Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
4/22/2019 5:32:20 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/18/2007 2:30:39 PM EDT
The House Environmental and Natural Resources Council held a hearing today, April 18, on House Bill 1417, sponsored by Representative Dennis Baxley. Unfortunately, HB 1417 was defeated by a vote of 10 to 4.

Seven (7) Republican Committee Members sold out the citizens they were elected to represent in favor of corporate giants like PUBLIX, DISNEY and WALMART.

The anti-gun Florida Chamber of Commerce targeted two Committee members (Representative Faye Culp & Representative Rich Glorioso) with TV attack ads that ran over the weekend and put pressure on others to subvert your constitutional rights. Those two Representatives did not cave to anti-gun pressure, and they stood strong for the people.

Three (3) Republicans and one (1) Democrat voted FOR the bill: Representative Debbie Boyd (D), Representative Faye Culp (R), Representative Rich Glorioso (R) and Representative Paige Kreegel (R). These are four of the most honorable members of the Florida House. NRA will always remember their courage and support for HB 1417.

One of the most disappointing votes was Representative Bob Allen (R), who was a co-sponsor of the bill and assured NRA he was pro-gun and would vote in support of HB 1417. However, he then VOTED AGAINST HB 1417. Please call Representative Bob Allen at his Tallahassee Office number (850) 488-4669 and express your disappointment in his actions.



The following Representatives voted AGAINST the bill, your privacy rights, your personal property rights and your Second Amendment Rights:

Rep. Bob Allen (R) (850) 488-4669
Rep. Mary Brandenburg (D) (850) 488-0260
Rep. Denise Grimsley (R) (850) 488-3457
Rep. Will Kendrick (R) (850) 488-7870
Rep. Rick Kriseman (D) (850) 488-9337
Rep. Bryan Nelson (R) (850) 488-2023
Rep. Richard Machek (D) (850) 488-5588
Rep. Stan Mayfield (R), Chair (850) 488-0952
Rep. Baxter Troutman (R) VC (850) 488-9465
Rep. Trudi Williams (R) (850) 488-2047

Their email addresses are:

Bob.Allen@myfloridahouse.gov
Mary.Brandenburg@myfloridahouse.gov
Denise.Grimsley@myfloridahouse.gov
Will.Kendrick@myfloridahouse.gov
Rick.Kriseman@myfloridahouse.gov
Richard.Machek@myfloridahouse.gov
Stan.Mayfield@myfloridahouse.gov
Bryan.Nelson@myfloridahouse.gov
Baxter.Troutman@myfloridahouse.gov
Trudi.Williams@myfloridahouse.gov

NRA will not forget these anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-constitution Representatives. Some Representatives are term-limited and planning to run for other offices, others will have to run for re-election in 2008. We will keep you posted on others who worked behind the scenes to help sell out Florida’s law-abiding citizens gun owners.

The following is the Testimony of Marion Hammer on this bill to the House Environmental & Natural Resources Council 4/18/07:

Committee Members,

This bill is about the individual rights of everyday people. People are more important than a chunk of asphalt parking lot. You don't stop being a person when you accept employment or become a customer.

A grocery store or an amusement park has NO right to search your private vehicle just because you parked in their parking lot. They have NO right to tell you what private personal property you can have inside your private vehicle.

Well, that's what this bill is about.

Constitutional rights and statutory rights do NOT end when you cross from one piece of asphalt upon which you drive - to another piece of asphalt upon which you park.

There has been a lot of talk about taking away property rights.

Let's be very clear. This bill doesn't take away ANY property rights. It doesn't give any property rights.

It protects EXISTING property rights of customers and employees.

Opponents of this bill are trying to dream up or manufacture rights for themselves while trampling existing rights of others. The Constitution has NEVER given business owners the right to subvert the privacy rights and Second Amendment rights of customers or employees.

This bill protects a person's right to have legal property that is lawfully possessed locked inside a personal private vehicle in a parking lot. A private vehicle, by the way, that is an extension of your home.

Think about women who work late hours as cashiers at supermarkets. And what about employees of all-night pharmacies, or nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night?

As one female legislator asked, what about lawmakers who travel their districts at night for speaking engagements? Are they not supposed to park anywhere or stop for a cup of coffee or a soda or a bite to eat because they carry a gun in the car for protection?

A woman who is being stalked needs protection. Police often advise these women to buy a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them. An employer violates her rights if the employer attempts to force her to waive her rights and chose between her life and her job.

Her employer has no right to tell her that she'll be fired if she exercises her right to have a firearm in her vehicle for protection.

This bill is about staying alive to get to work and staying alive to get home to your family after work. THERE CAN BE NO STRONGER RIGHT.

Legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights.

The Florida Chamber says they represent over 100,000 business owners and those businesses employ over 3 million workers. The Chamber ONLY represents those few business owners.

The Chamber is NOT representing the rights of those 3 million workers or the rights of the millions upon millions of customers.

We're asking you to protect the rights of those workers and customers - the people whose rights you were sent here to protect. Please pass this bill.

