perhaps by a blanket slipping off, etc.

[aspergris]

58. nice backpedal

This is what you said

"My employer can also fire me for having political signs in my car, if they feel"

and i said that;s a bunch of crap, and now you are claiming things about DISPLAYING.

Here's a hint. Possessing something and DISPLAYING something are NOT the same thing.

Stop backpedaling. It's transparent.

Note you also said they could fire you for the gun in your car (they can't. based on this decision)

[AtheistCrusader]

60. In florida, they can't.

In my state, they can. I was also clear on that point, but since it didn't directly follow, or wasn't included in that single sentence you keep quoting, you probably weren't able to retain that point either.

Feel free to quote the part of that same post where I listed ways they could find material in the car without actually searching it, with or without my consent.

Edit: Keep in mind, I specifically added it to that post, LONG before you responded, so I consider your debate tactic here, dishonest in the extreme. We'll be here all day if you want to attack me for all the things I didn't say.

[aspergris]

64. it's you who are both being disingenuous and are factually incorrect

You still fail to ackowledge that you incorrectly stated that your employee can fire you for having political signs inside your car.

They can't.

When you address THAT, get back to me.

It's false.

There is a difference between display and possession. One you are purposefully (or ignorantly) failing to address

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. All right.

We'll try this again.

I'm going to shorten post 28 so maybe you can keep the whole thing in context. I am going to include the edits, since they are timestamped 2 days before your attack on the post, so you don't get to ignore them.

"I never said they had the right to search my car. I DO have the right to park somewhere else."

"My employer can also fire me for having political signs in my car, if they feel. It would have to be westburo baptist church type stuff to warrant that attention, but they could absolutely shitcan me for it if I did."

"Edit: My subject line may have been a little harsh. My previous response left open the possibility I thought my employer could demand to search my car. They cannot (Edit 2: but they COULD fire me if I refused, in this state. At-will employment. They just wouldn't cite a reason for the firing). But I can think of two easy situations where the contents of my car could come to my employer's attention; If someone breaks into my car, and the contents are visible when security investigates, or if they see 'missing firearm' on the police report, which they would probably get a copy of."

So lets see, I said:

1. They don't have a legal right to compel a search of the car.
2. They CAN fire me for any or no reason, so if they asked to search the car and I said 'no' they could indeed fire me. At-will employment.
3. They can fire me for anything my employer deems inappropriate political material, if they become aware of that material.
4. I listed two simple ways in which they could become aware of the contents of the car with or without my consent for a search.


I did not explicitly state that the signs would have to be visible from the outside of the car. I chose the WBC's signs as an example because they are large enough you can't hide them under the seat. I thought that would be implied. I will spell out every tiny possibility in excruciating detail whenever addressing you in the future. Sorry I confused you.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. In this state I doubt it

But there might be existing court cases one way or another, and I will do some research on that.

[pipoman]

15. It has to do with your commute and nothing else

Does your employer have a right to strip you of your ability to defend yourself on your trip to or from work? I don't know of any state which makes employers allow employees to carry concealed while working, only to allow employees to store their legally possessed guns in their vehicle while at work. The employer has no liability.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. The reason this probably came up at my work

was two married employees got into a domestic dispute at work, and one went out to the car, and got a gun, came back in, and scared the shit out of people. (no one was shot)

So they made it a condition of employment. No weapons, of any kind, period. Including the parking lots, which are also private property.


I have the same rights as a homeowner, over my guests right? If I find out someone in my driveway has a gun in their car, I can ask them to leave, yes? A business has the same rights. Only, it's more of a contract for us, so there is a possibility of charges if I violate that agreement.

[pipoman]

24. Many ccw states are adopting similar laws

if your state does, your employer will have to resend that policy. As for the criminal trespass, it is likely an empty threat by the employer. The employer would have to discover your violation, dismiss you for the violation, ask you to leave and you would have to refuse to leave for criminal trespass to apply. There may be some other criminal statute which would apply, I doubt it is criminal trespass.

As for the employee who retrieved his gun, he is likely in violation of several laws and subject to dismissal even if this statute was in place.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. I'm not going to be the test case

because I value my employment more than storing a weapon in my vehicle on company property. To my knowledge, there has been no test case in this state. We were strongly cautioned not to become one by a lawyer that was invited to come in and speak to our gun club about concealed carry laws, etc.

