News Florida lawmakers pass take your guns to work law

[Evo]

Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

The article title is a bit misleading since it limits people to keeping guns in their cars on their employer's premise.

The NRA and other supporters always refer back to the Bill of Rights to argue their case. Ok, that was written over 200 years ago, I think things have a changed a bit since then.

At my current office they put a stupid plastic sticky sign of a gun with that red circle and bar on it on the glass doors, so someone trying to carry a gun into the building will see that no guns are allowed and go back and put their guns away before entering. There is no metal detector.

I know a lot of members are in favor of carrying concealed weapons, I'm wondering how people feel about this type of law.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

"The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc

 

[Art]

Unless it's limited to companies with very secure parking then no doubt criminals will be delighted to know they have a new potential source of deadly weapons thrown in as a bonus when they steal a car radio from a car in a company's car park.

 

[BobG]

My first impression is that this violates the rights of private property owners.

Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.

There is a conflict between the rights of property owners and gun owners if you have nowhere to park your car when you have to enter someone else's private property. I don't think storing your gun in your car is a completely unreasonable compromise, as long as the property owner isn't responsible for the security of the contents of the car. I can just see this turning into a situation where property owners are responsible for guns stolen from cars parked on their property.

 

[Astronuc]

The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, . . . .

The last time I was at a nuke plant, the guards had M-16's or AR-15's. Security is somewhat tighter at such facilities.

 

[turbo]

I don't have a problem with allowing people with concealed-carry permits to keep handguns in their glove-boxes. If a disgruntled employee decided to take out a bunch of co-workers, it would be nice if someone could slip out and get armed and challenge that person and perhaps save some lives. Often, police are too remote, and do not have operational knowledge of the facilities that might be involved, and extra lives will be lost as a result. Among other handguns, I have a Glock 20 (chambered in 10mm Auto) with 3 high-capacity magazines. I feel confident that my neighbors can count on me in the case of a home-invasion, and I can count on their support as well. Those that claim that the 2nd amendment only applies to state-sponsored militias are missing the point. The 2nd amendment was written when people relied on their friends, relatives, and neighbors to defend them and each other.

 

[drankin]

If the private property owner of a business cannot be responsible for ones safety in their own parking lot then, of course, a person should be able to protect themselves. Especially women and elderly who are likely targets of bad guys. But they do need to have the proper permit. Though the Constitution does not speak of only people with permits being able to bear arms I believe this is a prudent compromise. This is good legislation.

 

[drankin]

I can just see this turning into a situation where property owners are responsible for guns stolen from cars parked on their property.

I would have to ask the question, is a property owner responsible when someone steals your car stereo, tools, or golf clubs out of your car? The same standard applies to all property one keeps in their car.

 

[Poop-Loops]

If the private property owner of a business cannot be responsible for ones safety in their own parking lot then, of course, a person should be able to protect themselves. Especially women and elderly who are likely targets of bad guys. But they do need to have the proper permit. Though the Constitution does not speak of only people with permits being able to bear arms I believe this is a prudent compromise. This is good legislation.

If someone breaks into my house and beats you up while we are having dinner, do you get to sue me for not protecting you adequately enough?

 

[Andre]

I will never understand this American fascination with guns. Okay, I did shoot many thousands of rounds with 4 types of 7.62mm guns, 3 types 9 mm hand guns, .50's, 20mm M51 at 6000 rpm, (100 per flight, a few hundred flights) but I never killed anything, except for two aerial towed darts (damage 20k$), but those were not alive. All part of the job, getting increasingly underwhelming.

Thing is that you have an easy killer in your hand/pocket/car/safe etc. So, who recognises getting red in the eyes, capable of killing the jack ass in front of you. All you need to do is reach for your pocket. Would you?

 

[BobG]

I would have to ask the question, is a property owner responsible when someone steals your car stereo, tools, or golf clubs out of your car? The same standard applies to all property one keeps in their car.

