# Florida lawmakers pass take your guns to work law

• News
Mentor

## Main Question or Discussion Point

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 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
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
Homework Helper
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
Staff Emeritus
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
Gold Member
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.

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?

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 Science Advisor Homework Helper 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. Last edited: 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.

Mentor
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.

Mentor
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?

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.

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
Gold Member
I say we just make it mandatory that everyone should wear a firearm.
That sure would cut down on car-jackings and home invasions.

Mentor
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.

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.

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.