« Solution to Brady foulup: they'll just crash the memorial service | Main | San Fran handgun ban finally dead »
FLA passes bill on rt. to have gun in locked car while at work
It's passed both houses and is on to the governor, who says he will probably sign it.
If you're in FLA, you might want to note (a) some forms of this bill only covered CCW holders; I don't know what the final form does; (b) it would go into effect July 1.
Someone has to come up with a shorter title for this sort of legislation. "Bill that allows a person to have a gun in their locked car while at work and parked in the lot of an employer whose policies forbid having a gun in a parked car" is too long. "Castle Doctine," "No Retreat," "shall-issue" worked nicely, but these bills are hard to describe!
Reader Wrangler5 notes, in a comment blocked by the spam filter:
Imposing liability on the employer for disarming its otherwise lawfully armed employees would be a wonderful step, but it would have to extend to events beyond the employer's gate. If your employer wants you to leave your gun at home, then the employer should be liable while you are traveling between your home and work, as well as while you're on the company's property. Otherwise they just have to provide super security while you're inside their gates, but can force you to face the tender mercies of the "outside" world unarmed once you're gone.
Unfortunately this approach would fly in the face of about a hundred years of legislative efforts to LIMIT employer liability for employee injuries. Most state governments have come to the conclusion that a dead employee is worth about $10,000 (or whatever the worker's comp figure is in your state) and that's it. Employers count on this as an upper limit on their liability and have built it into their budget (somewhat subconsciously, as it's basically just part of the underlying insurance rates.) Opening the door to (relatively) unlimited employer liability would take a sea-change in thinking in the legislative process.
17 Comments | Leave a comment
"Piss Off the Boss."
Automotive curtilage?
Commuter defense.
Park n' Lock, or maybe Park n' Pack.
Trunk Doctrine
Or, even better, the Safe Storage Policy.
Everybody likes safe storage of firearms...it's for the children.
Well, "Guns at Work" totally mis-characterizes the bill. It does work good for those that don't like guns, however, because the ignorant (I needn't remind anyone that's A LOT of people) simply think it means everyone in Florida can take a gun to work. How rediculous...but that is what "Guns at Work" implies.
I like "Safe Storage Law" or even more, as Jim D. mentioned, "Commuter Protection" law.
Well, "Guns at Work" totally mis-characterizes the bill. It does work good for those that don't like guns, however, because the ignorant (I needn't remind anyone that's A LOT of people) simply think it means everyone in Florida can take a gun to work. How rediculous...but that is what "Guns at Work" implies.
I like "Safe Storage Law" or even more, as Jim D. mentioned, "Commuter Protection" law.
A similar bill passed in Georgia (HB 89), which also relaxes some of the carry restrictions in Georgia, but we're unsure whether the governor will sign it, he's apparently upset that some restaurant owners oppose the provision allowing carry in restaurants as long as the CCW holder doesn't drink.
i was going to suggest "your car's your own bills", but Mike M.'s "trunk doctrine" is far better.
Employee Safety Act
How about Commuter's Castle?
I like both "Commuter Protection" and "Trunk Doctrine."
These names emphasize two important points. (1) Most of us spend a fair bit of our lives between home and workplace. The real point of these laws is to prevent employer policies from rendering employees helpless when they have to get gas or pick up groceries in a dicey neighborhood on their way home from work -- a time and place where the employer certainly is not going to be around to protect the employee. (2) These laws, when properly drafted, aren't about "guns in the workplace"; they create the lightest possible impingement on the employer's property rights consistent with the employee's right to self-defense while commuting. They simply allow employees to keep legally possessed guns locked inside a car in the parking lot.
I've been following Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry (formerly ConocoPhillips v. Henry), the federal court challenge to Oklahoma's, somewhat sloppily drafted, Trunk Doctrine statute. It's now on appeal before the Denver-based U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and briefing was completed a couple of weeks ago. Ramsey Winch will be an important decision for the future of such laws.
No word yet on the argument date in the case or the identity of the appellate panel.
How about "The NRA wasted my annual dues law"?
This is a horrid law. It doesn't protect anyone from anything. Employers are not allowed to search for firearms but are still free to search for any other item they wish. It doesn't secure my property because it is too narrowly focused on the object being searched for and only for a particular class of citizen (the CCW holder).
I expect a lot of "If you have a CCW, please notify HR immediately" coming around. Then watch a rash of layoffs which just happen to coincide with those who hold 'em.
It is only a horrid law in that it did not go far enougn. My property is mine. You don't have a right to do a damn thing with it. Not even if you pay me to do a job for you. I have never let anyone do such, even when I knew I had nothing to uspset them, I will never allow such, unless the right is extended to me to search their private property. I have offered to make that trade with a cop or two over the years, none have accepted.
I told them each, "If you had nothing to hide it wouldn't bother you." Just to piss them off. It does.
Why should it piss me off any less?
As a citizens, we must disagree with this measure despite what may *seem* like positive results. Our right to keep and bear arms is only derivative to our rights to life, liberty and *property*.
Overriding a business owners discretion to allow firearms or not on their legal property is a clear encroachment of property rights.
I’m all for removing barriers to carry, but not at the sacrifice of our fundamental rights.
A more appropriate cause to support would be the similar encroachment on property rights by government overriding an establishments discretion to allow concealed carry (or not) based on alcohol sales or any other silly metric. Here again, the property owners are the only ones who should rightfully determine their preference with regards to weapons on their premises, not government.
Supporting this cause would advance the more fundamental right to property as well as those mandated by our 2nd amendment. Support of this measure discredits the purpose of the NRA. Lets not cut off our foot in order to paint our toenails.
"Rolling Castle".
Your car is part of your property, your "castle", and that does not change just because you drove onto your employer's parking lot. As long as the gun stays in your car, it's on your property, not the employer's.
Same-same like a embassy: the building is the sovereign territory of the represented nation, not the host nation.
So, maybe "rolling embassy" would be good.