Employers don't have to provide parking, let alone have to allow you to bring golf clubs onto their property. Sometimes it's better to have something completely unaddressed by law - at least from a liability perspective.

If employers are required by law to allow employees to bring guns onto their property, there will be at least a few lawyers that will argue that the law brings some implied responsibilities along with it. Their chance of success may not be great, but their chances will be good enough to have at least some affect on liability insurance.

We have a society that will sue for anything and everything. As a soccer referee, I had to carry liability insurance just in case an injured player felt my call or non-call angered that opposing player enough to come in cleats up the next play. Doesn't matter that the chance of any single lawsuit being won are slim if the potential damages are catastrophic. (Edit: Actually, that's probably a bad example. The main reason referees face liability problems is continuing play with a seriously injured player on the field or not stopping the game for weather - both things the referee is responsible for but not necessarily qualified or in a position to judge accurately).

From a property owner's perspective, banning guns on his property is a good policy even if the property owner never plans to do car by car searches for guns.

 

[drankin]

If someone breaks into my house and beats you up while we are having dinner, do you get to sue me for not protecting you adequately enough?

Of course not, that's my point. Though I actually could through your home owners insurance if I were so inclined but that is not my point. I'm responsible for my own things in my vehicle.

 

[drankin]

I will never understand this American fascination with guns. Okay, I did shoot many thousands of rounds with 4 types of 7.62mm guns, 3 types 9 mm hand guns, .50's, 20mm M51 at 6000 rpm, (100 per flight, a few hundred flights) but I never killed anything, except for two aerial towed darts (damage 20k$), but those were not alive. All part of the job, getting increasingly underwhelming.

Thing is that you have an easy killer in your hand/pocket/car/safe etc. So, who recognises getting red in the eyes, capable of killing the jack ass in front of you. All you need to do is reach for your pocket. Would you?

This is a documented, statistically unsound myth. Myself as well as hundreds of thousands of other Americans have a concealed carry permit and carry daily. Statistically (I'll have to find the official stat) permit holders commit violent crimes 100 times less than the average non permit holder. All your point shows is how much you do not trust yourself with a loaded firearm. Which is fine, we would rather you did not carry, though it is your right.

 

[Evo]

The legal implications are what concern me also. If a disgruntled employee or customer can just walk outside, grab his gun and walk back in before he's had a chance to cool off, it can't be a good scenario.

Also, if someone comes into a building and starts shooting, there is little chance of anyone being able to go and get a gun and return in time to do anything. Also, isn't it frowned upon to take the law into your own hands? If the guy is coming at you with a gun and you fire in self defense without premeditation that's one thing, but if you get a gun and go after the guy, no matter how noble the cause, isn't that at least manslaughter? You have become judge, jury, and executioner. There are people that would argue that even if this person killed 100 people that they should not be put to death because they don't believe in the death penalty for any crime.

 

[drankin]

From a property owner's perspective, banning guns on his property is a good policy even if the property owner never plans to do car by car searches for guns.

For one, a property owner cannot search anothers person or vehicle without their consent, that point is moot. And we are talking about employers not just going to someones house, anyhow. Going to someones house and not telling them you are armed is rude. I don't see why banning a permit holder his gun in employee parking lots is good policy. Basically you are saying that person cannot transport their legally owned firearm to work and back which is probably where he or she does the most driving is in the most need of having that form of personal defense.

 

[Evo]

Basically you are saying that person cannot transport their legally owned firearm to work and back which is probably where he or she does the most driving is in the most need of having that form of personal defense.

Realistically, how often does a person need a gun commuting back and forth to work?

 

[drankin]

The legal implications are what concern me also. If a disgruntled employee or customer can just walk outside, grab his gun and walk back in before he's had a chance to cool off, it can't be a good scenario.

