My apologies if this is a DUPE - I didn't see it...

E-mail I received from the NRA a few minutes ago:

Some companies have been firing employees for having legal firearms locked in their gloveboxes in parking lots or for having hunting firearms in locked in their vehicles.  Should you give up your right of self-defense or you right to have a firearm in your vehicle for lawful purposes because anti-gun company administrators have been encouraged by the Brady Campaign to ban firearms in their parking lots?  Below is the POLL LINK from the very anti-gun South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Republican lawmakers are proposing a bill that would give Floridians the right to keep guns locked in their vehicles while they're at work -- a practice now banned by many companies. Your opinion? www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-100305poll%2C0%2C7350068%2Cpost.poll

The related article:  www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-guns1002,0,4768146.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

*groan*


I'm torn on this one.

In a perfect world (well, more perfect than this one, anyway) employees would simply refuse to work until the right to carry was granted.

One side:

Private property - employer can make rules at will

Other side: the RKBA issue.

Those are 2 issues I hate to compromise on - so what do you do when they clash with each other?

Quoted: ... Private property - employer can make rules at will ...

I agree with you to a point.  For me, that point is inside my vehicle, regardless whether they own the parking lot or not.  But I certainly can see where a reasonable person could disagree with me on this.  Nothing to squabble over.

I should have said:  I don't expect anyone who diagrees about this to vote my way just because I started a thread here.

Fair enough?

Quoted: Quoted: ... Private property - employer can make rules at will ... I agree with you to a point.  For me, that point is inside my vehicle, regardless whether they own the parking lot or not.  But I certainly can see where a reasonable person could disagree with me on this.  Nothing to squabble over. I should have said:  I don't expect anyone who diagrees about this to vote my way just because I started a thread here. Fair enough?

More than fair!

I actually fall on your side on this one. You're right that what is inside my vehicle should (IMO) be none of an employer's business.



(More importantly, I believe that the RKBA is the one right that makes the others possible - so if we compromise IT, we have no ultimate redress when the other rights (property, etc..) are violated. )




This reminds me of the case in 2002 (IIRC) where some AOL employees were fired because they had their skeet shotguns in their cars in a publically-owned parking lot.

Meh, they should allow people to bring their legally carried weapons into the the actual workplace if they want.  If someone shows up armed to the teeth and goes postal, getting fired for bringing weapons onto the property is probably not the first thing in their mind.

That said, this law should include a provision to prevent lawsuits against the company if one of their employees shoots someone, excluding armed security personnel improperly shooting someone, of course.

Voted.

It has been my observation that such company rules (no guns) do nothing to help the safety and wellbeing of their employees.

The rules disarm those needing protection.  Few companies provide security officers, and fewer still have ARMED security.  And WHY should a company trust an armed guard, usually from an outside guard firm, over a trusted employee?

It has also been my observation that when there is a shooting by a "disgruntled employee" or former employee, the shooter is not concerned with being fired.

So, what is accomplished other than disarming the victims?

This is the same as with ALL "gun control" laws.

What else could they keep you from bringing in your car?  A gun is a lawful item.  So's a book....like your Bible....so's a big ol' knife or sword.  Maybe they could say you couldn't park a motorcycle there or only low-emission vehicles or no political stickers......

Anyway we can see the ability to oppress, with no demonstrable public safety or health issue is open for debate.  How the hell does anyone, without asking or searching otherwise know you carry a gun, either on your person or in your car/truck/motorcycle...?  Without knowing,  how can it be demonstrated to be a hazard.  I don't think it can, it can only be claimed with no proof.

Kind of off-topic but I got to see that scene from "Against All Odds" where the running back kills 3 players on his way to scoring a vital touchdown on the last play of the game and then blows his brains out.  Shocking but it shows you shouldn't let players carry during  the game.

Quoted: *groan* I'm torn on this one. In a perfect world (well, more perfect than this one, anyway) employees would simply refuse to work until the right to carry was granted. One side: Private property - employer can make rules at will Other side: the RKBA issue. Those are 2 issues I hate to compromise on - so what do you do when they clash with each other?

