FL take gun to work law.

[LittleRedToyota]

when you bring your property onto someone else's property, you become subject to that person's (or those people's in the case of businesses or other private property that is owned by more than one person) rules for being on their property...and one or more of those rules may be related to what (of your) property you may bring onto the other person's property.

the employer (or other property owner) does not have a right to search your car. but, he does (or they do) have a right to say:

"you cannot bring a gun onto my property, and i am going to require you to prove to me that you do not have a gun in order to stay on my property. as part of proving to me that you have not violated my property rights by bringing a gun onto my property even though i have asked you not to, i want to search your car."

at that point, you certainly have the right to say "no".

at which point, the employer (or other private property owner) has the right to either say:

"OK, then you must remove the car from my property." or

"OK, then you must remove the car and yourself from my property."

or, in the case of an employer:

"OK, then you must remove the car and yourself from my property and you are fired."

i really don't understand how you guys think that your property rights (to your car) trump everyone else's property rights (to their land).

should i be allowed to park a car with an aborted fetus (or whatever it is that you would not want on your property) in the trunk in your driveway even if you don't want anyone bringing any aborted fetuses onto your property? after all, it's in my car...and my car is my property...right?

of course i shouldn't be allowed to bring things onto your property that you do not want on your property--regardless of whether i have them in my hand, in my pocket, in my car, or wherever.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

when you bring your property onto someone else's property, you become subject to that person's (or those people's in the case of businesses or other private property that is owned by more than one person) rules for being on their property...and one or more of those rules may be related to what (of your) property you may bring onto the other person's property.

the employer (or other property owner) does not have a right to search your car. but, he does (or they do) have a right to say:

"you cannot bring a gun onto my property, and i am going to require you to prove to me that you do not have a gun in order to stay on my property. as part of proving to me that you have not violated my property rights by bringing a gun onto my property even though i have asked you not to, i want to search your car."

at that point, you certainly have the right to say "no".

at which point, the employer (or other private property owner) has the right to either say:

"OK, then you must remove the car from my property." or

"OK, then you must remove the car and yourself from my property."

or, in the case of an employer:

"OK, then you must remove the car and yourself from my property and you are fired."

i really don't understand how you guys think that your property rights (to your car) trump everyone else's property rights (to their land).

should i be allowed to park a car with an aborted fetus (or whatever it is that you would not want on your property) in the trunk in your driveway even if you don't want anyone bringing any aborted fetuses onto your property? after all, it's in my car...and my car is my property...right?

of course i shouldn't be allowed to bring things onto your property that you do not want on your property--regardless of whether i have them in my hand, in my pocket, in my car, or wherever.

Stan,

I concede you have the Constitution on your side.

However, let's be realistic, in all but probably a very few cases the only reason private enterprise prohibits employees from maintaining handguns in their vehicles is out of a concern for liability and nothing whatsoever to do with privacy rights per se.

And the fact of the matter is that private enterprise will get sued anyway by the survivors of those killed in the event an employee "goes postal" no matter what precautions they have in place to prevent such tragedies.

Will you concede these points?

[widearea]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

of course i shouldn't be allowed to bring things onto your property that you do not want on your property--regardless of whether i have them in my hand, in my pocket, in my car, or wherever.

Maybe we should have a "Don't Ask..Don't Tell" Policy...

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by TonyF

I concede you have the Constitution on your side.

actually, just for clarification, i don't consider this to be a constitutional issue at all. i think it is an issue of natural property rights.

and, to me, the overriding factor is that you are talking about voluntarily bringing your moveable property (car which may or may not have a gun in it) onto someone elses non-moveable property.

to me, the fact that you are making the choice and voluntarily entering the other person's property is all that matters.

However, let's be realistic, in all but probably a very few cases the only reason private enterprise prohibits employees from maintaining handguns in their vehicles is out of a concern for liability and nothing whatsoever to do with privacy rights per se.

And the fact of the matter is that private enterprise will get sued anyway by the survivors of those killed in the event an employee "goes postal" no matter what precautions they have in place to prevent such tragedies.