Keeping checking www.NRAILA.org for updates on Florida’s “Individual Personal Private Property Protection” legislation and for Second Amendment issues around the nation.


Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:34:32 PM EDT
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:40:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:45:36 PM EDT
Do you want the government forcing you to do things you dont agree with, with your property?

Property Rights are as important as, if not more important in the big scheme of things, than Second Amendment rights. Because part of the Reason for Second Amendment rights is to defend Property Rights.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:48:29 PM EDT
True, and I do understand your point Silence. I'm really begining to adopt the "gays in the military" thinking and just not say a word one way or the other if there is a gun in my car or on my person.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:52:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:52:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 2:54:48 PM EDT by Cavu]
Property rights are one thing. But as long as the weapon is in your personal vehicle, it never leaves YOUR property. What this does, is allow property owners to dictate what you can and can not have in your PERSONAL vehicle.

If you don't want me carrying a weapon while on your property that is just fine. But I should be able to leave it locked up in my vehicle. Otherwise, your policy is not only disarming me while on your property, but everywhere else I go enroute to or from your property. That is not right.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:55:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?




Well, if you are preventing them from protecting themselves, doesn't that make you responsible for them?
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:58:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cavu:
Property rights are one thing. But as long as the weapon is in your personal vehicle, it never leaves YOUR property. What this does, is allow property owners to dictate what you can and can not have in your PERSONAL vehicle.

If you don't want me carrying a weapon while on your property that is just fine. But I should be able to leave it locked up in my vehicle. Otherwise, your policy is not only disarming me while on your property, but everywhere else I go enroute to or from your property. That is not right.



Exactly!!! Nowhere did it state to carry or not, only that you should be able to keep your gun in your vehicle.

And next...here comes the argument that you can always shop/work somewhere else...
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 2:59:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cavu:
Property rights are one thing. But as long as the weapon is your personal vehicle, it never leaves YOUR property. What this does, is allow property owners to dictate what you can and can not have in your PERSONAL vehicle.

If you don't want me carrying a weapon while on your property that is just fine. But I should be able to leave it locked up in my vehicle. Otherwise, your policy is not only disarming me while on your property, but everywhere else I go enroute to or from your property. That is not right.


A Vehicle is a big Briefcase, not your house.

Would you like someone bringing a briefcase of crack into your home?

If you dont agree with the policy a property owner sets forth then dont frequent his/her property.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:00:15 PM EDT
Oh gee, Property rights Vs. Gun rights. Whats a crazy Republican supposed to think?? Please Rush......Hannity..... Tell me what to think!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:03:48 PM EDT
I wouldn't worry Cat, we have the largest amount of NFA owners and a whole shit heap of shooting. They'll never stand a chance.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:05:58 PM EDT
Ky has a similar law protecting CCW holders. It alows you to have your firearm secured in your vehicle weather your at work, school or other private property.

www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/237-00/106.PDF
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:10:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 3:12:43 PM EDT by Cavu]

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By Cavu:
Property rights are one thing. But as long as the weapon is your personal vehicle, it never leaves YOUR property. What this does, is allow property owners to dictate what you can and can not have in your PERSONAL vehicle.

If you don't want me carrying a weapon while on your property that is just fine. But I should be able to leave it locked up in my vehicle. Otherwise, your policy is not only disarming me while on your property, but everywhere else I go enroute to or from your property. That is not right.


A Vehicle is a big Briefcase, not your house.

Would you like someone bringing a briefcase of crack into your home?

If you dont agree with the policy a property owner sets forth then dont frequent his/her property.


Carrying a briefcase of crack is not protected by the CONSTITUTION!!!

And saying "if you don't agree with the policy then don't go there" is easier said than done in many situations.


Here in KY. Carrying on most college campuses is off limits as well as primary and secondary schools. But you do have the right to keep your weapon in your vehicle. I understand that these are public institutions and not private, but here in KY, you are pretty much guaranteed the right to have a weapon in your vehicle. A vehicle in KY is not like your briefcase. But apparently it is in FL and you seem fine with that.

I don't know about you, but I would not like my employer being legally allowed to search my vehicle. You shouldn't have to surrender all your rights to your employer as a condition of employment.

ETA: Thanks KY blaster for the link. God Bless the Bluegrass State!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:17:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cavu:

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By Cavu:
Property rights are one thing. But as long as the weapon is your personal vehicle, it never leaves YOUR property. What this does, is allow property owners to dictate what you can and can not have in your PERSONAL vehicle.

If you don't want me carrying a weapon while on your property that is just fine. But I should be able to leave it locked up in my vehicle. Otherwise, your policy is not only disarming me while on your property, but everywhere else I go enroute to or from your property. That is not right.


A Vehicle is a big Briefcase, not your house.

Would you like someone bringing a briefcase of crack into your home?

If you dont agree with the policy a property owner sets forth then dont frequent his/her property.


Carrying a briefcase of crack is not protected by the CONSTITUTION!!!

And saying "if you don't agree with the policy then don't go there" is easier said than done in many situations.


