In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
UPDATE ON GUNS AT WORK
CHEVELLE427
Member Posts: 6,750
Gun law: They can pass it if they want
By Howard Troxler, Times Columnist
In print: Thursday, July 31, 2008
Story Tools
E-mail this story Contact the editor
Print this story Comment on this story
Social Bookmarking
Digg Facebook Stumbleupon
Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine
ADVERTISEMENT Campaign 2008
I like readin' a good court ruling, and this was a good one on Florida's "take your gun to work" law.
On the surface, the judge sure looks like he cut the baby in half:
Florida employers have to let employees keep guns in their cars if they have concealed-weapons permits.
But businesses can still have a no-gun policy for customers. That part of the new law is on hold.
So, what's the difference between employees and customers?
If you're trying to figure out some important constitutional distinction, don't bother. Here's the real answer:
Because the Florida Legislature screwed up the wording of the law, that's all. That can be fixed.
Otherwise, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle ruled, the Legislature was perfectly able to pass the "guns to work" law.
The ruling, therefore, is more of a victory for the pro-gun side and a fine example of judicial restraint - even by a mighty federal judge - against the political power of a state Legislature.
A lot of what was said by both sides of this case was off-base.
There is no "Second Amendment right" to tote your gun onto somebody else's property, the judge said.
But neither is there an automatic, limitless "property right" by businesses to boss around employees and customers any way they choose.
In fact, the state steps in and regulates these relationships all the time. There are lots of things that the law says employers can't do.
So, if no one's basic rights are being violated, this becomes a mere political question. What do we want our law to say about guns?
The Legislature could reasonably have passed this law, the judge wrote - or just as reasonably defeated it.
Either way, he wrote, "This was within the Legislature's constitutional authority."
So how come the judge threw out the part of the law that said customers can always have guns, too?
Because of some clumsy wording by the Legislature. The law defined "employer" only as a business with employees who own guns.
This was stupid on its face. Not all employers have employees with guns. Those that did also had to allow guns for customers, but those that didn't could still ban them.
It made no sense. The judge noted that two businesses side by side, otherwise identical, were treated differently. The situation could even change randomly, day to day, as employees came and went.
This was a violation of equal protection under the law. So the judge blocked it.
If the Legislature chooses, it can always go back and clarify the language.
Critics of this law, including me, argued that property owners should be able to decide whether they want guns on their property, period.
But guess what? Our side lost. The other side had the most votes in the Legislature. That is tough noogies, but it is not always a violation of the Constitution.
The answer is the same as always: If you don't like it, get more votes. Meanwhile, thumbs-up for Judge Hinkle.
Read the judge's ruling on TroxBlog: blogs.tampabay.com/troxler.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article749408.ece
[Last modified: Jul 31, 2008 03:59 PM]
By Howard Troxler, Times Columnist
In print: Thursday, July 31, 2008
Story Tools
E-mail this story Contact the editor
Print this story Comment on this story
Social Bookmarking
Digg Facebook Stumbleupon
Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine
ADVERTISEMENT Campaign 2008
I like readin' a good court ruling, and this was a good one on Florida's "take your gun to work" law.
On the surface, the judge sure looks like he cut the baby in half:
Florida employers have to let employees keep guns in their cars if they have concealed-weapons permits.
But businesses can still have a no-gun policy for customers. That part of the new law is on hold.
So, what's the difference between employees and customers?
If you're trying to figure out some important constitutional distinction, don't bother. Here's the real answer:
Because the Florida Legislature screwed up the wording of the law, that's all. That can be fixed.
Otherwise, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle ruled, the Legislature was perfectly able to pass the "guns to work" law.
The ruling, therefore, is more of a victory for the pro-gun side and a fine example of judicial restraint - even by a mighty federal judge - against the political power of a state Legislature.
A lot of what was said by both sides of this case was off-base.
There is no "Second Amendment right" to tote your gun onto somebody else's property, the judge said.
But neither is there an automatic, limitless "property right" by businesses to boss around employees and customers any way they choose.
In fact, the state steps in and regulates these relationships all the time. There are lots of things that the law says employers can't do.
So, if no one's basic rights are being violated, this becomes a mere political question. What do we want our law to say about guns?
The Legislature could reasonably have passed this law, the judge wrote - or just as reasonably defeated it.
Either way, he wrote, "This was within the Legislature's constitutional authority."
So how come the judge threw out the part of the law that said customers can always have guns, too?
Because of some clumsy wording by the Legislature. The law defined "employer" only as a business with employees who own guns.
This was stupid on its face. Not all employers have employees with guns. Those that did also had to allow guns for customers, but those that didn't could still ban them.
It made no sense. The judge noted that two businesses side by side, otherwise identical, were treated differently. The situation could even change randomly, day to day, as employees came and went.
This was a violation of equal protection under the law. So the judge blocked it.
If the Legislature chooses, it can always go back and clarify the language.
Critics of this law, including me, argued that property owners should be able to decide whether they want guns on their property, period.
But guess what? Our side lost. The other side had the most votes in the Legislature. That is tough noogies, but it is not always a violation of the Constitution.
The answer is the same as always: If you don't like it, get more votes. Meanwhile, thumbs-up for Judge Hinkle.
Read the judge's ruling on TroxBlog: blogs.tampabay.com/troxler.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article749408.ece
[Last modified: Jul 31, 2008 03:59 PM]
Comments
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/SellerAuctions.asp?User=745532
good for you guys..lock and load..you have the wrong link to your auctions..use this one..Loko [8D]
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/SellerAuctions.asp?User=745532
every time i fix that link it crashes again
Want to carry a gun at work??? It's simple, get a job that requires you to carry a gun at work. Whats the problem?[;)]
this is not about carry at work it is so you can have one in your car to and from work