Will you concede these points?

absolutely.

i 100% agree that these policies are driven by liabiliy concerns and ignorance about guns. i also 100% agree that they are stupid, ineffective, and may well actually make work places more dangerous. i also 100% agree that the company is asking you to place your life in danger by not allowing you to at least keep a gun locked in your car in the parking lot. i would even go so far as to say that the company is actually making the workplace more dangerous by not allowing CCW in the workplace. if someone does come in with a gun and start shooting people, no one will be able to shoot back.

i really do sympathize with the position you and many others are in.

but, living in a free country that is based on private property means accepting that people who own property are allowed to make stupid rules...and to disallow you from coming onto the property if you aren't willing to abide by those stupid rules.

now, i don't think this law is more of a travesty than many of the other BS laws we have regulating what private property owners can do with their private property (like forcing businesses to ban smoking, etc.) so, in the scope of things, this law pretty much does fit right in.

(btw, my company does not have such a policy, and i will not institute one.)

however, there are still two things about this issue that i find worrisome/intriguing:

1. if the government can force businesses to allow guns on their property, what is stopping them from forcing businesses to bar guns on their property? (the pendulum of public opinion does swing both ways.)

2. it seems a bit inconsistent to me that so many people who seem to understand the importance of the 2nd amendment and the importance of limiting the authority of government are suddently so willing to have the government step in and trample on what is perhaps the most important right we have--namely the right to own and control private property. what's the point of keeping arms to defend against tyranny if you are going to just turn around and invite government tyranny?

i understand that, in this case, the tyranny is accomplishing something desirable...namely stopping these idiotic corporate policies...but the government never gives up power voluntarily. rather, you give it an inch, it takes a mile. this really is just one more step toward a more authoritarian, big brother government in the USA.

anyway, i hope that explains my position. it's prolly not gonna change...and i'm sure no one else's is going to either...but, hey, it's still fun to debate.

and you guys really do have my sympathy. if there were something i could do to convince your employers to voluntarily change their policies, i would. but i just don't think it is the place of government to dictate what private property owners can or cannot allow to be brought onto their private property.

[Azzy]

My only concern is that they are concerned for their safety... but only on the drive home.

What about for that trip from the office to the car? I often leave work very late, last in teh building to go other than the one "security guard". No ligts for me until I get close enough to turn them on with my remote. But my employer does not allow firearms for that very purpose of litigation.

Ive been thinking up some sort of locker idea, like the courthouse, so those of us here can carry to work legally and without infringing on any rights.

[widearea]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

1. if the government can force businesses to allow guns on their property, what is stopping them from forcing businesses to bar guns on their property? (the pendulum of public opinion does swing both ways.)

The Constitution....I expect the government to defend the constitution and my right to bear arms...I would also expect them not to do the latter part of your argument...based again on the constitution.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by widearea

The Constitution....I expect the government to defend the constitution and my right to bear arms

just to be clear, the constitution applies only to government.

the 2nd amendment says the government is not allowed to infringe on your right to bear arms.

however, the 2nd amendment in no way prevents a private property owner from saying you are not allowed to come onto his property if you have a gun.

(and, if this were not the case, the first amendment would mean you would have to allow anti-gunners to stand on your front lawn and spew anti-gun crap.)

this law in florida is *not* a case of the government defending the 2nd amendment as the 2nd amendment does not factor into what rules private property owners can set for the use of their private property.

[Pro2A]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

Gosh, I appreciate the sentiment....but I don't like telling people what they can and can't do with their own property.

I'm sorta with you on this one. I believe in property rights, but at the same point I believe that one should be able to defend themselves.

[widearea]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

this law in florida is *not* a case of the government defending the 2nd amendment as the 2nd amendment does not factor into what rules private property owners can set for the use of their private property.

Isn't there already all kinds of regulations for employers for how they treat their employ...? Why wouldn't this just fall under the same category?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by widearea

Isn't there already all kinds of regulations for employers for how they treat their employ...? Why wouldn't this just fall under the same category?

you could look at it that way, yes. i wouldn't even really argue. i did mention in my reply to tony that i do think this law fits right in with all the other government infringement on private property rights that we have in this country.

however, i think the vast majority of those laws are government infringment--with the exception of laws against anything that effects people other than those who voluntarily enter the private property. for example, i support laws against open burning garbage--as the poisonous smoke leaves the property and harms people who have not voluntarily subjected themselves to the smoke. but the rule against carrying guns, on the other hand, only effects people who voluntarily enter the private property. (kind of like people smoking in a bar only effects people who voluntarily enter the bar...which is why laws forcing businesses to ban smoking in their buildings are BS, imho.)

i'm not singling out the "guns in the parking lot" law in particular...i am just being consistent in my opposition to the government infringing on private property rights.