Here in KY. Carrying on most college campuses is off limits as well as primary and secondary schools. But you do have the right to keep your weapon in your vehicle. I understand that these are public institutions and not private, but here in KY, you are pretty much guaranteed the right to have a weapon in your vehicle. A vehicle in KY is not like your briefcase. But apparently it is in FL and you seem fine with that.

I don't know about you, but I would not like my employer being legally allowed to search my vehicle. You shouldn't have to surrender all your rights to your employer as a condition of employment.

ETA: Thanks KY blaster for the link. God Bless the Bluegrass State!!



Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:18:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hemi-Cuda:
I wouldn't worry Cat, we have the largest amount of NFA owners and a whole shit heap of shooting. They'll never stand a chance.



When the SHTF, I'm coming to your house.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:21:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Hemi-Cuda:
I wouldn't worry Cat, we have the largest amount of NFA owners and a whole shit heap of shooting. They'll never stand a chance.



When the SHTF, I'm coming to your house.


TOGETHER WE WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:25:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hemi-Cuda:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Hemi-Cuda:
I wouldn't worry Cat, we have the largest amount of NFA owners and a whole shit heap of shooting. They'll never stand a chance.



When the SHTF, I'm coming to your house.


TOGETHER WE WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD



Will we get to pick and choose who stays in it!!???!!!



Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:26:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cavu:

Carrying a briefcase of crack is not protected by the CONSTITUTION!!!


sure it is, show me where in the Constitution government is given the power to control whether or not you have crack...


And saying "if you don't agree with the policy then don't go there" is easier said than done in many situations.


I agree, but life aint always easy.


Here in KY. Carrying on most college campuses is off limits as well as primary and secondary schools. But you do have the right to keep your weapon in your vehicle. I understand that these are public institutions and not private, but here in KY, you are pretty much guaranteed the right to have a weapon in your vehicle. A vehicle in KY is not like your briefcase. But apparently it is in FL and you seem fine with that.


I find the idea that a public institution bans something clearly outside its power deplorable, that is the very reason for the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to limit what a public entity can do. Public Institutions should not have the power to tell you what you can have in your vehicle, or on your body. I find that any law that forces a property owner to do something they may not wish to do, to be deplorable, and repugnant. What a private party does with his/her property is their business. If you are doing something I find repugnant I should have the power to ask you to leave my property, the government should not be there to tell me that I cannot ask you to leave my property, or that I have to endure said activity on my property.


I don't know about you, but I would not like my employer being legally allowed to search my vehicle. You shouldn't have to surrender all your rights to your employer as a condition of employment.


If it is part of your contract then you are the one that agreed to it when you signed up for the job. And you dont surrender ALL of your rights. Just the ones you and your employer agree to. If you sign a non-disclosure agreement you lose some of your 'freedom of speach'. Same thing if you take a job at a place where part of the company's policy is that they can search your vehicle while it is on THEIR property that is your responsibility.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:33:28 PM EDT
I still don't think a public or private intity or an employer should get to over ride the Constitution of the United States.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:36:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silence:
Do you want the government forcing you to do things you dont agree with, with your property?

Property Rights are as important as, if not more important in the big scheme of things, than Second Amendment rights. Because part of the Reason for Second Amendment rights is to defend Property Rights.


Agreed, but people here will rail on about their rights while saying "screw you" to someone else's rights.

Then they turn around and complain when it happens to them.


Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:37:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:
I still don't think a public or private intity or an employer should get to over ride the Constitution of the United States.


Really? So the Avila's shouldn't be able to ban someone from AR15.com because that person's 1st amendment rights override the private property rights of the owners of this site???
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:39:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Oh gee, Property rights Vs. Gun rights. Whats a crazy Republican supposed to think?? Please Rush......Hannity..... Tell me what to think!!


It's not a republican or democrat issue. It's an issue of respect for other people's rights when rights collide. There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides who will complain about freedom but not give a shit when someone else's freedom gets taken away, as long as they agree with the taking.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 3:53:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:
I still don't think a public or private intity or an employer should get to over ride the Constitution of the United States.


Really? So the Avila's shouldn't be able to ban someone from AR15.com because that person's 1st amendment rights override the private property rights of the owners of this site???



Thats not what I mean at all. And...bans do happen when people don't follow the rules just as the 2A protects LAW ABIDING citizens. And from what I've seen, the Avilas have been VERY fair in letting everybody voice their opinions and so far, I've seen not one drop of blood. They do not say that because a few bad apples spoil the batch that nobody should be allowed to speak or that they must only agree with them!!!!!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 4:09:44 PM EDT
We are going through this here in Georgia too, but with employers parking lots. Same players, Chamber of Commerce and the Georgia Bar vs everyone else. The lawyers don't want to lose their lucrative personal injury mill, the chamber of commerce is just plain anti-gun.


The kicker here that in Georgia, the law expressly states that your motor vehicle is an extension of your home. That being said, everyone who wants to tell you that you cannot have a gun in your car can suck it.....and suck it hard.




Link Posted: 4/18/2007 4:18:45 PM EDT
I got the following response from one of the "NO" voters:

Ask yourself...Why would so many gun and 2nd Amendment supporters from all over the State vote down this bill???

