After protesting gun rule, Disney guard is fired

[asforme]

imported post

The problem with the guns at work law is it is more government involvement in private property, and I don't trust the government. Sure it works well for Florida, but if this is upheld in court then there is nothing stopping other states from legally preventing guns at work. I as a consumer now have no influence on what the policies will be and can only hope that the corrupt legislatures will be on my side.

Pointman wrote:

When a private property owner invites the general public onto their property to work or purchase good/services, they are held to certain standards that don't otherwise apply.

I disagree with this. Inviting the public to your private property does not make it public property. That is Communism.

It's similar (but not the same) as if they fire someone for being a particular race

This should not be illegal either. The problem is that seeing a guy in a mouse costume is more important to most sheeple than supporting businesses who behave ethically.

 

[Prometheus]

imported post

asforme wrote:

The problem with the guns at work law is it is more government involvement in private property, and I don't trust the government. Sure it works well for Florida, but if this is upheld in court then there is nothing stopping other states from legally preventing guns at work. I as a consumer now have no influence on what the policies will be and can only hope that the corrupt legislatures will be on my side.

Pointman wrote:

When a private property owner invites the general public onto their property to work or purchase good/services, they are held to certain standards that don't otherwise apply.

I disagree with this. Inviting the public to your private property does not make it public property. That is Communism.

You've hit the nail on the head.
First plank of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

[font="Verdana, Arial"]"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
-John Adams.

[/font][font="Verdana, Arial"] "The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not."
-Hayek Fredrich August von

"Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark."
-Lippmann Walter
[/font]

 

[jmlefler]

imported post

+1 for asforme and others who understand and appreciate the importance of private property in our society. I feel that Disney can ban weapons from their private property. Although the Florida law intends to accomodate those that wish to carry on their way to and from work, it is still Disney's private property and the 'parking lot law' is a governmental 'taking'.

Rights are what we can do, laws are what we can't. Other than laws that rescind other laws, any law is a restriction on liberty and an attempt to balance the rights of one with the rights of another. That is a purpose of a government and the basis for the 'Social Contract Theory' of government. The conundrum - the government we formed to protect our rights thinks it can only do so by passing laws that restrict our rights.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

jmlefler wrote:

+1 for asforme and others who understand and appreciate the importance of private property in our society.

I also am glad someone else thinks of this in these terms. The right to bear arms and to defend yourself must be firmly rooted in the theory of self-ownership and protection of property.

Unfortunately, the poster who said antis will use this as an opportunity to ban guns instead of protect property is correct. Ironic, since the same people who hate guns are usually anti-corporation and anti-property rights as well.

The pro-gun side is not any better, to them the right to carry a gun trumps everything else, even at the expense of property rights. Some have made the twisted argument that no one has a right to tell you what you can have in your car. That's true as far as it goes: your car, your life your gun, are all your property. But unless you own the parking lot, you have to meet the conditions set by the owner or leave.

Neither the mainstream opinion of the pro-gun crowd (the NRA in this case) nor the anti-gun crowd is focusing on property and liberty in general, they are all focused on guns alone.

Complicating this issue is the fact that Disney is not a sole proprietorship but rather a coproration, with special protections from government, and in addition appears to run it's own little government down there in Florida, complete with, you guessed it, seizures of private property!

However this one turns out, the final resolution is sure to be muddy and sacharine, with little discussion about the foundation of rights and freedoms, only guns vs. anti-gun.

As for the security guard, I'm not sure I agree with his stance, although I am tempted to, since it also burns me up that there are so many places where you can't store a gun in your car at work, but he appears to be willing to put his career on the line for his principles, so I wish him the best of luck. Unclebuck, not so much.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

jmlefler wrote:

Rights are what we can do, laws are what we can't.

I prefer this version:

Laws are what you can't do, rights are what other people can't do to you.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Prometheus wrote:

You totally missed the point. The law is a violation of private property rights. I could care less what ridiculous loophole disney is claiming. This goes back to my comment about gun owners being "ignorant of rights". There is more than one right.

I still think this law will be stuck down by the Florida supreme court.

It SHOULD be stuck down because it is a blatant violation of private property rights.

It WILL be struck down because the liberals on the court will seize this opportunity to use it to bash actual gun rights rather than re-affirm private property rights.

Lose-Lose situation.

Is a car not private property?

Isn't this Disney telling people what they can and cannot do their their private property.

Granted, it's private property parked on THEIR PP, but at the same time, this is why you can't be tagged for DIP while riding in the back of someone else's car.

