I give you the Florida Legislature. I said in a post here when the legislature passed a modified "Take guns to work" bill, that the modifications had made the bill subject to legal challenge and almost unenforceable. Well, a judge has now ruled the bill is legal, but his ruling even further muddies the water on what citizens can and/or can not do under it. So here's my question. Since FL statute #790 lays out the rules for concealed carry in Florida, and does not legally reinforce a business owners right to ban weapons from their property, how am I as a customer impacted by this new bill? From reading both bills and this story, I don't believe I'm impacted any differently now than before this retarded "Guns to work" bill was passed. And just in case anyone is going to go there, I own my own company and have approved myself to carry at work.

Take guns to work - but don't stop on way?

Take guns to work - but don't stop on way?
Aaron Deslatte | Tallahassee Bureau
July 30, 2008
TALLAHASSEE - A federal judge has upheld the gist of a new law giving employees the right to take their guns to work, as long as they have a concealed-weapons permit and keep them locked in their cars.

But U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle balked at a part of the law granting the same right to customers or visitors at shopping malls, restaurants or other businesses -- raising the question of whether gun-carrying individuals could be penalized for stopping for coffee on their way to work.

Adam Babington, legislative counsel for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said the ruling potentially "causes more confusion than it solves" because it could prevent someone who carries a concealed weapon in the car from stopping at any business other than where he or she works.

"This essentially says you can take your gun to work and you can drive on the public streets, but you're not entitled to take your gun anywhere else," Babington said.

Gun-rights groups hailed the ruling as a "complete victory" -- though they conceded it could spawn confusion.

"Customers would need to know when they pull into a Publix parking lot whether or not Publix has decided to prohibit customers from having the same rights as their employees," said Marion Hammer, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

The so called "guns-at-work" law was the product of a three-year fight that pitted the NRA against the state's business lobby in a battle between two basic constitutional concepts: the right to bear arms, and the business lobby's assertion that private-property owners had the right to set conditions for anyone entering that property.

The Legislature's ruling Republicans, caught between two of the party's core interest-group supporters, finally passed a watered-down bill that allowed only employees with concealed-weapons permits to take their weapons to work, as long as they kept them locked in their cars. The law took effect July 1.

But companies including Walt Disney and Universal Orlando have since claimed they are exempt from the law, and the Chamber of Commerce and Florida Retail Federation went to court to block it.

In a 39-page ruling released late Monday, Judge Hinkle wrote that lawmakers had acted legally by restricting guns only to employees with concealed-carry permits.

But he said the "odd" way lawmakers had crafted the bill created two classes of businesses: those that had employees with concealed-carry permits, and those that did not. Under the law, if no employees have permits, the business would not have to allow guns on its property.

"A business's obligation to comply with the statute . . . could turn not only on whether it has a traditional employee with a concealed-carry permit, but on whether a person who comes to fix the plumbing has a concealed-carry permit," Hinkle wrote. "This could change minute-by-minute."

Lawmakers have said they hadn't meant to draw such a distinction, and Hammer said the language resulted from "inartful, last-minute drafting."

Hinkle wrote that he was tempted to follow the advice of Attorney General Bill McCollum's office and "rewrite a statute to avoid an absurd result." But instead, he blocked enforcement of the consumer part of the law.

McCollum's office, business groups and the NRA said Tuesday that they were reviewing the ruling but doubted they would appeal.

The attorney general is, however, still studying whether resorts and companies such as Georgia-Pacific can still ban weapons through a number of exemptions lawmakers added.

Late last month, Disney World asserted most of its facilities are exempt from the law, citing language that creates an exception for companies that manufacture, use, store or transport explosives. Most of Disney's theme parks have nightly fireworks shows.

Disney fired a security guard earlier this month after he took a gun to work to protest the decision and wouldn't cooperate with company investigators. He has since sued Disney.