Also, if someone comes into a building and starts shooting, there is little chance of anyone being able to go and get a gun and return in time to do anything. Also, isn't it frowned upon to take the law into your own hands? If the guy is coming at you with a gun and you fire in self defense without premeditation that's one thing, but if you get a gun and go after the guy, no matter how noble the cause, isn't that at least manslaughter? You have become judge, jury, and executioner. There are people that would argue that even if this person killed 100 people that they should not be put to death because they don't believe in the death penalty for any crime.

This law was put in place because employees were already carrying their firearms to work. This "disgruntled employee" being a permit holder and shooting up the place has never happened. It's a baseless myth.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Who cares if it's frowned upon when you are preventing yourself from being killed. I'd rather be frowned upon than buried. If my coworkers were in the process of being killed, I'd certainly take it upon myself to stop it if it were in my power. What is wrong with that? I just don't get that mentality.

 

[drankin]

Realistically, how often does a person need a gun commuting back and forth to work?

How often? Hopefully never. But Murphy's law is in effect. What is wrong with someone being prepared?

 

[Andre]

Some stats:

Murders with firearms:

US of A: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Netherlands: Zero?, no I remember Pim Fortuyn being shot seven years ago. Can't be true.

 

[drankin]

Some stats:

Murders with firearms:

US of A: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Netherlands: Zero?, no I remember Pim Fortuyn being shot seven years ago. Can't be true.

Prevent permit holders from carrying their firearms and that murder rate in the US will go up. There are plenty of murders prevented by people who have had to defend themselves.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I say we just make it mandatory that everyone should wear a firearm.

 

[drankin]

I say we just make it mandatory that everyone should wear a firearm.

I don't agree with that (felons, illegals, etc.). It would certainly make for a more polite society though!

 

[turbo]

I say we just make it mandatory that everyone should wear a firearm.

That sure would cut down on car-jackings and home invasions.

 

[Evo]

This law was put in place because employees were already carrying their firearms to work. This "disgruntled employee" being a permit holder and shooting up the place has never happened. It's a baseless myth.

Actually that happened at an office I worked at many years ago. I got there right after it happened, before the police arrived, the guy had already fled. He had a fight with his girlfriend that worked there, he accused her of fooling around with another guy that worked there, got his gun, walked into the cafeteria and shot the guy.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Who cares if it's frowned upon when you are preventing yourself from being killed. I'd rather be frowned upon than buried. If my coworkers were in the process of being killed, I'd certainly take it upon myself to stop it if it were in my power. What is wrong with that? I just don't get that mentality.

Oh, you know some crazy law about not taking the law into your own hands and killing people. Go figure.

 

[jaap de vries]

Some stats:

Murders with firearms:

US of A: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Netherlands: Zero?, no I remember Pim Fortuyn being shot seven years ago. Can't be true.

Where on your given link does it say that there are 0 gun murders in Holland? It says we have about 183 murders (could not find for which year or with what weapon)

We usually have a couple of drug related gun settlement in "Amsterdam".

I kinda turned around on the gun issue (and I have only lived in Texas for 3 months now)
People should be allowed to have a gun at there own home. However I do not wish for my brains to be blown out because some genitor forgets to put the safety on, or because someone got fired and decides to take it out on the rest of us.

It is very simple, how many registered weapons cause accidents/deaths versus how many safe lives? That data is important instead of incidental stories about some grandma shooting a burglar in the face.

 

[jaap de vries]

Prevent permit holders from carrying their firearms and that murder rate in the US will go up. There are plenty of murders prevented by people who have had to defend themselves.

Please show link to back this up! I for one hardly ever hear this happening.

 

[BobG]

Realistically, how often does a person need a gun commuting back and forth to work?

That's where a gun is most needed if you commute to work in Boston or Los Angeles. (Road Rage)

"Ask any of the 131 people who were shot in Los Angeles during 1987 if there's such a thing as road rage. Ask the people who were murdered. Ask the deacon," he says, referring to Donald Graham, the Rhode Island deacon who, following a 1994 highway altercation, shot and killed another motorist with a crossbow.