It's a shame when someone doesn't have the facts or chooses to ignore them. Your READY--FIRE--AIM approach is all wrong. You won't be able to convince the people who have elected me that I have turned anti-gun. They know I introduced the TRUE GUN PROTECTION BILL, my amendment to replace the failing confused bill. The NRA spokesperson Ms. Marion Hammer chose to side with other interest groups and FELL RIGHT INTO THE TRAP THEY SET FOR HER AND REP. BAXLEY. Before the committee started, I spoke by phone to the NRA leader, Ms. Hammer, and asked her to support
my True Gun Bill and told her that she was going to lose by a vote of 9 to 5. Instead she betrayed me and gun owners and actually rose and spoke against my True Gun Bill which led to her defeat. I felt betrayed and was disappointed that I was not supported. I told her that if she presented a mixed bag against property rights she was going to lose.
Keep it true 2nd Amendment Gun Rights and you will have the votes.

READ MY POSITION PAPER AND THE BEFORE THE VOTE AND THE TRUE GUN BILL (SEE ATTACHMENT) I SUBMITTED AND ASK HOW YOU COULD VOTE AGAINST THIS IF YOU ARE A 2ND AMENDMENT SUPPORTER

If Ms. Hammer would like to lead a TRUE GUN BILL next year I will be glad to introduce it. It makes no sense for her to alienate real 2nd Amendment supporters with all the other mixed bag groups.


Rep. Bob Allen
Florida House of Representatives - District 32
Capitol Office - 850.488.4669
Brevard County Office - 321.449.5111
Orange County Office - 866.770.9166 (Toll Free)

============================================

Attachment......

Bill No. 1417
COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ACTION
ADOPTED    (Y/N)
ADOPTED AS AMENDED    (Y/N)
ADOPTED W/O OBJECTION    (Y/N)
FAILED TO ADOPT    (Y/N)
WITHDRAWN    (Y/N)
OTHER      
___________________________________________________________
Council/Committee hearing bill: Environment & Natural Resources Council
Representative(s) Allen offered the following:

Substitute Strike-all Amendment to Amendment 1 (with title amendment)
Remove everything after the enacting clause and insert:

Section 1. Section 790.251, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
790.251 Protection of constitutional right to keep and bear arms; storage of firearms locked inside or locked to a motor vehicle in a parking area; prohibited acts; immunity from liability; enforcement.‑‑
(1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.‑‑This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that
citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that this right is not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen's lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Legislature finds that securing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is essential. The Legislature further finds that no citizen is or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep a firearm locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state.
(2) PROHIBITED ACTS.‑‑No public or private entity may violate the constitutional right of any customer, employee, or invitee to keep and bear arms as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):
(a) No public or private entity may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle, out of sight, in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.
(b)1. No public or private entity may, by verbal or written inquiry, question a customer, employee, or invitee regarding the presence of a firearm inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot.
2. No public or private entity may conduct an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of a firearm inside such motor vehicle.
3. No public or private entity may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning the presence of a firearm inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot.
4. Searches of private motor vehicles may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.
(c) No employer shall condition employment upon any agreement by a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business when the employee's motor vehicle contains a firearm that is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within his or her motor vehicle, the lawful possession of which is protected by, or the lawful use of which is incidental to, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms protected under the United States Constitution or the Florida Constitution.
(d) No employer shall attempt to prevent or prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business when the customer's, employee's, or invitee's motor vehicle contains any firearm that is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within his or her motor vehicle, the lawful possession of which is protected by, or the lawful use of which is incidental to, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms protected under the United States Constitution or the Florida Constitution.
(e) No employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee, for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

This subsection applies to all public-sector employers, including those already prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33.
(3) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.‑‑
(a) Except for public or private entities and employers subject to the exceptions of subsection (6), a public or private entity or employer has no duty to:
1. Prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing legal personal private property in a locked motor vehicle in the entity's or employer's parking lot;
2. Search a motor vehicle in the entity's or employee's parking lot or inquire regarding personal private possessions in a locked motor vehicle in the entity's or employer's parking lot;
3. Condition employment upon an agreement regarding the employee's legal personal private property in a locked motor vehicle in the entity's or employer's parking lot; or
4. Terminate the employment of an employee for exercising his or her right to bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.
(b) Except for public or private entities and employers subject to the exceptions of subsection (6), a public or private entity or employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private entities or employers which are unrelated to compliance with this section.
(4) ENFORCEMENT.‑‑The Attorney General shall enforce the protections of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act if there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person's rights under this act have been violated by a public or private entity. In such cases, the Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act. However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the act.
(5) DEFINITIONS.‑‑As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Parking lot" means any property owned or leased by an employer or the landlord of an employer that is used for parking motor vehicles and is available to customers, employees, or invitees for temporary or long-term parking or storage of motor vehicles.
(b) "Motor vehicle" means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motor home, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state and required to be registered under state law.
(c) "Employee" means any person who:
1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration;
2. Is an independent contractor; or
3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual
for an employer.
(d) "Employer" means any business that is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, professional association, cooperative, joint venture, trust, firm, institution, or association, or public-sector entity, that has employees.
(e) "Invitee" means any business invitee, including a customer or visitor, who is lawfully on the premises of an entity described in paragraph (d).
(6) EXCEPTIONS.‑‑The prohibitions in subsection (2) do not apply to:
(a) Property owned or leased by an employer or the landlord of an employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or domestic security.
(b) Property owned or leased by an employer or the landlord of an employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law if the presence of any legally possessed firearm in a parking lot presents an increased danger of explosion or reasonably predictable catastrophic event.
(c) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by an employer or the landlord of an employer.
(d) Any other property owned or leased by an employer or the landlord of an employer upon which possession of a firearm by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law or any general law of this state on the effective date of this act.
(e) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.
(f) Any state correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47.
(7) SHORT TITLE.‑‑This section may be cited as "The Individual Right To Bear Arms Protection Act of 2007."