Yeah, dude that grabbed his gun out of his car got hit with brandishing at LEAST. It's been a few years, so I don't recall further details.

[pipoman]

29. Yea, just because they couldn't have you prosecuted

criminally for trespass doesn't mean they couldn't fire you. Currently your employer is in a bit of a catch 22. If they allow ccw holders to keep guns in their car and the ccw holder does something stupid like the other guy did and actually hurts someone the employer could be held liable. If a ccw holder is killed on their way to or from work in a situation which could have possibly been defended against if the ccw holder had been allowed to keep their gun in the car while at work the employer could be held liable. This statute actually relieves the employer of liability under either circumstance.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Nice.

I didn't follow that this law would remove liability for the presence of firearms in a car on company property, but that does sound reasonable. If it were passed in this state, my employer MIGHT actually be in favor of it on that grounds alone.

[Anexio]

17. .

Florida employers cannot bar their employees from bringing their weapons to work as long as they leave the weapon in their vehicle. Thats a law and it's theoretically set in stone.

The issue here is a Florida court says that customers cannot bring weapons onto company property.

I have no idea how that is enforceable, but more importantly, why would a retail business care?

[benEzra]

19. The court only said that customers are not protected because the law didn't specify that.

And the law didn't specify that because customers hadn't been shaken down by paranoid corporations, but some employees had.

The judge said that the new law as written protected only employees, not everyone who brings their car into the parking lot, hence companies could bar non-employees with guns in their cars from parking in their lots. That's never even been an issue, though.

[benEzra]

18. "Take your guns to work" is the phrase the Brady Campaign came up with

to refer to locking your gun securely in your CAR while you are at work and your car is parked in a public lot. It has nothing to do with carrying at work.

Under Florida law, employers can bar employees from carrying at work if they so choose; they can also bar customers with lawfully carried guns from carrying on the premises.

This all stems from the incident a year or two ago in which someone in authority at a Weyerhauser facility searched every car in the publicly accessible lot on the first day of deer season, and summarily fired anyone who had a gun locked in the car OR who refused to consent to a search.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I'm curious about 'publicly accessible'.

Public property, or private property?

If I'm parked on public property, yeah, screw them. But if I am an employee, parked on corporate property, I don't see why the terms of employment would not apply to posessions in my vehicle as well.

[benEzra]

46. Are you on the clock while you are in the parking lot, or only when you are in the facility?

If you're not on the clock in the parking lot, then that is your time, not theirs.

Also, the interior of your car is not their property, it is YOUR property. They can forbid you from carrying a gun on their property, but they should have no say over what is locked inside your property, and IMO they should not be allowed to search it without probable cause.

Also, most of the businesses that have been responsible for abuses have NOT been sole proprietorships; they have been corporations. Corporations are not people; they are legal constructs, and are subject to whatever conditions the state sets upon them. As someone noted on the High Road,

As a stockholder, you are not the "owner" you are an investor that loans money to the corp in exchange for a vested interest in the company. The difference? You are not held personally accountable for what the corp does. If the corp loses a lawsuit, the most you lose is your investment.

A corporation is a legal invention that creates an entity that exists only on paper, and thus under the "natural rights" theory that our entire constitution is based on, it has no natural rights.

This law does not interfere with property rights, it strikes a balance between the rights of two property owners: The owner of the parking lot, and the owner of the car.

The owner of the car keeps his gun on his property, and the owner of the lot keeps the gun of of his property. Just because I park my property on your land does not make you the owner or controlling entity over my car. You cannot set it on fire, damage it, or even sell it. You can't give consent to the police for a search of MY car, just because it is on your land. It remains my property.

Don't like it? You don't have to have a parking lot. Problem solved.

As he observed, I think that the law strikes a fair balance between the owner of the car and the owner of the lot. Corporatists who feel that corporations should have the same "rights" as a homeowner does over his home may feel differently, but in truth a corporation is subject to whatever regulations and restrictions that a state decides to set for its corporate charters.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Well.

I'm salary, and the parking lot is secured/non-public. They cannot demand to search the contents of the car with any legal authority, but if somehow the contents came to light, they could certainly fire me for them, if it violated any corporate policy. I would guess they could get away with firing me for refusing a search as well, but I don't know that for certain.