"You are a negative person," he says. "You are looking at things that I wouldn't pay attention to. I don't think you're a person who looks for good things." Then, warming to the subject, he adds: "The thing that would delight you, of course, would be bloodshed."

"A shooting would be nice," I say. "If you shot someone, it would be ideal."

 

[drankin]

Actually that happened at an office I worked at many years ago. I got there right after it happened, before the police arrived, the guy had already fled. He had a fight with his girlfriend that worked there, he accused her of fooling around with another guy that worked there, got his gun, walked into the cafeteria and shot the guy.

Now, if there was a law that stated that you cannot have a gun in your car in your vehicle at work would that have prevented this? Also, was the bad guy a permit holder? If there was a law it is likely that the bad guy would have ignored it. Because, that is what bad guys do. They ignore the laws, while the law abiding types are disarmed.

Oh, you know some crazy law about not taking the law into your own hands and killing people. Go figure.

In the moment your life is in mortal danger, do you call your lawyer? Is there a judge on the nearby street corner? Is there a cop at your side? No, and they are not responsible for you. YOU ARE. You are basically saying, "how dare you defend yourself".

 

[drankin]

Please show link to back this up! I for one hardly ever hear this happening.

When I get some more time I will. This is a good point because you don't hear about this as often as it happens. I read about it monthly because I'm a bit of a fireams hobbyist. Every month there are a few gun magazines that will list documented cases where a folks have had to use their firearms to prevent murders, rapes, and armed robberies. Which, of course, would lower the murder rate.

 

[Evo]

The link (BobG's) shows how defensive driving and not agressing driving prevents you from getting into a road rage situation. Also, if you are aggressive and you *do* tick someone off and they shoot you, are you going to have time after being shot to grab your gun, go after him (I'm sure he sped off as soon as he shot you) and then shoot him back? You were just "winged" by his first shot, but now that you've fired back at him. He shoots you again killing you.

Uhm, ok, I can see how both people having guns really helped here.

Perhaps after you were shot, you could have pulled over and called 911 and been perfectly ok.

I don't see how both drivers having guns helps. Unless if someone cuts you off and you decide to kill them first just incase they may have a gun?

 

[drankin]

The link (BobG's) shows how defensive driving and not agressing driving prevents you from getting into a road rage situation. Also, if you are aggressive and you *do* tick someone off and they shoot you, are you going to have time after being shot to grab your gun, go after him (I'm sure he sped off as soon as he shot you) and then shoot him back? You were just "winged" by his first shot, but now that you've fired back at him. He shoots you again killing you.

Uhm, ok, I can see how both people having guns really helped here.

Perhaps after you were shot, you could have pulled over and called 911 and been perfectly ok.

I don't see how both drivers having guns helps. Unless if someone cuts you off and you decide to kill them just incase they may have a gun?

Evo, people are ALREADY carrying guns in their cars and this does not happen with any kind of documented regularity. It's a crazy scenerio you are making up. Sure, it probably has happened before but the people who carry out these things are the same people that would never set foot in police department to get their permit to legally carry their gun in the first place. In other words, I in no way advocate that criminals should be allowed to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

You are making a case that people who are violent and get pissed off easy shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun in their car. I can agree with that.

 

[drankin]

Regarding your road rage scenerio, if someone where in a car and shot at me, hell if I'm going to drive after him and volunteer myself into a gunfight. Even if I did, I wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. A DA would eat me alive. This kind of scenerio only happens in gang-bang land, I'm sure.

 

[drankin]

Please show link to back this up! I for one hardly ever hear this happening.

Here is a link (one of many): http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

 

[turbo]

Here is a well-researched paper documenting that allowing the concealed carrying of handguns reduces violent crime.

http://www.guncite.com/lott.pdf

In Vermont, you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and they are 49th in violent crime rate and 47th in murder rate.

http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

 

[WheelsRCool]

Two good books on this subject are John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns."