 

[asforme]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Complicating this issue is the fact that Disney is not a sole proprietorship but rather a coproration, with special protections from government, and in addition appears to run it's own little government down there in Florida, complete with, you guessed it, seizures of private property!

That's why I really hope this security guard wins and Disney gets the smack in the face they deserve. But on principle I think the guns at work law is one more step towards socialism.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Is a car not private property?

Isn't this Disney telling people what they can and cannot do their their private property.

Granted, it's private property parked on THEIR PP, but at the same time, this is why you can't be tagged for DIP while riding in the back of someone else's car.

Whoever owns the parking lot gets to decide who can and can't park there, under strict private property morals. They don't need to give you a reason. If they choose not to let you in because you are wearing a red shirt, you have to live with it. Same goes for having a gun in your car.

(Note that I am saying what I believe is right, what the law says is something entirely different.)

Exploring this argument further, why stop with your car? Since your underwear is private property, what right does Disney or anyone else have to tell you not to carry a concealed weapon in your underwear?

 

[falcon1]

imported post

Certain actions are put beyond the power of a private employer/accommodation to do as a matter of law. Disney, no matter what their private property rights are, cannot discriminate in accommodation or employment based upon race, gender, or certain other factors. They must provide access to the disabled, whether they desire to or not. What remains to be decided by (IMO ultimately SCOTUS) is whether the right to possess a personal firearm in your own car on Disney's (or anyone else's private property) rises to the level of protection that race- and gender-discrimination prevention does, or not. Until then, everyone in the country can go around and around on this, ad nauseum.

OMO, YMMV. :question:

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

As for property rights...

Once the government stops indoctrinating our children to hate guns in public schools that are inefficient in teaching anything else, and once the government stops disparaging gun ownership through encouraging the abuse of gun owners (see BATFE and affiliate JBTs), I'll entertain the discussion.

As it stands now, the majority of the public, over the past several decades, has been force-fed an anti-gun message. Therefore, it ain't exactly a free market for potential employees and customers to find pro-gun businesses. Maybe I've become too cynical, but I'm willing to go along with legislation like that in Florida, if for no other reason than to start reversing the thinking that guns are not sentient beings that "go off" at random. Our beloved government has dug so deep an anti-gun hole that legislation like this is, IMO of course, the only way to start getting out.

But the bigger issue is that Disney is breaking a standing law. As much as I disagree with the law, I can't go to Florida and start carrying openly. If Disney has an issue, then they should act to change it instead of disobeying it and hoping to not get caught.

 

[thorvaldr]

imported post

It's my car. I should be able to park it anwhere that I am authorized to park it with anything that is legal for me to have contained in it. This includes guns, other sport equipment, bibles or cans of tuna packed in oil.

In Colorado, I'm allowed to have a concealed handgun in my car without a permit, specifically because Colorado considers my car to be my property. Just like a little house on wheels.

 

[Phoenixphire]

imported post

Look, I know that each of us here support the right to carry, and think that those who don't are freaking r-tards.

But, when it comes to private property rights, I think that they trump ones right to carry.

Here is why: Constitution guarantees are limited to what the government may not do. They are not limited to individuals.

Here is an example: You own your own home, and have a family. You are a frequent visitor to your local firing range. One of the regulars there, let's call him "Joey", is a hang-about flea. He is always there, but never actually practicing. He open carries to show everyone he is a badass, and frequently unholsters his weapon, just for the hell of it. He has no clue of the The Four Rules, and his ability to handle a weapon shows it.

So, one day, you host an event at your home. Joey shows up, carrying his weapon. You know that this individual is unsafe with weapons. You do not trust him to be there.

Now, do you have the right to ask him to leave?

This is the same for Disney. No matter the reason why they don't want weapons on property, they are private property holders. They have the right to ask people to leave, for any reason. (I understand ADA limits this, not sure I agree with it.)

What should we do? Simply refuse to finance Disney, and encourage others to do so as well.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

Let's look at a more related situation: You and a friend stop at a corner cafeteria for lunch and are eating outside, but on their property. You're discussing news coverage of the election, each debating a different candidate's strengths. The manager walks up and politely asks you to stop talking. Your friend says both of you were having a quiet debate, and the manager says he's free to talk all he wants, but you are not. When asked why the manager states it is his policy to only allow political conventions that support one particular candidate, and having broken the policy, you are no longer allowed to speak.

If your rights don't infringe upon others, they have no reason to deny you your rights. If you're disturbing other customers with loud speech, that's different. Flashing private parts, totally wrong. Talking quietly between yourselves is your business, not someone else's.

