Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« ABC News in another hit piece | Main | Pizza Hut self-defender fired »

FLA Chamber of Commerce suit vs. commuter self defense

Posted by David Hardy · 24 April 2008 09:17 AM

Here's a pdf file of the complaint, scanned and thus rather large. The three theories are deprivation of property w/o due process, taking of property by regulation w/o compensation, and violation of the Federal OSHA standards. I'd rate the first two as very weak, and don't do OSHA so I can't size up the last.

One thing does strike me as incongruous. The last theory invokes a statute which extensively regulates how business is carried on. The first two argue that a far more trifling interference with business is unconstitutional.

· State legislation

3 Comments | Leave a comment

jon | April 24, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply

i only know OSHA as the "dock nazis." i don't ever take on responsibilities i can avoid at sea because they're liable to slap fines on us for not wearing a life vest correctly.

Bill | April 25, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply

I used to "do" OSHA. The OSHAct contains what's known as the "general duty" clause. It states that employers have a general duty to provide a "workplace free from recognized hazards." The idea is to take steps as required to "provide a safe and healthful workplace." The reasoning goes: guns in the workplace are a recognized hazard. Witness the various workplace shootings over the years. An employer can be viewed as complying with its general duty under the OSHAct to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards by bannings guns. The OSHAct contains preepmtion provisions, overruling state laws to the contrary. Thus, a state law that prevents an employer from ridding guns from its workplace is an obstruction and impediment to compliance with the OSHAct and is preempted.

I don't really buy that argument, but there it is. If I recall right, it worked in the Oklahoma case. Somebody check me on that, though.

Oh, and the constitutionality of OSHA was settled long ago.

I can also say that the taking by regulation is going to get them precisely nowhere. I had to research this one a couple years ago. Lots of folks have argued that for lots of regulations (mostly environmental regs) - almost entirely unsuccessfully. Your property must be rendered utterly and completely useless and valueless by a regulation for it to be an unconstitutional "taking." As long as you still have some use of your property and it retains some value, it has not been "taken." A law saying you can't ban guns in locked cars in your employee parking lot in no way rises to the level of a regulatory taking of your property. Some argue for a "partial" taking by regulation; i.e., you're owed compensation to the extent your property value or use was diminished. But again, those are tough cases and have not met with wide success.

Gildas | April 25, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply

The OSHA argument did work for them in the OK case, but as far as I know that has not yet reached the Appeals court. They will find a friendly judge and win in District court, then the fun will start.

Leave a comment