 

[wildman]

You can't take a gun to my work unless you are a member of security. And it doesn't matter what the state says since it is a federal military base... And yes they do search your car at random intervals so it is not a good idea to try to cheat.

 

[wildman]

The biggest problem with guns is what the military calls friendly fire. This is when you shoot the wrong person. Yea I know you all think that would never happen. Well, it can happen and it does happen quite often. Combat is fast and things happen.

The second problem is that people tend to get shoot by their own guns in close combat. If the opponent is only a foot away, it is really dangerous to pull a gun. I is very likely that your opponent will grab the gun (and he has 2 hands and you only have one since you must keep hold of your gun!) and point it back at you just as you are pressing the trigger. That happens about 75% of the time.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I'd like to see a source for that "75% of the time" claim, even though I know what you are saying. I believe even police departments do drills like that to determine how close someone can be before drawing your pistol isn't viable anymore.

Anyway, the point about friendly fire is a good one. If a random Crazy started shooting a public area, and innocent bystanders 1 and 2 join into stop the guy, then bystanders 3 and 4 who come in later (even a few seconds) will just see 3 guys with guns, not knowing what is going on. Police Officers 1 and 2 will likewise have no idea.

If it's a situation like protecting your home, when you know you are pretty much alone, then yeah, it make sense to be armed.

But there's a reason soldiers have uniforms and there is a reason why they are trained in units, not individually.

 

[wildman]

The source is my boss who has A LOT of close combat experience. He also sleeps with his Glock under his pillow so he is not an anti-gun nut. Of course, the 75% number does not apply to people trained in close combat such as police. They know enough not to do it.

Actually, friendly fire situation at home does happen when people get woke up by a relative who was not expected. Combat is not as easy as it looks in the movies.

 

[drankin]

Yep, it's important not to shoot yourself or relatives unintentionally. Good points.

 

[NeoDevin]

The source is my boss who has A LOT of close combat experience. He also sleeps with his Glock under his pillow so he is not an anti-gun nut. Of course, the 75% number does not apply to people trained in close combat such as police. They know enough not to do it.

Actually, friendly fire situation at home does happen when people get woke up by a relative who was not expected. Combat is not as easy as it looks in the movies.

Second hand anecdotal evidence is always the best kind. No doubt he heard it from someone else, so it's even better than second hand.

 

[drankin]

According to the 75% stat and the fact that he has ha A LOT of close combat experience tells me that he has shot himself at least 2 or 3 times.

 

[wildman]

Second hand anecdotal evidence is always the best kind. No doubt he heard it from someone else, so it's even better than second hand.

Ha! Ha! Isn't that so. He heard it in combat training so you are right!

 

[wildman]

Yep, it's important not to shoot yourself or relatives unintentionally. Good points.

This makes trivial a very serious problem. I'll tell you another second hand story. This one may or may have happened, but it Illustrates an important point.

There was an old colonel who went to the War College to obtain some training. A young captain pulled out some maps of a make believe battle and said this and that happened and this happened…. Who won?
The colonel, who by this time had kind a glazed look to his eyes turned to the captain and said, “Who panicked?” The captain said, “No one panicked!” The colonel sighed and said, “Look son, in real combat, who ever panics first loses.”

Drankin, I sure you think that in combat, you will be Rambo. And maybe you will. Some people are. But most people panic. That is why the military trains and trains and trains. Most civilians with a gun panic and when you panic you are as likely to shoot your relatives and friends as the bad guy.

 

[turbo]

Most civilians with a gun panic and when you panic you are as likely to shoot your relatives and friends as the bad guy.

Where did you get that idea? When you are motivated to protect people from attack, you are as likely to shoot the victims as the attacker? That's ridiculous and entirely unsupportable.