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law and shall apply to causes of action accruing on or after that date.


================= T I T L E A M E N D M E N T =================
Remove the entire title and insert:

A bill to be entitled
An act relating to the "Individual Right To Bear Arms Protection Act of 2007"; creating s. 790.251, F.S.; creating the "Individual Right To Bear Arms Protection Act of 2007"; providing legislative findings and intent; prohibiting a public or private entity from prohibiting a customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any firearm that is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot; prohibiting a public or private entity from making a verbal or written inquiry of a customer, employee, or invitee
regarding the presence of a firearm inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot; prohibiting a public or private entity from conducting an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of a firearm inside such motor vehicle; prohibiting actions against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements concerning the presence of a firearm inside a private motor vehicle; prohibiting an employer from conditioning employment upon an agreement by a prospective employee that prohibits employees from entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business when the employee's motor vehicle contains a locked, secured, and lawfully possessed firearm; prohibiting an employer from attempting to prevent or prohibiting any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business when the employee's motor vehicle contains a locked, secured, and lawfully possessed firearm; prohibiting employers from terminating the employment of or otherwise discriminating against an employee, or expelling a customer or invitee, for exercising his or her constitutional right to bear arms or exercising the right of self-defense; providing that such prohibitions apply to all public-sector employers; providing specified immunity from liability for employers and landlords of employers; providing for enforcement of the act; providing definitions; providing applicability; providing an effective date.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 4:20:51 PM EDT
I just cant believe this didnt pass. It had SOOO much support from constituents. We had like 5 pro-gun bills go through last year. I just cant imagine why...
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 4:33:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 4:34:11 PM EDT by Tannim]

Originally Posted By dsg2003gt:
I just cant believe this didnt pass. It had SOOO much support from constituents. We had like 5 pro-gun bills go through last year. I just cant imagine why...


The NRA was told it would fail. Told how to pass it. Spoke against the amendment and predicably lost exactly as they were told they would.

If they had supported the amendment they would have won.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 4:37:35 PM EDT
Unbelieveable!!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:02:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?




Well, if you are preventing them from protecting themselves, doesn't that make you responsible for them?


If a drunk falls down and dies am I responsible?

If a person commits suicide is that my fault?

If I stand in YOUR FRONT YARD do I have the right to bear arms, to free expression, to practice my religion?
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:04:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:
I still don't think a public or private intity or an employer should get to over ride the Constitution of the United States.


Then you can CHOOSE to not work for that particular employer.

Just as you can choose to not visit homes where the property owners doesn't give you permission to be armed.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:28:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?




Well, if you are preventing them from protecting themselves, doesn't that make you responsible for them?


If a drunk falls down and dies am I responsible?

If a person commits suicide is that my fault?

If I stand in YOUR FRONT YARD do I have the right to bear arms, to free expression, to practice my religion?



No

No

Yes

Look, I understand what you're saying, but this is about saying you have the right to protect yourself, but only if you do it where it's acceptable. Would you go to your place of employment waving a gun, screaming bible verses at the top of your lungs? I'm thinking not, but can you honestly say they have the right to tell you not to listen to Christian music blasting on the radio, fondling your gun, while driving into the parking lot?

Think about it. This directly ties in with whats happening in America right now. We are being herded into the belief that we don't know whats good for ourselves. My boss at work is a gun collector, so it's a moot point for me, but if he wanted to search my truck for a firearm with no cause for the search, then I must respectfully decline. (This is in the event I wasn't doing something that aroused suspicion of being totally insane.)

This is about upholding the rights we have set forth by the Constitution!!!! When we start trumping them, we have no rights. We can't even say God in school now!!! Whats next???

If things get to the point were if you are a gun nut or an anti, and you can only go to those places that support or deny you access because of what you believe, then this world is doomed.

Yes, I do believe that if you say somebody can not protect themselves on your property, you are taking over the responsibilty of their safety. I could very well be wrong, but it's how I feel. Show me where I'm wrong and I'll jump on that wagon so fast it'll make your head spin. But until then, trust no one.


As far as the drunk and the suicide goes.....


I always heard God takes care of drunks and fools.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:36:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cavu:
Carrying a briefcase of crack is not protected by the CONSTITUTION!!!

