Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/3/2006 4:15:36 PM EDT
Attention Florida NRA Members! ([COLOR=red]ar15FORUM[/COLOR] members)

SB-206 Protect Possession of Firearms in Vehicles in Parking Lots

Every gun owner who lives in Florida or comes to Florida as a tourist or visitor or on business needs to join this fight to protect the right to have a firearm in vehicles for lawful purposes. This right belongs to ALL gun owners everywhere -- not just those who live in Florida. Please forward this email to others on your email list. Spread the word.

URGENT-- MORE ACTION NEEDED*** /Possession/Guns/Private Vehicles

DATE: March 3, 2006
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
NRA Past President
Executive Director Unified Sportsmen of Florida

SUBJECT: SB-206 Protect Possession of Firearms in Vehicles in Parking Lots

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hold another hearing on SB-206 by Senator Durell Peaden Wednesday, March 8, 2006.

Some Florida businesses, lead by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation, are trying to ban guns in cars. They are violating the constitutional rights of gun owners and Florida law.

SB-206 protects your right to have a gun in your vehicle (car, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motorcycle, motor home, RV, etc.) for lawful purposes.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation have decided to trample privacy rights and the Second Amendment rights of Florida's 6 Million law-abiding firearms owners.

Urged into battle by Publix Super Markets, Disney World, and other big corporations, they have engaged in a campaign to try to kill the bill that protects your right to protect yourself and your family.

They want to ban guns by denying your right to have a firearm in your private vehicle when you park in a parking lot that accommodates the public and company employees.

Your right to have a gun in your car is GUTTED if you can never stop and park your car in a parking lot.

Big business is trying to claim their rights as parking lot owners supersede your constitutional right and legal right to carry firearms in your private vehicles for lawful purposes. But they are wrong.

They have no constitutional or legal right to search your vehicle or tell you what legal personal private property you can have inside your private vehicle in their parking lot or anywhere else.

Our constitutional and legal rights DO NOT END when we drive into a parking lot.

Carrying firearms in a vehicle obviously means you can leave that firearm locked in the vehicle in a parking lot when you go grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to the movie, to visit a sick friend in the hospital, to the dry cleaners, to the shoe store or anywhere else normal people travel.

THIS ISSUE is much bigger than parking lots. The issue is carrying a firearm in your private vehicle for protection of yourself and your family when you are traveling to and from work, to and from shopping and to and from any place law-abiding citizens normally go in the course of daily routines.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation along with the national antigun organization called the BRADY CAMPAIGN are emailing committee members urging them to vote against SB-206.

YOU NEED TO ACT NOW to counter this antigun attack on your Second Amendment and self-defense rights.

Please immediately send email to members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-206 by Senator Peaden.

(Below is a list of the email addresses of those you need to contact)

IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL PUT:

SUPPORT SB-206 - Protect Possession of Firearms in Vehicles/Parking Lots

(To send one email to all committee members at the same time, block or highlight the entire list and then copy and paste the block into the address section of the email.)

SENATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND SENATE LEADERS WHO NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU:

wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov
smith.rod.web@flsenate.gov
crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov
haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov
king.james.web@flsenate.gov
klein.ron.web@flsenate.gov
lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov
wilson.frederica.web@flsenate.gov
lee.tom.web@flsenate.gov
peaden.durell.web@flsenate.gov
pruitt.ken.web@flsenate.gov
villalobos.alex.web@flsenate.gov
webster.daniel.web@flsenate.gov

PLEASE SEND EMAIL IMMEDIATELY AND URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-206 by Senator Durell Peaden

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

SB-206 Protects your right to have a firearm in your vehicle for lawful purposes and to park your vehicle in parking lots.

Think about the women, who work late hours at Disney World and don't get off until close to midnight. She needs her gun for protection when she is traveling late at night.

But Disney will fire her if she exercises her right to have a gun in her vehicle for protection.

The many women and Moms who work late at night as cashiers and stock personnel at Publix Super Markets will lose their jobs if they want to protect their lives.

What about the women AND men who work at all-night pharmacies, or Walmart stores or convenience stores, or what about nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and have to drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night? Are their lives not important?

Think about a woman who is being stalked or who has to get a domestic violence injunction against an abuser. Police often tell these women to get a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them.

But her anti-gun employer tells her if she brings a gun to work in her car for protection she'll be fired. She must chose between her life or her job.

This violation of rights and the law MUST BE STOPPED.

Carrying firearms in a vehicle for hunting, target shooting or protection of yourself and your family obviously means you can leave that firearm locked in the vehicle in a parking lot when you go grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to the movie, to visit a sick friend in the hospital, to rent a movie, to the shoe store or anywhere else normal people travel to conduct business.

Florida law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Florida Constitution clearly and unequivocally give law-abiding citizens to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes.

