Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Fla. lawmakers OK take-your-guns-to-work law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Fla. lawmakers OK take-your-guns-to-work law
    Measure allows people to keep guns locked in cars; schools, prisons exempt


    TALLAHASSEE, Florida - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

    The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

    Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

    The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

    Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

    "The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

    Nuclear plants exempted
    The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security.

    Critics say the measure usurps business owners' rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

    Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States, and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

    "This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments," said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

  2. #2
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States, and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.
    Just like Reuters... "studies have shown"... yet no citation, just blind blanket statements of "fact."

    Plus Bear, you missed a huge chunk of the article:

    By Michael Peltier
    TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

    The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

    Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

    The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

    Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

    "The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

    The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security.

    Critics say the measure usurps business owners' rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

    Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

    "This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments," said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

    Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky, and Mississippi have similar laws, although in Oklahoma, an appellate court barred the state from enforcing the legislation on grounds that it was unconstitutional.

    Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.

    "We are disappointed that politics clearly won over good policy," Mark Wilson, president and chief executive of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.

    (Editing by Tom Brown and Eric Walsh)
    -http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...=0&sp=true
    There's the link for anyone that wants to read it on their site.


    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    My source MSN only had what I posted.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24033282&GT1=43001

  4. #4
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    No worries, Bear... I figured if it was Reuters, I'd just go straight to the source.

    ...yano, citing things I quote, unlike they did.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote
    Just like Reuters... "studies have shown"... yet no citation, just blind blanket statements of "fact."
    I just did a study... I polled everyone (as close to unbiased as i could get) I possibly could on a limited and donated budget.

    100% have said a gun has saved their life

    0% believe that because they are on the clock they do not have the same rights to the tools of self-defense that they do outside the work place.


    Done.

  6. #6
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    1. What use is a gun in a car when you're being shot at INSIDE?

    2. Why is there a state law overriding private property rights?


    Personally, I think it should be all or nothing. Allow those with permits to carry concealed as long as it doesn't interfere with work related requirements/abilities.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    I have been seeing this go both ways, yay for gun rights, or a failure of property rights.

    Your vehicle is generally considered an extension of your home. Would you want to work for someone who told you what kind of CD's you could have locked up in your car while at work? Or what religious books? They can limit what you carry and do while at work. They should not be able to limit what you have inside your personal vehicle.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    I have been seeing this go both ways, yay for gun rights, or a failure of property rights.

    Your vehicle is generally considered an extension of your home. Would you want to work for someone who told you what kind of CD's you could have locked up in your car while at work? Or what religious books? They can limit what you carry and do while at work. They should not be able to limit what you have inside your personal vehicle.
    I agree 100%



    TJ


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    1. What use is a gun in a car when you're being shot at INSIDE?

    2. Why is there a state law overriding private property rights?


    Personally, I think it should be all or nothing. Allow those with permits to carry concealed as long as it doesn't interfere with work related requirements/abilities.
    the basis for this would be allowing one to carry to and from work....which would be nice. I do agree that it should be ALL, but not nothing though.

    *edit* misread


    have we ever explored (on this forum) the whole by law without a permit someone is allowed to CC when at work... always thought it was kinda funny the law specifically says it's okay, but allows others to say it isn't. It's very possible i'm reading 9.41.50(1)(a) wrong though, if so please correct me (that is the reason i joined up here, and why i point people this way).

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    1. What use is a gun in a car when you're being shot at INSIDE?

    2. Why is there a state law overriding private property rights?


    Personally, I think it should be all or nothing. Allow those with permits to carry concealed as long as it doesn't interfere with work related requirements/abilities.

    1. Pretty much nothing. There have been instances where someone in a gun-free zone was able to get to their car and end an incident. The one example that comes to mind is Pearl High School.

    2. I'm more concerned about employerproperty rights trumping my rights just because I use their parking lot. Thankfully I work for a place that doesn't care about that. They also don't own the parking lot or the adjacent one. If I worked at a place that had no options, that would mean I would be stuck. As a side note, it always makes me laugh how they encourage taking public transit but offer no on-site storage should you choose to carry because you don't want to wait at the bus stop at 0500 or 2300 walking to your car in a park & ride.

    I would be happy to have a law in place that prevents my employer from having anything to do with me after I leave their doors.

  11. #11
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    My company enacted a new rule that the "mere presence" of a weapon is threatening behavior. I along with many others am now working to get them to change the verbage and allow carry. HR & Security has our backing so now I have to get past legal and a board of VP's.

    You should have seen jaws drop when I told them about the Jewish Federation shooter. He was a security guard where I work for a few months.

  12. #12
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    My company enacted a new rule that the "mere presence" of a weapon is threatening behavior. I along with many others am now working to get them to change the verbage and allow carry. HR & Security has our backing so now I have to get past legal and a board of VP's.

    You should have seen jaws drop when I told them about the Jewish Federation shooter. He was a security guard where I work for a few months.
    Would you consider keeping an archive of your communications and arguments and publishing them so that others in the same position have some resources to assist them in straightening out their own company policies?

    Thanks!

  13. #13
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    Would you consider keeping an archive of your communications and arguments and publishing them so that others in the same position have some resources to assist them in straightening out their own company policies? Thanks!
    That I could do. I should start a new thread. Although the issue I am dealing with is about CC and this site is about OC, I, like you, think its a subject worth posting. I have an appointement with the VP panel in a few weeks. I'd really like to get my letter & notes honed for the presentation. I haven't had to do a presentation like this since college and my writing skills are sure rusty. So glad for MS Word and the F7 key.
    The panel will consist of 5 VP's, a HR represenative and the head of security. A few of the folks on here shared some ideas and I have them incorporated into the draft but I know there is a lot more that can be added.
    I'll call the new thread "Threatening Behavior of Said Company" a change in policy and post a copy in pdf format.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •