NRA-driven gun bill fails in House committee

[Incident_command]

Associated Press
Posted April 18 2007, 12:10 PM EDT


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=text vAlign=top>
TALLAHASSEE -- In the shadow of the worst one-day gun massacre in modern U.S. history, a Florida House committee on Wednesday quashed a National Rifle Association-backed bill that would have prevented businesses from telling employees they can't have firearms locked in their cars at work.

The measure (HB 1417) wasn't just about guns, though guns were always the focus of debate. Supporters portrayed the bill as a way to protect employees from searches by their employer of their personal cars at work for any reason. It would have also made it clear that a worker's car is his personal property, off-limits to the employer.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-418gunbill,0,2582606.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

A house with a republican majority and this fails. :flame:

[Rhino]

Figures.

[CountryGent]

No surprise there.....asshats will be asshats no matter which side of the aisle they park their fat over-paid asses on.:flame:

[cerberus]

Why? It's a bad law. If a private employer wants to make it a condition of employment that you can't have a gun on company property (and that includes the company parking lot) they should be allowed to set those terms. More than anything they do it to cut down on liability issues.

[hellinon]

I agree with cerberus. If I own a drug store in the ghetto I dont want my employees having glocks in their cars. It's not safe.

In addition, I believe in the right of the employer in America. The libertarian in me knows that in no way am I going to let the government tell me wether I can have a gun in my home or even carry it with me in public. However, a company has the right to demand a level of safety.

[Wolfcounsel]

"If a private employer wants to make it a condition of employment that you can't have a gun on company property (and that includes the company parking lot) they should be allowed to set those terms. More than anything they do it to cut down on liability issues." --cerberus

Oh yes. Gaia forbid that some madman do a massacre in any of those workplaces because he found out nobody was armed.



"The libertarian in me knows that in no way am I going to let the government tell me wether I can have a gun in my home or even carry it with me in public. However, a company has the right to demand a level of safety." --hellinon

And you're right. The company should also demand of any and all madmen who try to go into a workplace armed to the teeth, that the employees have a right to be safe, and could the bad guy please refrain from barging in and massacring the people there? Especially during the Kumbayah-singing hour?





<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Incident_command]

Why? It's a bad law. If a private employer wants to make it a condition of employment that you can't have a gun on company property (and that includes the company parking lot) they should be allowed to set those terms. More than anything they do it to cut down on liability issues.


There are many reasons its bad. First off it eliminates your ability to protect yourself on the way to and from from work.
It creates the ability for random search and seizure. Law enforcement does not have the right to just search your vehicle without cause, why should your boss?
Its search and seizure without just cause. I hardly think the writers of the second amendment would go along with this.
Who will do these searches?

[Incident_command]

I agree with cerberus. If I own a drug store in the ghetto I dont want my employees having glocks in their cars. It's not safe.

In addition, I believe in the right of the employer in America. The libertarian in me knows that in no way am I going to let the government tell me wether I can have a gun in my home or even carry it with me in public. However, a company has the right to demand a level of safety.

Right, owning a drug store in the hood isn't dangerous. Having an employee who you have decided to let work with or around class 3 narcotics becomes dangerous because of the glock in his car. Maybe then you screen your employees better. If its that your worried they will be stolen and used against the store, you tell them to bring it in. If you dont trust them then you shouldn't have them working for you.

And again the government cant tell you what to do but its ok when a private citizen can take away your rights. That makes no sense.

[Beowulf]

I agree with cerberus. If I own a drug store in the ghetto I dont want my employees having glocks in their cars. It's not safe.


Since my car is an extension of my home, who are you to say whether or not I keep a gun in it? Drive through a place like Atlanta WITHOUT gun in your car. THAT isn't safe! My gun has made a would-be carjacker think again and my shotgun "convinced" a would-be thief that my valuables weren't that important.

[cerberus]

There are many reasons its bad. First off it eliminates your ability to protect yourself on the way to and from from work.
It creates the ability for random search and seizure. Law enforcement does not have the right to just search your vehicle without cause, why should your boss? Because there is something called employment at will. Law enforcement does not have the right to require you to wear a suit to work, but your employer certainly does. By agreeing to work for the company, you agree to the terms of employment, in this case, no guns at work.

Its search and seizure without just cause. I hardly think the writers of the second amendment would go along with this.
Who will do these searches? I don't think it's about random car searches, but if there is a gate-guard at the company parking lot, maybe he sees your gun rack or the .357 sitting on the passenger seat....

[cerberus]

Since my car is an extension of my home, who are you to say whether or not I keep a gun in it?
Your boss, that's who. Perhaps if you park your car off company property you might have a case, but if it's a company parking lot, they own it and they set the rules.

[Wolfcounsel]

The logic of the anti-gunners is enough to make a bobblehead freeze.

[Incident_command]

Because there is something called employment at will. Law enforcement does not have the right to require you to wear a suit to work, but your employer certainly does. By agreeing to work for the company, you agree to the terms of employment, in this case, no guns at work.

I don't think it's about random car searches, but if there is a gate-guard at the company parking lot, maybe he sees your gun rack or the .357 sitting on the passenger seat....


And there is something called the constitution.
Employment at will does not mean the employer can take constitutional rights away.
So to you they should be able to do a body cavity search for drugs whenever they feel like cause its something called employment at will.