Since there are CURRENTLY NO PENALTIES for violating the law, numerous businesses are violating the law and are banning firearms in their parking lots. Their gun ban policies apply to customers and employees.

A business owner or manager has no more right to say you can't have a firearm in your private vehicle than they have a right to say you can't have a pair of sun glasses, an umbrella, a Bible or a baby seat.

Such an anti-gun political exercise is not good business sense. They want your money but don't respect your rights.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against employees and customers because of race, religion, political party, color of eyes, hair or weight. And they certainly can't discriminate because of the exercise of lawful self-defense. And, make no mistake, these gun ban policies are blatant discrimination against people who chose to exercise a constitutional right and take responsibility for their own safety.

PLEASE PLEASE WRITE THESE PPL, I have alredy, just cc it, help florida or your state might be next!
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 5:43:42 AM EDT
I hope the lack of participation in this thread is more a function of its long read than it is willingness to be a part of the political process.

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:15:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 9:30:34 AM EDT
That's an interesting spin on the law. No one is trying to ban guns in cars. What the law is about is private property rights vs rights of employees.

The law would give business owners the right to ban guns from employees cars in business owners private parking lots.

This has nothing to do with tourists or anyone other than employees.

The question is where do you draw the line on governmental interference on private property. I am all for guns, but I am all for private property too. If I tell you I don't want guns on my property, that is my business. You are free to go elsewhere.

No one is a slave. If you don't like the employers policies, become an employer yourself, or find another job.

The issue is not as simple as this post makes it out to be, which is why the NRA is not pushing this matter. Governmental interference is never good.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 9:54:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 9:54:52 AM EDT by Boom]
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:41:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom:

Originally Posted By Gmountain:
That's an interesting spin on the law. No one is trying to ban guns in cars. What the law is about is private property rights vs rights of employees.

The law would give business owners the right to ban guns from employees cars in business owners private parking lots.

This has nothing to do with tourists or anyone other than employees.

The question is where do you draw the line on governmental interference on private property. I am all for guns, but I am all for private property too. If I tell you I don't want guns on my property, that is my business. You are free to go elsewhere.

No one is a slave. If you don't like the employers policies, become an employer yourself, or find another job.

The issue is not as simple as this post makes it out to be, which is why the NRA is not pushing this matter. Governmental interference is never good.



Your right it is about private property rights. This is nothing more then another avenue for the anti gunners to restrict what we can and cannot do. But you are right, this is about private property rights.

What business is it of yours, what I have in my car?



I agree with you, it's none of my business. I am all for guns. But we both agree this is a complicated issue, with important rights on both sides.

I don't see it as antigunners doing anything to restrict rights. I see it as property owners making decisions about what happens with their employees on their private property. If an employee doesn't want to park on that property, then there is no problem. I see it as another example of employees wanting the government to step in and protect them from their employer. The answer to me is simple-if you don't like my rules, you are free to go elsewhere.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:53:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 12:58:39 PM EDT by Boom]
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 1:27:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom:

No its not a complicated issue. Employers should not be allowed to tell me what I have in my private property. This is not an issue about packing on their property inside their buildings or otherwise. This is an issue about what I can have in my Car nothing more and yes it is about being antigun.


But my car is not company property it belongs to me. The company should have NO say what I have inside my car period. I don't tell them what to do, they don't tell me what to do. It's none of their business.

Edit: No business which will not gurantee my safety has the right to tell me what to do. If they are not going to staff their businesses with trained armed guards then they have no legal right to refuse me my legal right to self protection.



Your car may belong to you, but it is parked, with their permission and consent on private property. The permission is granted subject to certain rules. If you don't want to park there, then there is no problem.
Park somewhere else. Problem solved.

Your argument about armed guards is a fallacy and would never hold up in court.

If you don't want to play by an employers rules, why in the world would you stay employed there?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 1:37:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 1:39:29 PM EDT by Boom]
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 1:54:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom:

Originally Posted By Gmountain:

Originally Posted By Boom:

No its not a complicated issue. Employers should not be allowed to tell me what I have in my private property. This is not an issue about packing on their property inside their buildings or otherwise. This is an issue about what I can have in my Car nothing more and yes it is about being antigun.


But my car is not company property it belongs to me. The company should have NO say what I have inside my car period. I don't tell them what to do, they don't tell me what to do. It's none of their business.

Edit: No business which will not gurantee my safety has the right to tell me what to do. If they are not going to staff their businesses with trained armed guards then they have no legal right to refuse me my legal right to self protection.



Your car may belong to you, but it is parked, with their permission and consent on private property. The permission is granted subject to certain rules. If you don't want to park there, then there is no problem.
Park somewhere else. Problem solved.

Your argument about armed guards is a fallacy and would never hold up in court.