Several problems with that statement:

By not allowing it, the companies are not just affecting you while you are at work.  Anywhere you go, before or after work, you will be unarmed due to their policy.

Also, the vast majority of companies do NOT provide any security at all, much less armed security, so you are completely defenseless against some nutcase who decides to violate company policy.  

Has this policy ever stoppped even one workplace shooting?  I doubt it.

Quoted: Meh, they should allow people to bring their legally carried weapons into the the actual workplace if they want.  If someone shows up armed to the teeth and goes postal, getting fired for bringing weapons onto the property is probably not the first thing in their mind. That said, this law should include a provision to prevent lawsuits against the company if one of their employees shoots someone, excluding armed security personnel improperly shooting someone, of course.

Hell, I think that companies that have this policy should get sued all to hell and back for NOT allowing employees to be packing when one of these nutjobs goes postal.

Quoted: *groan* I'm torn on this one. In a perfect world (well, more perfect than this one, anyway) employees would simply refuse to work until the right to carry was granted. One side: Private property - employer can make rules at will Other side: the RKBA issue. Those are 2 issues I hate to compromise on - so what do you do when they clash with each other?

It is NOT strictly "private property."  If the employer made a rule at will prohibiting someone because of race or national origin, something you legally could do for your own home, there would be no "private property" issue.  It would be struck down as a "public accommodation."  There are degrees of private property, and it's very thin when it is outside an individually owned private home.  

The ONLY reason this is an issue is that it is about guns.

I'm proud to say that I violated a Texas law today.  Same idea.  They have a sign in a mall prohibiting possession of a concealed handgun by those licensed to carry.  Interesting, they do not prohibit possession by those not licensed to carry - hey, that's what the English says.  Oh, I see, no one speaks English in the Houston area, anyway.   I had my pistol in my pocket, and wouldn't have wanted to leave it in the car, exposed to possible theft.  Actually, I didn't know the 30-06 sign was there until I got to the door and wouldn't have wanted to be bothered taking it back.  

Sure, some of the pussies who want to placate everyone will waggle fingers at me.  Speaking of fingers, I gave the finger to the so-called "security" camera in the doorway, pointed to the sign, and gave it the finger again.  I hope it's on tape.  I'm sick of bullshit and won't put up with it.

To those who want to ask the other obvious questions:

1.  Concealed means concealed.

2.  If I saw a soccer mom and her kid, or a clerk being hacked to pieces by someone with a machete, I would do my public duty within the limits of the requirements imposed by their private property sign.  That is, I would have gone into a convenient and safe store and asked the clerk there to call 911.  Ditto for someone being attacked by someone else with a firearm.

3.  If someone assaulted my wife or myself, using a weapon, I would have dropped them where they stood.

4.  If some rent-a-cop or real one wanted to shake me down, that person would have found out how much damage a size 13 can do.  There was no probable cause (see #1.), and if someone fishes, they deserve what they get.  If you think otherwise, stop making propaganda about the Nazis, it's the same thing and you obviously like it.

The above relates to the workplace issue. Some will say, "Sue them if you are injured by someone who attacks you, and their policy prevented you from protecting yourself."  I don't want to sue anyone:  I don't want permanent injury or my widow having to play with the useless court system, no matter who pays.

Rant mode off.  I'm fed up.  I don't stick up 7-11's, rob little old ladies of their Social Security checks or  bother people in general.  I will protect my wife and defend myself.  I don't give a damn if some pussies want to tell others what to do but, as we all know, it's "different" for them.

This will pass in Florida for sure. I'd like them to pass a Texas style shoot 'em at night law.

Quoted: This will pass in Florida for sure. I'd like them to pass a Texas style shoot 'em at night law.

That, property protection, and open carry.

Then we'd have more gun owners moving here than snow birds.

(Of course...  Can gun owners be snow birds? Can any of you guys in Jersey or Michigan drive properly? )

Bumped.

I'm doing a paper on this for school.

I'd like to hear more opinions - from both sides.

Professor (liberal RINO who stated last night that the 2A didn't say what it says...) wants me to do the paper from a business-liability standpoint.

I can do that....as long as the other side is presented.