Neither is your right to carry a weapon on my property. The Constitution only limits government actions.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:39:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:
This is about upholding the rights we have set forth by the Constitution!!!!

No offense, but it would help if you understood the scope of the Constitution.

Does the 2A cover federal/state property: yes

Does the 2A cover private property: no

Simple as that.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:39:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?



In general, you are not. There are certain relationships that create a duty of care, but in general there is no duty to intervene/rescue/assist someone.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:43:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:
This is about upholding the rights we have set forth by the Constitution!!!!

No offense, but it would help if you understood the scope of the Constitution.

Does the 2A cover federal/state property: yes

Does the 2A cover private property: no

Simple as that.



Point taken. Thank you.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:45:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?




Well, if you are preventing them from protecting themselves, doesn't that make you responsible for them?


If a drunk falls down and dies am I responsible?

If a person commits suicide is that my fault?

If I stand in YOUR FRONT YARD do I have the right to bear arms, to free expression, to practice my religion?



No

No

Yes



You don't have the "right" to be on his front lawn in the first place. You are there by his permission. And in granting permission, he has the right to set conditions for your continued presence on his front lawn.

You have no inaliable right to go into a home depot. You are there at their discretion. If you yell and become disruptive, they can kick you out. If you start preaching the gospel and it bothers their employees or other customers, they can kick you out.

You have no "right" to inflict your "rights" on another person's private property contrary to their wishes. You have the right to be on that property according to their terms or the right to NOT be on the property because you don't like their terms. That is NOT what the bill of rights is about - it is a restriction on the power of government, not the rights of private property owners.

Now if you don't like how home depot or steyr aug handles your exercising your other "rights" on their respective property, you can complain to whoever will listen to you. You can take out ads in the paper, complain on line, or start a boycott. THAT is what true freedom is all about - respect other people's rights and using your first amendment rights in whatever legal means you choose in order to affect their decisions.

But most people don't like to do that, because it can be hard work. They want the easy "It's all about ME" way - they want to petition the government to take away another person's REAL property rights to give them SPECIAL rights that they don't actually have. They want special treatment, and they really don't give a shit what other rights they have to step on in order to get it.

I've discovered a lot of people like to talk about how much they care about freedom but don't care about the other person's freedom when that freedom interferes with what the WANT to do. But when their ox is being gored, they'll squeal the loudest about how much the government is interfering with THEIR rights.

Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:56:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?




Well, if you are preventing them from protecting themselves, doesn't that make you responsible for them?


If a drunk falls down and dies am I responsible?

If a person commits suicide is that my fault?

If I stand in YOUR FRONT YARD do I have the right to bear arms, to free expression, to practice my religion?



No

No

Yes



You don't have the "right" to be on his front lawn in the first place. You are there by his permission. And in granting permission, he has the right to set conditions for your continued presence on his front lawn.

You have no inaliable right to go into a home depot. You are there at their discretion. If you yell and become disruptive, they can kick you out. If you start preaching the gospel and it bothers their employees or other customers, they can kick you out.

You have no "right" to inflict your "rights" on another person's private property contrary to their wishes. You have the right to be on that property according to their terms or the right to NOT be on the property because you don't like their terms. That is NOT what the bill of rights is about - it is a restriction on the power of government, not the rights of private property owners.

Now if you don't like how home depot or steyr aug handles your exercising your other "rights" on their respective property, you can complain to whoever will listen to you. You can take out ads in the paper, complain on line, or start a boycott. THAT is what true freedom is all about - respect other people's rights and using your first amendment rights in whatever legal means you choose in order to affect their decisions.

But most people don't like to do that, because it can be hard work. They want the easy "It's all about ME" way - they want to petition the government to take away another person's REAL property rights to give them SPECIAL rights that they don't actually have. They want special treatment, and they really don't give a shit what other rights they have to step on in order to get it.

I've discovered a lot of people like to talk about how much they care about freedom but don't care about the other person's freedom when that freedom interferes with what the WANT to do. But when their ox is being gored, they'll squeal the loudest about how much the government is interfering with THEIR rights.




At this point in time, I must say, I AM wrong. I just had a chat that opened my eyes to a point I hadn't seen or even considered. I am sorry. I'm learning.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:59:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 6:54:08 PM EDT by Bohr_Adam]
This debate reminds me of some of the Civil Rights era debates. I'm curious, those of you who are private property extremists - do you think a business owner can prohibit people of certain races, religions, or genders from using facilities otherwise open top the public, or selectively hire base don these criteria?

To what extent do you believe the state-level government can tell a business what right of its citizens it must uphold?

The intrinsic right to run a business is not in the Consitution - the right to bear arms, is. State regulatary authorities can and do quite often tell businesses what they can or cannot do if they want to keep their license to operate.

I don't see the gun thing as any different than rules against selling counterfeit goods, safety standards, civil rights stuff, or any other regulation of businesses.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:08:43 PM EDT
Once again: the Constitution does not protect the rights of citizens from other citizens (except in very limited circumstances). The Second Amendment does not apply to property owners. Similarly, the First Amendment does not apply to private employers - this is why your boss can fire you for calling him an asshole. The Fourth Amendment does not prevent your boss from reading the email you send at work or from looking through your desk.