If you don't want to play by an employers rules, why in the world would you stay employed there?



Fallacy are you nuts. You need to click on my user profile. I know exactly what happens to companies that do not protect their employees or customers. Can you say 40 million paid to victims of crimes committed on their businesses last year.

As far as why I would work there thats my business no one elses. Maybe it's good paying job. They still do not have the right to tell me what I can carry in my car.

I will say it again. If they are not going to provide ARMED security to protect me then they have zero business telling me what I can carry inside my car.

This whole movement is nothing more then another method the antigunners (which you appear to be one) is using to strip us of our rights to self protection.



I completely agree with you and furthermore state that it sickens me to see so many members in this board that enjoy prsonal protection, but decide not to take part in helping this cause that I have placed "on the table". question is with our lack of inbolvement how long will the table be there?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 2:02:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cuban:


I completely agree with you and furthermore state that it sickens me to see so many members in this board that enjoy prsonal protection, but decide not to take part in helping this cause that I have placed "on the table". question is with our lack of inbolvement how long will the table be there?



What is the limit of private property? When the government decides that you do not have the right to keep homeless people out of your yard becuse they have a right to sleep someplace, will that do it for you? At what point should the government step in?

All you folks who cry foul the minute the government steps on gun rights need to take a long look in the mirror. Government interference is either good or it isn't. You want govenment interference on your terms. It can't be that way. Either you are for government involvement in your life or you aren't. Which is it?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:24:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 5:23:38 PM EDT
I'm joining this conversation a little late, but I'll put my simple $0.02 in.

It is really creepy when corporations attempt to have their preferred policies molded into law. Essentially, they--Publix, Disney, etc.-- are attempting to criminalize what has been, up to this point, a matter of corporate policy. It's even creepier when there are legislators who are, apparently, eager to oblige them. When corporations are able to see their preferred policies molded into law, at the expense of the average citizen, we're all in deep trouble.


Quote:
Urged into battle by Publix Super Markets, Disney World, and other big corporations, they have engaged in a campaign to try to kill the bill that protects your right to protect yourself and your family.



Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:16:52 PM EDT
Email sent.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:01:54 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:13:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 5:17:06 PM EDT by Interceptor_Knight]
Federal Law allows us to travel with a firearm properly secured in our trunks. Employers should not be able to over-ride our Federal right to have a firearm responsibly secured in a vehicle. By law they can prohibit posession of weapons within their facility. This is called out in concealed carry legislation. Having a unloaded firearm secured in a case within the trunk of a vehicle poses no threat to any stretch of the imagination. They should not even have the right to search a vehicle except for accompanying law enforcement personel looking for illegal substances. Under these searches, any properly cased firearms should be ignored. This is how people have gotten fired in the past. The police were supposedly looking for drugs, but because the employer saw a properly cased firearm which violated a company rule, the persons got fired.
Federal law negating unreasonable rules by employers is not unreasonable involvement because it infringes on other Federal Legislature.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:15:09 PM EDT
Why should an employer be able to regulate firearms in cars on company policy, but they would not be able to do the same with cigarettes for instance, or chewing gum to be an extreme example.

It is the slippery slope. If they can do it for guns, they should be able to regulate any items in ones car, or on ones person.

Either way, it is BS.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:02:20 PM EDT
I do not think anyone has an inherent right to carry or leave a weapon in a vec. on privite property. Where I work (Prison) we are not allowed to have weapons in our vec. in case a convict escapes. If he steals a vec. from our lot he will not be armed also. I can certainly see the reason for that but I do not like to be unarmed going to and from work. However, I knew that it is a condition of employment not to carry weapons to work when I went there so I follow the rules.
I worked for a major U.S. corperation for 20 yrs. and they had the same no weapons in the lot rules the whole time I was there. At both places there are, and were, random vec. searches.
I have noticed the no gun signs on many stores etc. in the last year. I pay them no mind and carry anyway but they are there none the less. So I guess the bottom line is: Go by the rules or go elsewhere, at least on the job. It is a shame that the Gov. has to get involved in a private business/labor despute. It seems to be a bit heavy handed and unnecessary. If employees are not following the workplace rules, fire them. Its just another example of privite business getting Gov. to do their shit jobs for them. You have to pick your battles and you will lose this one every time.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:07:41 PM EDT
I was looking for the AR discussion forum...perhaps I'm in the wrong place.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:46:24 PM EDT
In Florida, it makes no more difference than the shopping malls that ban the possession of firearms. I walk right past those little signs telling me it is illegal for me to carry a firearm. In the rare event I might be discovered, the penalty is only misdemeanor charge. More likely I would be permanently ejected rather than even receive a citation and fined. I would rather shop elsewhere in such event anyway. Not even a rookie officer would make the mistake of actually arresting a licensed CCW on private property just because of the owners personal policy on possession. If he did, his superviser would probably make him carry his bullit in his top pocket for being such a dumbass and not reviewing his directives on proper procedures concerning misdemeanor infractions.

