• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

After protesting gun rule, Disney guard is fired

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
July 8, 2008
Walt Disney World fired a security guard on Monday after he protested the company's decision not to allow people with concealed weapons permits to keep guns in their cars on Disney property.

Disney terminated Edwin Sotomayor, 36, of Orlando for violating three Disney employee policies, essentially for failing to cooperate with an internal investigation, said spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez. Sotomayor vowed to continue his fight.

At issue is Florida's new law that allows people with concealed weapons permits to keep firearms in their vehicles in employee parking lots.

Disney advised its employees late last month that the theme-park resort is exempt from that state law, and that they may not bring firearms onto the property. Disney stated that its gun policy is based on safety concerns for visitors and employees.

Sotomayor alerted local media last week that he intended to challenge Disney's claim of an exemption to the new law by bringing a gun to work, locked in his vehicle. When he showed up for work at Disney's Animal Kingdom on Friday, he declined to let Disney authorities search his car. Disney suspended him pending an investigation, then fired him Monday.

Sotomayor expressed distress about the end of his 13-year career at Disney, but not regret. He said he expects the security guards' union, Security Police & Fire Professionals of America Amalgamated Local 603, to challenge his termination, and he intends to continue his own challenge of Disney World's gun policy.

"I am not going to stop this fight," he said. "This is going to end somewhere good."

The security guards' union, Local 603, would not comment, referring inquiries to Disney World.


Scott Powers can be reached at spowers@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5441.
If you click on the OPs link, there's a poll. Be sure you hit it.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Edit: Didn't refresh and repeated a prior comment.

I'm not sure that everyone here is going to disagree with Disney's position. It is a debatable matter of personal rights over property rights.
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
imported post

OK, so Disney thinks they are above state laws??????

What the h*ll's going on in this country? The SCOTUS rules on Heller, and the ACLU says "we disagree with the ruling".......hey, its the law of the land, your disagreement is irrelivent. Now the Mouse House says they are above state law, and corporate policy supercedes it?????

F*ck 'em, I hope they have to pay out six figures to him and are forced to accept state law.
 

Dustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
1,723
Location
Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Voted

Yes. All other employees are able to. (13232 responses)

poll-bar.gif
80.5%

No. It's too dangerous for visitors. (3049 responses)

poll-bar.gif
18.6%

Not sure (147 responses)

poll-bar.gif
0.9%

  • 16428 total responses
 

tattedupboy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
518
Location
Gary, Indiana, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
Edit: Didn't refresh and repeated a prior comment.

I'm not sure that everyone here is going to disagree with Disney's position. It is a debatable matter of personal rights over property rights.
You're exactly right. The vehicle is the employee's property, not Disney's. Disney has no right to tell him what he can or cannot have inside his vehicle.
 

kenny

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
635
Location
Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

What some people do not know is that Disney aka Reedy Creek Improvement District is their own government. They have their own executive and legislative forms of government. They rule by Dictatorship so they have no need for a judicial branch. Everyone not just the folks in Florida need to stand up and pay attention to this.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

kenny wrote:
What some people do not know is that Disney aka Reedy Creek Improvement District is their own government. They have their own executive and legislative forms of government. They rule by Dictatorship so they have no need for a judicial branch. Everyone not just the folks in Florida need to stand up and pay attention to this.
Explain more (and cite), please? I was wondering about "Disney's claim of an exemption to the new law"...

Isn't there preemption in Flordia anyway?



ETA: And I'm thinking it probably would have been better for the former employee to let them search his car. As it stands now, he could probably be fired for refusing to allow a search. If they had searched the car, and they had found the gun, it would have made for a better case, IMO.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

The new Florida law contains an exemption for businesses that have a license to store or use explosives. Disney has a license due to the large number of fireworks they use. Comments made by the legislators who wrote the bill seem to indicate that they did not specifically mean for Disney to be exempted by this provision.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

thorvaldr wrote:
The new Florida law contains an exemption for businesses that have a license to store or use explosives. Disney has a license due to the large number of fireworks they use. Comments made by the legislators who wrote the bill seem to indicate that they did not specifically mean for Disney to be exempted by this provision.

IIRC the exemption in the law is only for businesses whose PRIMARY business is the storage or use of explosives.

If Disney can prove that their primary business is storing and setting off fireworks, then the exemption would apply.

However, most people probably spend 8 to 10 hours in the park and spend 20 minutes or so of that watching the fireworks.

Some people don't even stay for the fireworks.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Let me clarify my earlier comment, ie "I'm not sure that everyone here is going to disagree with Disney's position. It is a debatable matter of personal rights over property rights."

I was not saying that I support Disney's position. When I made the comment I was thinking about the poll question at the link and the earlier rather long, spirited discussion we had on OCDO about the proposed law. Several people argued that the law infringes on the employer's property rights. Most of us made the "your car being your personal property and your safety to and from work trump the employer's property rights." My above comment in this thread was more thinking out loud about how OCDO members might vote in the poll and who would support the employee and who would support Disney's employer private property rights. Just wanted to clarify my position.

Personally, now that it is the state law, I think personal opinion is irrelevant and I am most curious on what basis Disney claims to be exempted from a state statute. And for the record, I supported the then proposed FL state law in the aforementioned thread.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

falcon1 wrote:
Currently, the poll is over 80% pro-carry.

[*]
Should Disney employees with concealed-weapons permits be allowed to keep their guns in their cars while at work?

Yes. All other employees are able to. (15740 responses)

poll-bar.gif
81.8%

No. It's too dangerous for visitors. (3339 responses)

poll-bar.gif
17.4%

Not sure (163 responses)

poll-bar.gif
0.8%

  • 19242 total responses (Results not scientific)


Disney thinks they are ABOVE the Law cuz they have a pretty decent influence to the FL financial status.

They believe $$$ talks

I say..............................P!$$ OFF:cuss:. Screw 'em

TJ
 

kenny

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
635
Location
Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
kenny wrote:
What some people do not know is that Disney aka Reedy Creek Improvement District is their own government. They have their own executive and legislative forms of government. They rule by Dictatorship so they have no need for a judicial branch. Everyone not just the folks in Florida need to stand up and pay attention to this.
Explain more (and cite), please? I was wondering about "Disney's claim of an exemption to the new law"...
Google it and you will find your answers. To many it is common knowledge, sorry the word had not made it to you. The Internet is a wonderful if you only learn how to use it.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
thorvaldr wrote:
The new Florida law contains an exemption for businesses that have a license to store or use explosives. Disney has a license due to the large number of fireworks they use. Comments made by the legislators who wrote the bill seem to indicate that they did not specifically mean for Disney to be exempted by this provision.

IIRC the exemption in the law is only for businesses whose PRIMARY business is the storage or use of explosives.

If Disney can prove that their primary business is storing and setting off fireworks, then the exemption would apply.

However, most people probably spend 8 to 10 hours in the park and spend 20 minutes or so of that watching the fireworks.

Some people don't even stay for the fireworks.
Obviously the intention of the law was to exempt businesses whose primary function is storing and using explosives. (Though I don't know why a gun in your trunk is more dangerous at the dynamite factory than it would be at the post office.) The question that the state of Florida and Disney's lawyers will have to hash out is whether the law is actually worded so that anyone with a fireworks permit can weasel out of it.
 

Unclebuck

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
16
Location
Flowery Branch, Georgia, USA
imported post

Wow this guy put his 13 year career on the line over this issue. To much for him to go about his business and just keep a gun in his car and not tell anybody. I have zero sympathy for him.

Hope his wife has a job with benefits. I disagree with Disney, but I also tend not to shit where I eat. Even my dog knows that.
 
Top