[jody]

65. Darn you benEzra, enough with logic and facts. Please stick to hysteria as do your opponents. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

68. So.

My concern that a corporation cannot control what goes on, on it's own property is 'hysteria'?

Thanks for that.

[jody]

69. Mea culpa, perhaps the word may not be applicable in your case but an employer does not have the

right to tell an employee what type of vehicle to drive and park in a parking lot nor to dictate what items an employee can store in that vehicle.

The ACLU would fight employers over such incidents if it was pornography or other such things but as usual it will set on the sidelines while the civil rights of law-abiding citizens are violated by employers.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. This varies from state to state.

My work has non-public parking. People can be towed for parking a Prius in one of the few oversized vehicle spots, which are clearly marked and set aside. (only about 8 of them at this site)

If I parked my truck out there with the back end full of propane tanks, I would expect security (if they noticed) to come have a chat with me, and probably ask me to remove it from the site.

Just a couple examples. If this were another state, or if the lot was open to public parking, then of course, everything I just posted could be inaccurate.

[SteveM]

38. I guess it's a "sphere of influence" thing: private lot -vs- car...

The ruling may have hinged on how far a private employer can extend his influence. Certainly, he/she has control over the property rented or owned, but when one arrives in his/her car, the employer may not be able to trump what or who is in that car if the occupant is otherwise following the law. The expectation of 4th Amendment protections has been diminished seriously with regards autos, thanks (once again) to the W.O.D., Inc., but there remains some protection and privacy in an auto.

[benEzra]

16. The law didn't protect customers, only employees...

Read the article and tell me I missed something. How it the world is the manager of Publix going to know I have a gun in my glovebox when I park in their parking lot?

The law didn't protect customers, only employees, only because the initial abuses that led to this legislation were against employees, not customers. Several employees of Weyerhauser in another state were summarily fired when the company demanded to search every car in the parking lot on the first day of deer season and fired anyone who had a gun in their car (or who refused to consent to a search), and some other multinationals around the country were moving in that direction.

The company doesn't know what you have in your car unless they demand to search it. But a lot of corporations WANT to spy on everyone they can, and in most states they can search any vehicle they please, for any reason they please, as often as they please ("you have an Obama sticker, go open your car and show me everything in your glove box and trunk").

More from the article: "Studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer homicides than those where guns are banned." I'd love to see a link on that one. I'm wondering, are purely innocent people getting shot and killed or are bad guys that foolishly brandish a weapon getting shot and killed?

Personal note, when a bad guy brings a gun into the work place and threatens staff because he's pissed of at FICA and then gets summerly shot, that to me is not homicide.

That was a bit of deceptive framing. "Job sites where guns are permitted" are the beat your local police officer walks, the mom and pop convenience store that's open 24 hours, independently owned gas stations, your local independently owned taxi drivers' vehicle, etc. "Job sites were guns are banned" are universities, schools, hospitals, etc. Of COURSE a police officer's "job site" is more likely to see a homicide than a neurosurgeon's job site. But it makes for good fearmongering, which is of course the point.

Gun stats have to be one of the most fucked up one sided datasets I've ever seen.

Yup. The raw data is generally pretty unbiased, though (e.g., FBI Uniform Crime Reports, etc.). It's when lobbyists get hold of them and start reframing them that they start to blur from the spin. The data in the criminological journals is still pretty rigorous, but in the medical literature the peer review standards seem pretty abysmal.

[spin]

31. So as a customer I can't leave my gun in my car...

No problem. Since I have a concealed permit, the gun just goes with me when I enter the store. A weapon in my car does me little good when I'm not in the car. The store can post a sign that says NO FIREARMS . I can simply chose to take my business elsewhere.

But if I am employed by the company, I can leave the weapon in my car while I'm at work (as long as I have a concealed carry permit). That way the gun is with me on the way to and from work.

I used to work on the graveyard shift and my journey to work took me through some questionable areas. I always had a gun in the car as did many of my coworkers. One coworker had a road rage incident on the way to work. He had managed to anger an individual in some manner and while stopped in traffic at a stop light, the man approached my coworkers car with a tire iron in his hand. My coworker pulled his pistol from the glove box and laid the weapon in his hand on the steering wheel. When the enraged individual noticed it, he muttered a few curses and walked back to his vehicle. No harm done.