The Second Amendment says that the government cannot infringe your right to keep and bear arms. It does not do anything to protect your rights from a private property owner who does not want you carrying on his property.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:11:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 6:14:28 PM EDT by jrkarp]

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
This debate reminds me of some of the Civil Rights era debates. I'm curious, those of you who are private property extremists - do you think a business owner can prohibit people of certain races, religions, or genders from using facilities otherwise open top the public, or selectively hire base don these criteria?

To what extent do you believe the stae-level governemtn can tell a business what right of it's citizens it must uphold?

The intrinsic right to run a business is not in the Consitution - the right to bear arms, is.


First, rights do not have to be in the constitution to exist. Second, private property rights have been recognized as being protected under the constitution for quite some time.


State regulatary authorities can and do quite often tell businesses what they can or cannot do if they want to keep their license to operate.

I don't see the gun thing as any different than rules against selling counterfeit goods, safety standards, civil rights stuff, or any other regulation of businesses.


And the state certainly has the ability to either prevent property owners from prohibiting CCW or allow property owners to prohibit CCW. This implicates the state's police power and intrastate commerce power. It is not a constitutional matter.

ETA: I am not a private property extremist. However, I see no constitutional barrier to private property owners from prohibiting CCW if they so choose. Personally I would prefer that the state pass a law prohibiting business owners from having such policies.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:15:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jrkarp:
Once again: the Constitution does not protect the rights of citizens from other citizens (except in very limited circumstances). The Second Amendment does not apply to property owners. Similarly, the First Amendment does not apply to private employers - this is why your boss can fire you for calling him an asshole. The Fourth Amendment does not prevent your boss from reading the email you send at work or from looking through your desk.

The Second Amendment says that the government cannot infringe your right to keep and bear arms. It does not do anything to protect your rights from a private property owner who does not want you carrying on his property.


This is Florida law, not Federal law, we are discussing. Are you suggesting that states lack the authority to regulate industry?
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:17:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jrkarp:


... Personally I would prefer that the state pass a law prohibiting business owners from having such policies.


Uhhh... isn't that what this thread is about?
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:41:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:
This is about upholding the rights we have set forth by the Constitution!!!!

No offense, but it would help if you understood the scope of the Constitution.

Does the 2A cover federal/state property: yes

Does the 2A cover private property: no

Simple as that.


Not every gun issue boils down to second amendment protections. Look at this another way - if the legislature can force employers to use "fair" hiring practices with laws, why can't they force employers to have a "it's ok to have personal weapons locked in your personal vehicle" policy as well?

There are all kinds of laws governing employer conduct that violate all manner of "freedom of association" issues. Why can't we have one that works in our favor if we must live with these laws?

This isn't about property rights, it's about employer conduct. There's a big difference between the government telling you that you must allow visitors to your home to keep their guns locked in their car while parked in your driveway, and a law that prohibits employer policies that ban guns locked in cars on their property.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 6:49:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
To what extent do you believe the stae-level governemtn can tell a business what right of it's citizens it must uphold?

To whatever extent they want and can get away with.

My posts in this thread only have dealt with the scope of the Constitution.

As far as I am concerned, the only amendment that covers this situation is the 10th.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:02:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 7:03:16 PM EDT by Bohr_Adam]

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
To what extent do you believe the state-level government can tell a business what right of its citizens it must uphold?

To whatever extent they want and can get away with.

My posts in this thread only have dealt with the scope of the Constitution.

As far as I am concerned, the only amendment that covers this situation is the 10th.



The Florida Constitution: www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A03S06

The powers of the state to regulate private industry and certain actions on private property are evident throughout. Heck, there are even provision in the consitution itself regualting "cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy."

To argue that the State of Florida cannot tell businesses it must respect certain rights of its members is not in line with precedent or common sense.

There is also this nugget:




SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.--

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:06:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

Originally Posted By jrkarp:


... Personally I would prefer that the state pass a law prohibiting business owners from having such policies.


Uhhh... isn't that what this thread is about?


I was clarifying my personal views in light of my post.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:08:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

Originally Posted By jrkarp:
Once again: the Constitution does not protect the rights of citizens from other citizens (except in very limited circumstances). The Second Amendment does not apply to property owners. Similarly, the First Amendment does not apply to private employers - this is why your boss can fire you for calling him an asshole. The Fourth Amendment does not prevent your boss from reading the email you send at work or from looking through your desk.

The Second Amendment says that the government cannot infringe your right to keep and bear arms. It does not do anything to protect your rights from a private property owner who does not want you carrying on his property.


This is Florida law, not Federal law, we are discussing. Are you suggesting that states lack the authority to regulate industry?


Well, according to the CADC, it is a federal matter as well, as they held that the 2nd applies to the states through the 14th.

I never said the states can't regulate industry.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:09:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 7:12:22 PM EDT by bastiat]

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
This debate reminds me of some of the Civil Rights era debates. I'm curious, those of you who are private property extremists - do you think a business owner can prohibit people of certain races, religions, or genders from using facilities otherwise open top the public, or selectively hire base don these criteria?