A business such as Disney has no right to say to a woman, "You may not secure yourself against rape on the way to or from work--try wearing less makeup or dressing like a man. Better yet, you'll be safer if you just give them what they want."

 

[asforme]

imported post

Pointman wrote:

A business such as Disney has no right to say to a woman, "You may not secure yourself against rape on the way to or from work--try wearing less makeup or dressing like a man. Better yet, you'll be safer if you just give them what they want."

Many problems can be solved with innovative businesses. How about a gun store right outside Disney that offers to safely store guns for Disney employees while they're working.

 

[Phoenixphire]

imported post

He does have that right.

He can have you cited for trespass, if you refuse to leave.

A person can do as they wish, on their own property, for whatever reason they would like.

 

[thorvaldr]

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Look, I know that each of us here support the right to carry, and think that those who don't are freaking r-tards.

But, when it comes to private property rights, I think that they trump ones right to carry.

Here is why: Constitution guarantees are limited to what the government may not do. They are not limited to individuals.

Here is an example: You own your own home, and have a family. You are a frequent visitor to your local firing range. One of the regulars there, let's call him "Joey", is a hang-about flea. He is always there, but never actually practicing. He open carries to show everyone he is a badass, and frequently unholsters his weapon, just for the hell of it. He has no clue of the The Four Rules, and his ability to handle a weapon shows it.

So, one day, you host an event at your home. Joey shows up, carrying his weapon. You know that this individual is unsafe with weapons. You do not trust him to be there.

Now, do you have the right to ask him to leave?

This is the same for Disney. No matter the reason why they don't want weapons on property, they are private property holders. They have the right to ask people to leave, for any reason. (I understand ADA limits this, not sure I agree with it.)

What should we do? Simply refuse to finance Disney, and encourage others to do so as well.

So, "Joey" comes to your event and parks on your property because that's where all your other guests park. You're saying that you would insist on searching Joey's car and ejecting him from your event if you find he has a gun in his trunk. Or to make it fair , you go out and search everybody's car and eject everybody , including people you absolutely know handle guns responsibly.

 

[Legba]

imported post

They may be able to weasel around his termination, if not the application of this state law in the future. He was fired for not submitting to a search of his vehicle - so they never actually established whether he had a gun or not. They may be entitled to fire him for just refusing the search, whatever the law says about his gun.

I think that would be lame, but I've certainly seen such hairplitting by frustrated corporate weenies insisting on having their way.

-ljp

 

[MetalChris]

imported post

Legba wrote:

They may be able to weasel around his termination, if not the application of this state law in the future. He was fired for not submitting to a search of his vehicle - so they never actually established whether he had a gun or not. They may be entitled to fire him for just refusing the search, whatever the law says about his gun.

I think that would be lame, but I've certainly seen such hairplitting by frustrated corporate weenies insisting on having their way.

-ljp

Yeah, my impression of the guy is that he's a dumbass. He obviously didn't think things through. Nothing will come of this simply because of the fact that he refused the search which is grounds for termination.

What a goof.

 

[dbc3804]

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

So, one day, you host an event at your home. Joey shows up, carrying his weapon. You know that this individual is unsafe with weapons. You do not trust him to be there.

Now, do you have the right to ask him to leave?

This is the same for Disney. No matter the reason why they don't want weapons on property, they are private property holders. They have the right to ask people to leave, for any reason. (I understand ADA limits this, not sure I agree with it.)

I agree with the point about the home. However, Disney is a publicly-owned company. This guy may even be a stockholder. I realize that a corporation is a legal entity, but do their rights equal those of an individual property-owner?

Anyone know the stockholder-relations email address for Disney? I'd like to complain.



Danny

 

[thorvaldr]

imported post

dbc3804 wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

So, one day, you host an event at your home. Joey shows up, carrying his weapon. You know that this individual is unsafe with weapons. You do not trust him to be there.

Now, do you have the right to ask him to leave?

This is the same for Disney. No matter the reason why they don't want weapons on property, they are private property holders. They have the right to ask people to leave, for any reason. (I understand ADA limits this, not sure I agree with it.)

I agree with the point about the home. However, Disney is a publicly-owned company. This guy may even be a stockholder. I realize that a corporation is a legal entity, but do their rights equal those of an individual property-owner?

Anyone know the stockholder-relations email address for Disney? I'd like to complain.



Danny

Disney is private property. They have the same rights as you, Cinemark, or Barnes and Noble, to regulate the activities of people on their property. But, your car is your little island of private property. They can tell you where to park it. But they shouldn't be able to tell you what you can or can't have in it.