I feel the employer has a right to implement a policy that prohibits his employees from carrying a weapon while at work. If an employee disagrees with that policy, he can always find another job.

My car is my property and that fact doesn't change merely because I park the car in the my employers parking lot. My employer should have no right to dictate what I can have in either my house or my car assuming that the item violates no laws.

The end result is that many more Floridians will obtain concealed weapons permits.

[SteveM]

40. I've taken my deer rifle "to work" numerous times without CCW...

For the reason cited in BenEzra's comments above. Some were private employers, some public. Regardless of the "gun-free" status of the site, I didn't need a CCW. I had only to follow the law (until recently rather murky in Texas) regarding transportation of weapons in an auto.

[spin]

45. For years you could carry your gun in the car in Florida...

but companies became concerned with liability concerns and their attorneys recommended that they implement policies that forbid firearms in the parking lot.

Guns in cars were very common in the parking lot of the company I worked for. The security force was well aware of this fact and had no problem with it. In fact, the sergeant of the guard sold me a stainless .357 mag revolver after I expressed concerns that the moist Florida weather might cause some rust on the gun in my glove box. When someone purchased a new weapon, we would journey out to his car to admire it.

The new policies were implemented, but most of the people, including me, continued to bring their weapons to work. Both the company and the employees adopted a "don't ask, don't tell policy". But the threat of being fired for having a weapon in your vehicle hung over our heads.

I talked via telephone to Marion Hammer who is the Unified Sportsmen of Florida's executive director and also the first woman president of the NRA. She told me she was working on new legislation that would allow an employee to leave his weapon in his locked vehicle while at work. It took a couple of years, but she succeeded.

The new law is in my opinion an improvement to the old days where merely anyone could bring a gun to work and leave it in his locked vehicle. Now the has individual has to have a concealed carry permit, which means he has passed far more stringent requirements then merely the background check required for purchasing a firearm. Statistics show that criminal misuse of firearms is very rare among CCW permit holders.

The law requires employees who park in their employer's parking lot to have a concealed weapons license in order to be exempt from a policy
that prohibits employees from having guns -- IF THEIR EMPLOYER HAS SUCH A POLICY.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-07/msg00191.html

And I have no problem with the fact that a business can forbid customers from leaving their weapon in the locked vehicle while they are in the business. Since I have a carry permit, mine goes with me while I shop. Any business that posts a sign that says "no firearms" doesn't get my money and I usually call them to point this out.

Another good point of the law as originally written is that business owners no longer Had worry about the liability issue with employee firearms in their parking lot.

ALSO, under this new law, business owners will benefit from immunity from liability if guns stored in vehicles in the businesses parking
lot are used to cause harm on the business property.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-07/msg00191.html

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle might prove interesting and might reopen the liability question:

But Hinkle upheld a request from retailers to prevent customers from locking firearms in their cars while shopping or visiting a private business.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKN2937687220080729?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

I would expect that many businesses will put "no firearms allowed in car" signs in their parking lot. People will either laugh at the signs and ignore them, or will get concealed carry permits and carry their weapons with them as I do.

[krispos42]

35. It's like banning tattoos on people's asses

Nobody's going to know until and unless the situation has gone to shit.

[SteveM]

41. God! And it's not even noon, here. (nt)

[spin]

48. NRA view on current status of law...

PRACTICAL EFFECT:
Before the law passed, employees had no protection from anti-gun employers. They had no recourse. They had to give up their firearm and self-defense rights or be fired. They now have protection. WORKERS WON - BUSINESS LOBBY LOST

Due to the judge’s ruling based on inartful language, business owners can post signs notifying customers that they are prohibited from having firearms locked in their vehicles while in the parking lots. CUSTOMERS DON’T HAVE TO PATRONIZE A BUSINESS THAT DOESN’T RESPECT THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP A GUN IN THEIR CAR - THEY CAN SPEND THEIR MONEY ELSEWHERE - CUSTOMERS WIN - BUSINESS LOSES
http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2008/07/31/information-on-floridas-guns-to-work-law/#more-163