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 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Heller II is filed | Main | Will wonders never cease? »

Judge rules in FLA case over ban of parking lot bans

Posted by David Hardy · 29 July 2008 07:06 AM

Artic;e here. Unfortunately, it's hard to judge from the article just what the court did. It seems to say that the judge upheld the law in general, but ruled the distinctions between one type of business and another were unconstitutional. Which would hardly be consistent with upholding the law in general.

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Ian Argent | July 29, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply

Wouldn't that mean that the exemption under which Disney was claiming they were exempt would be nullified?

Jim D. | July 29, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply

I THINK(tm) that the judge ruled:
- The law is valid but "stupid"
- That Disney is NOT exempt because their main business was not explosives-related
- Granted a preliminary injunction by request of FL Chamber of Commerce pending appeal by Disney(?)
- The law only applies to your work parking lot, but
- It is unconstitutional for some businesses to be "more equal" than others

Sounds to me like he got everything else right, but had a problem wrapping his tiny little, made-up mind around the right-to-carry concept of "keep and bear" vs. property rights and "public safety" doctrine. If only cars were private property. Hmm...

straightarrow | July 29, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply

This issue is not a gun rights v. property rights issue. It never has been. Guns are just the scary justification for denial of property rights by one group of property owners against another group of property owners.

This is a property rights v. property rights issue. One side wanting to negate the property rights of the other side and that other side not having it.

Steve Wright | July 29, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply

Here's an update on that story that seems a little more coherent, though from the same source:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/sfl-0729gunsatwork,0,6398359.story

So it seems as though the rights of EMPLOYEEs were upheld, but not that of a visitor. Weird, if true, but whatever. At least a visitor can generally choose where to do business, and it's unlikely a store-owner will request a search of the visitor's car (and if they do, and the visitor refuses, the visitor can just leave and not lose their job).

And Disney situation is up in the air still.

Better than what we have in Colorado, where no such law exists.

I know there are many that are pro-gun but consider this law a violation of property rights, which they hold just as dear as gun rights, but personally I think a "parking lot" law like this is a fair compromise between those 2 rights.

But that's an opinion ... not a fact.

30yearProf | July 29, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply

The Florida Chamber of Commerce claims that the law has been shucked by the judge.

http://www.flchamber.com/docs/Coalitions/GunsAtWorkCoalition/NR_Guns_JudgeRuling_072908.pdf

Steve Wright | July 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply

Looking at the .pdf mentioned above ... looks like all people anti-gun have decided to redefine a loss as a victory (ala Heller). A quote:

"“After three years of claiming this issue is about protecting someone who wants to stop at
the store on the way home from work, the NRA’s signature legislation offers zero protection
for someone who wants to stop at the store on the way home from work,” said Wilson.
“What is left of the Guns at Work law covers only concealed weapon permit holders, and
only while they are at their place of employment – you can bring your gun to work, but you
can’t bring it anywhere else!” "

LOL -- I thought this was mostly about employees. I mean ... from my experience, companies/stores/malls don't post their visitor parking lots with "no gun" signs. And they limit their employees through company policies in handbooks, not signs on the parking lot.

There was a lot of silly rhetoric in this piece as it skirted the issue, but it's clear that this is still a huge victory:

Employees CAN leave their guns locked up in their cars at work.

And since most businesses don't post no-gun signs on their parking lots, they can still have their guns when they stop at the store. Or choose a store that doesn't post.

Congrats Florida. I hope future rulings don't go any worse in the other direction.

sgtlmj | July 29, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply

If Disney's primary business was explosives, I'd wager that there would be less children visiting their parks, watching the movies and crying for the merchandise. On the other hand if their primary business was explosives I'd move to Orlando and buy a season pass in a heartbeat. That would rock!

Leave a comment