In the case of private property owners banning possession of firearms on their property, they would have to be guilty of B&E of my vehicle to even know I was concealing a firearm since search requires a warrant. His offense is a felony, mine would be a midemeanor. Ill just sign the ticket as I watch his ass go for a ride in the back of a police cruiser. In the event I saw a judge signing warrants and officers searching cars at the entrance of a paking lot, I would just go park somewhere else.

If its your employer, maybe its time for you to find a better place to work. Sometimes, being a man requires that you make hard decisions.

This proposed law reads like a paper bag full of hot air, to make some chickenshit Chamber of Commerce happy.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:00:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PRAIRIERAT:
I was looking for the AR discussion forum...perhaps I'm in the wrong place.hr


I am sure AR15's aren't going to be excluded from this law.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:25:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:29:34 PM EDT by Black-Tiger]
Easy, we boycott the retailer that are trying to kill this law by not going to their stores nor using their services; let's see how quick they change their minds when their profits go "Belly Up".

Oh yeah, once I get home tonight; I will start sending emails to everyone on the list and give them a piece of my "tax-paying, gun-owning, God-fearing" mind.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:56:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OneMan:
In Florida, it makes no more difference than the shopping malls that ban the possession of firearms. I walk right past those little signs telling me it is illegal for me to carry a firearm. In the rare event I might be discovered, the penalty is only misdemeanor charge.



This isn't true. There is no posting law in Florida, and it is not illegal to carry a CCW anywhere not specifically prohibited by statute.

If a private property owner discovers you have a gun and wants you to leave, then you must go, or the police can come and charge you with armed trespassing, which I believe is a felony. That's only if you don't leave when asked.

Private property owners can ask you to leave for any reason, not just CCW.Maybe you are drinking, or too loud, or whatever. Having a gun on you makes the charge greater if you don't leave.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:26:27 AM EDT
OneMan, you seem to have yourself confused on a few things. This seems to be a common mistake around here.


Not even a rookie officer would make the mistake of actually arresting a licensed CCW on private property just because of the owners personal policy on possession.


If for some reason I decide I don't want you carrying a weapon on my property, your CCW doesn't mean a damn thing. You get the hell off my land, go to jail, or get shot. Your choice.

The Bill of Rights constrains THE GOVERNMENT, not private citizens or businesses. You can't go on someone else's property and do whatever the fuck you want and claim it's all covered under the BoR. Similarly, the need for a warrant only applies to the government. Even shopping malls can demand that either you allow them to search your car or leave, if they really wanted to. I'm a guard - I've searched plenty of peoples' bags without a warrant. It's my employer's perogative to do so; customers can be asked to leave, and employees can be fired.

People seem to be confusing private businesses with public places ever since they started all that "place of public accomodation" crap with the disabilities stuff, and more recently with those stupid municipal smoking bans.



- Businesses and other property owners that go with a no-firearms policy are retarded

- Businesses have the right to do stupid shit like that

- Governments that pass laws that take away that choice from business and other property owners, are also retarded. It isn't any of their business.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:31:52 AM EDT
If you keep your damn mouth shut, how will the employer know you have a gun in the car?

My right as a private property owner trumps your right to carry on my property without my permission, and vice versa.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:40:06 AM EDT
WHAT DOES THIS THREAD HAVE TO DO ABOUT AR15s?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 10:17:37 AM EDT
Here is my first draft, in case anyone else wants a template:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear XXXX,

I am a resident of Florida from Palm Beach County. The purpose of this email is to urge you to suppoprt a clean version of SB-206. Some Florida businesses, lead by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation, are trying to ban guns in cars. The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation have decided to trample privacy rights and the Second Amendment rights of Florida's 6 Million law-abiding firearms owners.T hey are violating the constitutional rights of gun owners and Florida law. This is a much larger issue than just firearms rights; it is about private property and unwarranted intrusion into otherwise law-abiding individual's automobiles.

SB-206 protects the rights of Floridians to have a firearm in their vehicle for lawful purposes. This would protect law-abiding citizens who wish to leave legally owned firearms secured in their vehicles.

The push by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Retail Federation, and some corporations to stymie SB-206 is nothing more than fear-mongering. As you likely know, the great state of Florida has a sterling history of lawful concealed firearm carry that dates back to 1985, when Governor Martinez signed the nation's first "shall issue" concealed weapon law for Floridian citizens. Florida set the trend for other states to put similar "shall issue" laws into effect, and we continue to demonstrate that guns in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens are a deterrent to violent crime.

I urge you to support a clean SB-206 and welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you or a member of your staff.

Kindest Regards,


Josh XXXX
Top Top