My wife is almost as good a shot as I am, as long as she's shooting .38s or 9mm, and we have a .22 pistol that seems to fit her hand so well that her aim is almost instinctive. She doesn't like shooting my Glock 20 because the 10mm auto has too much recoil and her hands are small. I can guarantee that if someone was trying to break into our house, she would shoot the intruder and not me. We have friends and relatives (male and female) who enjoy target-shooting and plinking as well, and we get together occasionally at local sand pits to practice and re-affirm familiarity with the loading process, arming, safety, etc with each type of firearm - revolver or semi-auto. None of these civilians would panic when they have familiar tools of self-defense at their disposal. Certainly, nobody is going to be happy when confronted with a home invasion, for instance, but that is not going to prompt any of us to turn a gun on our families instead of the real threat.

 

[Poop-Loops]

turbo-1 has a point. You have no evidence to support the claim that people panic when under heavy stress.

I think instead we should all accept turbo-1's unsupported claim that in a life-threatening situation all of his friends wouldn't panic. It just makes more sense to assume people keep their cool when the s*** hits the fan.

 

[luben]

i wonder if gun can be completely banned in US, except military and police. Then there will be much less gun-murder. A stun rod is enough for civilian i think.

 

[turbo]

turbo-1 has a point. You have no evidence to support the claim that people panic when under heavy stress.

I think instead we should all accept turbo-1's unsupported claim that in a life-threatening situation all of his friends wouldn't panic. It just makes more sense to assume people keep their cool when the s*** hits the fan.

People may not keep their cool, and may in fact be in heavy adrenaline-rush mode, but when these people are thoroughly familiar with their handguns, shotguns, or whatever they might choose for home defense, I would NOT want to be the stranger breaking down the door. To assert that the victims are likely to start shooting one another instead of the intruder is ridiculous.

 

[wildman]

People may not keep their cool, and may in fact be in heavy adrenaline-rush mode, but when these people are thoroughly familiar with their handguns, shotguns, or whatever they might choose for home defense, I would NOT want to be the stranger breaking down the door. To assert that the victims are likely to start shooting one another instead of the intruder is ridiculous.

Once again, you make trivial of what I said. Of course, you won't shoot your wife who is next to you. Friendly fire incidents are very rare within the the same unit. More common is this that happened near my home:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/page/3/

Read the link, but basically what happened was that Harold Fish panicked and shot Kuenzli. Fish wasn't a murderer in spite of what the jury found. He was someone with a gun that panicked. This kind of stuff doesn't make the American Rifleman, but it happens and more commonly than people think. The military spends LOTS of time and money trying to figure out ways to prevent friendly fire and if they have problems (and they are very well trained), then civilians are going to have even more...

It is not that I am anti-gun, but you have to realize that a gun is a give and take thing. It increases the chances of Fish - Kuenzli type incidents while reducing the chances of home invasion type incidents. It depends on the situation whether it actually makes you safer or not.

 

[turbo]

Once again, you make trivial of what I said. Of course, you won't shoot your wife who is next to you. Friendly fire incidents are very rare within the the same unit.

I am not trivializing what you said. I'm pointing out that you have made a broad generalization that is irrational and is not supported by any facts. You have not cited any support for your statement, but are changing the subject big-time. There are very few home-invasions in Maine because we have one of the highest rates of gun-ownership in the country.

People who are familiar with their guns and are aware of their competence in their use are NOT going to panic and start shooting friends, family, and co-workers instead of the person(s) who are threatening their lives. If you'd like to cite some studies that support that idea, I'd be happy to review them, but I'm not holding my breath while you try to dig up something.

 

[drankin]

i wonder if gun can be completely banned in US, except military and police. Then there will be much less gun-murder. A stun rod is enough for civilian i think.

A complete ban on firearms is impossible in a Constitutional US. Now, if the Constitution were removed, then it would be a possibility. But, that would require a revolution that would surely bring a death toll that all the civilian firearm fatalities that every happened would not touch. IMO of course.