[Beowulf]

Your boss, that's who. Perhaps if you park your car off company property you might have a case, but if it's a company parking lot, they own it and they set the rules.
What is in my car is none of my boss' business, especially if I keep it there. But yes, I know, you controlling types need to control everyone to feel better.

[cerberus]

And there is something called the constitution.
Employment at will does not mean the employer can take constitutional rights away.
So to you they should be able to do a body cavity search for drugs whenever they feel like cause its something called employment at will.
If you don't like the rules of the company, then quit. Employers can and DO require urine tests of employees for drugs. They can and DO limit what an employee can use their company computer for (including otherwise constitutionally protected speech), they can and DO set limits on the cloths you can wear to work, they can and DO prohibit smoking anywhere on company property. Private employers have a fairly wide latitude in the rules they can impose as a requirement to work.
Additionally, as I stated before, in this case it's a liability issue. If someone brings a gun to work and an "incident" occurs, the firm can be sued by the victims (whether you agree with this or not) for negligence. They are just trying to avoid a costly mess.

[Incident_command]

If you don't like the rules of the company, then quit. Employers can and DO require urine tests of employees for drugs. They can and DO limit what an employee can use their company computer for (including otherwise constitutionally protected speech), they can and DO set limits on the cloths you can wear to work, they can and DO prohibit smoking anywhere on company property. Private employers have a fairly wide latitude in the rules they can impose as a requirement to work.
Additionally, as I stated before, in this case it's a liability issue. If someone brings a gun to work and an "incident" occurs, the firm can be sued by the victims (whether you agree with this or not) for negligence. They are just trying to avoid a costly mess.

Never said anything about drug testing, clothing, smoking, computers, or any of the other non-related to the subject examples you have mentioned.

None of what you have mentioned takes away any constitutional rights.
As for the liability issue its total BS. If a subject was going to shoot up his workplace do you really think this will prevent it. Cause IMO only fool would think that. Damn I'd love to take out the boss and 20-30 others but they have that damn gun rule. Oh well I'll just go find another job.

Anyone can be sued for BS and this is no different. This rule in no way makes the workplace any safer. Its fluff. Liberal feel good fluff.No different than the so called gun-free zone at VT. But safety insn't the goal here anyway, its just another chip in the chipping away at gun owners rights.

But I'll counter you with this. If I were to work at one of these places and a shooting occured that resulted in a injury to myself I would go after that company for taking away my constitutional right resulting in my inability to defend myself.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Employers can and DO require urine tests of employees for drugs. They can and DO limit what an employee can use their company computer for (including otherwise constitutionally protected speech), they can and DO set limits on the cloths you can wear to work, they can and DO prohibit smoking anywhere on company property. Private employers have a fairly wide latitude in the rules they can impose as a requirement to work." --cerberus

These high and mighty overlords are going to be digging in their butts for worker bees if and when a massive walkout of employees occurs, and nobody but a mere handful of desperate people apply for work with the assholes.

[Beowulf]

Employers aren't trying to avoid a costly mess, Cerb, they are like so many nowadays using back-door tactics to curb guns.

[Incident_command]

I just received this. Its the testimony of Marion Hammer

Committee Members,
This bill is about the individual rights of everyday people. People are more important than a chunk of asphalt parking lot. You don't stop being a person when you accept employment or become a customer.

A grocery store or an amusement park has NO right to search your private vehicle just because you parked in their parking lot. They have NO right to tell you what private personal property you can have inside your private vehicle.

Well, that's what this bill is about.

Constitutional rights and statutory rights do NOT end when you cross from one piece of asphalt upon which you drive -- to another piece of asphalt upon which you park.

There has been a lot of talk about taking away property rights.

Let's be very clear. This bill doesn't take away ANY property rights. It doesn't give any property rights.

It protects EXISTING property rights of customers and employees.

Opponents of this bill are trying to dream up or manufacture rights for themselves while trampling existing rights of others. The Constitution has NEVER given business owners the right to subvert the privacy rights and Second Amendment rights of customers or employees.

This bill protects a person's right to have legal property that is lawfully possessed locked inside a personal private vehicle in a parking lot. A private vehicle, by the way, that is an extension of your home.

Think about women who work late hours as cashiers at supermarkets. And what about employees of all-night pharmacies, or nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night?

As one female legislator asked, what about lawmakers who travel their districts at night for speaking engagements? Are they not supposed to park anywhere or stop for a cup of coffee or a soda or a bite to eat because they carry a gun in the car for protection?

A woman who is being stalked needs protection. Police often advise these women to buy a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them. An employer violates her rights if the employer attempts to force her to waive her rights and chose between her life and her job.

Her employer has no right to tell her that she'll be fired if she exercises her right to have a firearm in her vehicle for protection.

This bill is about staying alive to get to work and staying alive to get home to your family after work. THERE CAN BE NO STRONGER RIGHT.

Legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights.

The Florida Chamber says they represent over 100,000 business owners and those businesses employ over 3 million workers. The Chamber ONLY represents those few business owners.

The Chamber is NOT representing the rights of those 3 million workers or the rights of the millions upon millions of customers

[Wolfcounsel]

All employers who get a coward's hair up their asses and demand that their employees abide by non-work bullshit need to experience permanent bankruptcy.

[dPrasse]

Excellent find , IC ....