After protesting gun rule, Disney guard is fired

[asforme]

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

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/08laws/ch_2008-007.pdf

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

(b) No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.

 

[Venator]

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

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.

Not entirely true, they can't engage in unlawful activity in their home or on their property. In Michigan Conservation Officers can go on private property to enforce game laws.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

Venator wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

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.

Not entirely true, they can't engage in unlawful activity in their home or on their property. In Michigan Conservation Officers can go on private property to enforce game laws.

Same in WI, except we have the District of National Resources.

Since Disney can't engage in unlawful activity on their property, and the law says, "No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes," I'd say the guy should be given credit for knowing the law, because his case is covered by it, start to finish, regardless of what his employment agreement says.

 

[Legba]

imported post

I'm unfamiliar with Florida law, but it looks like he (the now-unemployed guard)has an excellent case from the excerpted text above.

-ljp

 

[Phoenixphire]

imported post

thorvaldr wrote:

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.

You are correct. They can't tell you what you can or can not have in it.

What they can do is say that you may not have a gun in it if you are on their property.

Just like they can say you can't park it on their property if it is blue, or a Ford.

It is THEIR property. They can prohibit you from entering from any reason, be it silly or not.

Now, of course, my point is that this is how it SHOULD be. The Florida Law dictating that a private land owner can't exclude vehicles containing firearms is unconstitutional, but still the law until a court declares it so.

But that is a whole different argument.

 

[thorvaldr]

imported post

Pointman left out the "unless the business has a firecracker or some diesel fuel" clause. Disney lobied to have an exeption based on their explosives permit.

 

[thorvaldr]

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

thorvaldr wrote:

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.

You are correct. They can't tell you what you can or can not have in it.

What they can do is say that you may not have a gun in it if you are on their property.

Just like they can say you can't park it on their property if it is blue, or a Ford.

It is THEIR property. They can prohibit you from entering from any reason, be it silly or not.

Now, of course, my point is that this is how it SHOULD be. The Florida Law dictating that a private land owner can't exclude vehicles containing firearms is unconstitutional, but still the law until a court declares it so.

But that is a whole different argument.

Ok, I'm just going to have to disagree with you there. I don't think that not allowing employees to park in your lot based on senseless arbitrary reasons is, or should be, constitutionally protected. OK, MN, AK, KT, MS and now FL all have laws [size="-1"]prohibiting employers from prohibiting people from having firearms in their vehicles. At least CCW holders but in most cases, everybody. Business groups have fought very hard against these laws but none of them have been overturned on constitutional grounds.
[/size]