Universal Orlando is claiming it doesn't have to follow the law because it houses a work-study program staffed by Orange County Public Schools and therefore meets an exemption for schools. Central Florida's third major theme park, SeaWorld Orlando, has said it supports the rights of employees and visitors to transport legal firearms in their cars.

Georgia-Pacific has claimed an exemption for its Palatka paper mill because it receives regular deliveries of fuel oil by barge, which the company says puts it under federal security regulations. Other exemptions in the state statute apply to nuclear facilities and hospitals.

Sen. Durell Peaden, a Crestview Republican who helped draft the law, said he expected the fight in Tallahassee and the courts to resume at some point.

"In all frankness, there will probably be a cooling-off process to see how it gets worked out," he said. "But this will be an ongoing issue."

Glad Seaworld supports gun owners rights though.

But it does seem Disney is exempt from the law. Hadn't even thought about them having fireworks. We'll have to see how the Georgia Pacific Company plays out though.

Just remember, when CCWing in Florida don't stop to take a piss or your in trouble. I can hear it now:

Honey, don't forget to go to the bathroom before you go to work. LOL

That type of rule would have precedent in Florida law. IIRC a class "G"(?) security guard card allows you to carry a weapon (.380, .38 special or 9mm only) while on duty only, ie an armored car guard stopping to use the bathroom or buy lunch has to disarm. The weird state regs. on this type of carry could easily be used as a templete for concealed carry rules.

Things are a little different in my state. The prohibited areas are schools, courthouses and the federal restrictions.

An employer can certainly prohibit carrying by an employee, but doing so is only grounds for dismissal - not a criminal act or violation of the CCW agreement.

How can a store, open to the public, prohibit someone legally licensed to carry publicly from carrying in the store. Also, how would they know? Do you have to go through a metal detector?

quote:

Originally posted by azcowboy:
Glad Seaworld supports gun owners rights though.

But it does seem Disney is exempt from the law. Hadn't even thought about them having fireworks. We'll have to see how the Georgia Pacific Company plays out though.

Just remember, when CCWing in Florida don't stop to take a piss or your in trouble. I can hear it now:

Honey, don't forget to go to the bathroom before you go to work. LOL

Disney isn't exempt. They just think they are. Fireworks has to be their primary business, it's not.

quote:

Originally posted by MWC:
Things are a little different in my state. The prohibited areas are schools, courthouses and the federal restrictions.

An employer can certainly prohibit carrying by an employee, but doing so is only grounds for dismissal - not a criminal act or violation of the CCW agreement.

How can a store, open to the public, prohibit someone legally licensed to carry publicly from carrying in the store. Also, how would they know? Do you have to go through a metal detector?

That's the whole rub here, and the reason I posted this story.

I believe Florida has been just like your state in that a business owner could fire an employee for having a weapon on their property if they had an internal policy in place prohibiting it. This ridiculous 'new' law was an attempt to protect those individual's rights while they travel to and from work with their weapons (i.e. gun could only be left in their vehicles at work). I have no earthly idea why the requirement of a CCL was ever brought into the equation, given this bill/law gave no one the right to carry a weapon on their person at work, and in Florida, CCL holder information is exempt from public records requests, so business owner could never check to see if an employee actually had a CCL or not anyway.

My point in posting this is that it creates, at least in my mind, a direct conflict with FL statute #790 (which defines the rules and regs for concealed carry), and muddies the water for CCL holders.

Personally, I wish the legislature had simply voted down the new legislation rather than approving something that is bound to create far more problems than it solves.

As for me, I'll continue to carry at work (as I mentioned before, I own my own company) and everywhere else that is not specifically restricted by Florida Statutue #790. Personally, I've never been asked about it anywhere I've been, and given how observent most people are , I doubt I'll have to worry much about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:
Disney isn't exempt. They just think they are. Fireworks has to be their primary business, it's not.

How right you are. Disney has always felt they were exempt from anything they didn't agree with, and given their relationship with local politicians, they have always been allowed to pretty much do as they please.

I live approximately 6-8 miles from Disney and have only been there twice in the last ten years.