I have sinking feeling that an actual discussion on this subject will be beyond the capabilities of GD.

Here's some background on my position on 'discrimination' by Walter E. Williams, who happens to be Black

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/06/whats_discrimination

Essentially, yes, private citizens should be able to discriminate (basically, CHOOSE) who they associate with, whether in public business or private relations. That's freedom, and most people are terrified by that thought. They don't want real freedom, they want freedom only as long as it allows them to feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

Who shouldn't be able to discriminate? The government. They shouldn't be able to play favorites, but right now, they're the only ones that can, while forbidding anyone else to do the same. All that does is foster hostility between people of different races.

Now, onto private discrimination: If you're white or black, you should be able to say "I don't want to sell to Indian / arab / asian people" and vice versa. If you're short and you hate tall people, you should be able to exclude them. If you don't like people with red hair, you should be able to not do business with them. You should be able to choose who you do business with for whatever reason, even if those reasons are completely stupid or ignorant or racist.

All those would be stupid grounds to refuse to do business with someone, but that should be their right. Why? Because other people have the ability to choose whether to do business with them. Nobody forces anyone to eat at a restaurant or shop at a particular store. There is no requirement you go there, so the owner should be able to set any stupid policy they want as long as the association is voluntary. If they don't like the policy, nobody has to frequent that business. And when the word gets out on the policy, people of all types will be able to choose to avoid that establishment.

But the government is a different story - we have to deal with it. Therefore, any government entity, and businesses that act on their behalf (contractors, etc) should not be able to discriminate. We have no ability to "opt out" of dealing with the government. So their policies must be equal towards all.

Now if people haven't become angry already, here's the real beauty of this freedom: It is self policing, especially in this day in age. Most people don't tolerate racism and won't support racist companies. So say "bobmart", the largest store chain in america, can suddenly say "we don't sell (racial group X)". We get two real benefits from this we didn't have before:

1. We know bobmart is run by a bunch of racists, and we can stop giving them our money by shopping there. Before, their racism was hidden from view but they got everyone's money.

2. They feel a HUGE hit from their customer base. Not only do they lose all business from racial group X, they lose all the business from everyone who would refuse to do business with racists. People could boycott their suppliers, who would drop them so fast it would make your head spin. They most likely go out of business rather quickly.

The best part is that this is real SOCIETAL pressure for change, not a government mandate for change. The impact on those practicing racism would be stronger, and there is less of an "the government is giving this group special treatment and keeping me down" mentality. Government force rarely produces real, deep, meaningful change in people. That only comes from society changing and the peer pressure that brings. They get the "stop being a racist idiot, nobody likes you" message from all over, and it probably would sink in a lot faster that they were really just a bunch of dumbasses that nobody liked.

Now most people will be upset with this, because it just doesn't "feel" right to them. The problem is it takes a little work to enact this kind of change, when it's much easier to have the government dictate what people should do at the barrel of a gun. So people opt for that instead of something that respects the right of free association, even if people exercising those rights happen to be idiots.

And the big problem is that something like this would never happen, even if it's perfectly in line with the constitution, because people really don't want true freedom. It scares them, because it's hard work.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:10:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By dsg2003gt:
I just cant believe this didnt pass. It had SOOO much support from constituents. We had like 5 pro-gun bills go through last year. I just cant imagine why...


The NRA was told it would fail. Told how to pass it. Spoke against the amendment and predicably lost exactly as they were told they would.

If they had supported the amendment they would have won.



oh, ok I get it now.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 7:11:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2007 7:20:18 PM EDT by 96Ag]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Catsclaw:

Originally Posted By Silence:
No offense, but once you come onto my property I do have a right to tell you that you cant do, or have, certain things while on my property.



Fine, but are you gonna be willing to face up to a law suit if some woman gets raped on your property and for whatever reason you couldn't help her?


Can you show me where I'm obligated to provide her security?

And why would I be responsible for the actions of others?




Would your demand of disarming her be a tacit offer of defense? If someone is must disarm to enter your property doesn't that obligate you to provide for their protection since you are taking their ability of self defense?

It would seem to me, a reasonable person(no, really) that if you demand that she give up her ability to defend herself that you would assume liability for any damage that may befall her as a result of your demand to disarm.

But then again I am not a lawyer. As a juror I could be easily convinced of the argument. Property rights v. the Right to bear arms is a bit of a sticky wicket. If forced I am going to chose property rights, however you are liable for harm to others caused by your actions. You take away the ability on your private property for the third party to defend themselves, you assume responsibility for their protection.

96Ag

After reading some more of the thread I have a clarification. The 2nd is not really an issue in my mind with regards to PP rights. You do have the ability as a property owner to set conditions of admittance but I still think that liability could be an issue. If you prevent me from arming myself and I am injured or killed, yet either could have been prevented had the condition that you set not been in effect then I think that standing as a party injured by the actions of the property owner could be found.

As for discrimination, within the private sector, I believe that it is a fundamental right. The right of free association. Within .gov entities no way. It may be distasteful but it is freedom.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top