|
|
Siding with the influential gun lobby, the state Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a compromise measure allowing employees to stash firearms in their parked cars, despite the objections or policies of their employers — as long as they have concealed-weapons permits.
Already passed by the House, the bill now heads to the governor, who has said he will sign it into law.
[…]
There is no way for employers to determine who has a permit and who does not, however, since the information is exempted from public records laws, and the bill bans them from asking about it.
Normally I would fall on the side of gun owners, but this seems to be more of a private property rights issue than anything else. If I can tell someone they can’t bring a gun on my property, why shouldn’t businesses have the same right?
If the gun is locked in the car how would anybody know anyway? And if the person is permitted it is safer in their possession.
You had better not frak with your employees in Florida …
I can see getting fired in the future in Florida. Please collect your personal items … these gentlemen (security guards with semi-automatic rifles) will escort you off the premises.
Why take your gun to work if you have to leave it locked in your car? I don’t see much use for this law unless you decide to rob a bank on the way home.
It’s a weird balance between allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-preservation and allowing businesses to exercise their right to decide if they will allow firearms on their property.
As a concealed carry permit owner, I think this seems to be a good compromise. I just wish I could carry to work, but I can’t. I work for a school district, and I obey the law.
#5 “I work for a school district, and I obey the law.”
Would probably be better for the kids if you could take it to work. The gun free zones tend to attract gun toting mass murderers…
#3. Yes, if it were any state but Florida, I’d be OK with it. Mofros are batshit crazy down there.
#1–David==that reason would be because that is what the law says. You have no more rights about guns, property, businesses, your home===than what the law provides.
Now, from a “natural justice” perspective, home owners is quite different and more private than is a business establishment. No one is “required” to be at your home whereas the business owner who need employees, and people who need jobs as emplopees, are indeed required to be on the employers premises–or have their cars in the parking lot.
Totally different issues==as most issues are. To be linked, only by zealotry.
I just want to know why it’s said that they sided “with the influential gun lobby.” Why don’t they mention that it’s siding with Second Amendment rights? It’s the little things about media that make me angry. What did they choose a side?
That’s the best they could do? Leave it locked in the car? Your average car has all the impenetrability of a paper bag. I consider leaving any gun in a car to be irresponsible.
oh you KNOW some florida idiot is going to leave ammo in their black car in the trunk in the hot sun. Can we just cut florida at the handle and kick them into the gulf of mexico? The whole state is worthless
So much for property rights.
Florida has some of the most liberal (read: conservative) gun laws out there. The question that should be most on people’s lips is the obvious one:
Does that series of laws produce a population that is more or less safe from violent crime?
I think you would have to analyze the records many different ways to come up with a general answer that offered some transferrable insight before you could apply findings to other populations. Things like population age bias, economic factors, mobility factors, education, and so on might influence findings, but Florida is a body of data ready for mining. Is there a reviewable analysis sitting out there that pertains?
#6 – Would probably be better for the kids if you could take it to work. The gun free zones tend to attract gun toting mass murderers…
There is no statistical evidence to suggest that is true.
#15 – Here is a study on the corollary.
http://tinyurl.com/6y5b27
There are NO studies that show gun free zones work. But read the study I linked and it is pretty clear which type of area is safer.
#12….please don’t be so ignorant.
modern (post 1890s) ammunition cannot be set off by being in a hot car trunk. Well, maybe on Venus.
Now, if we are talking black powder, that might be another story.
#16, pat,
I have a hard time putting much confidence in any study where the author keeps referring to himself as a source.
This can’t be proved one way or another, but the facts remain, if there are no guns, there won’t be any shootings.
#18 – Agreed. The only problem is actually keeping guns out of these zones. The fact is that this isn’t done so, if you want to gun down people go to where you know law abiding people won’t be armed.
#8 – #1–David==that reason would be because that is what the law says. You have no more rights about guns, property, businesses, your home===than what the law provides.
The law doesn’t provide rights. YOU do. Rights are natural. The only thing that governments can do is deny rights through threat of force.
Further, law doesn’t provide. It prevents. With rare exception, law is about what you are not permitted to do, or what you have to do. Law is about keeping the subjects in line. It’s about pacification.
Valid governments govern through the consent of the people. If a government is valid, the people are the government. So rights come from us.
Totally different issues==as most issues are. To be linked, only by zealotry.
If you think most issues are disconnected, then you don’t live in reality.
#19 – #18 – Agreed. The only problem is actually keeping guns out of these zones. The fact is that this isn’t done so, if you want to gun down people go to where you know law abiding people won’t be armed.
To recap what I’ve said in other threads – I don’t care if you make guns illegal or if you hand them out on street corners… my experience living and working in dangerous inner city conditions… with a father and friends who are cops… with a wife who taught in inner city schools… is that guns aren’t likely to be a part of your day on any given day… ever.
But my point about your casual comment about gun free zones is that almost everyplace is a gun free zone. Schools, workplaces, churches, restaurants, Chicago, my Aunt Millie’s place, etc., and in reality, these mass shootings that we fear are actually aberrations, and not the norm. Statistically speaking, they happen so infrequently that they don’t actually happen at all.
Now I agree that there are precious few safeguards against guns entering gun free zones, and if concealed carry laws really do help, then I’m for it, and if not, I’m for it because of my standard “I don’t care” position on gun control.
I oppose increased security, though. I think detectors and searches and other increases in security are invasive, repressive, and counter-productive because they instill fear where fear need not exist, thus lowering our quality of life for what statistically, isn’t an issue.
Our society works better when it is open. It always has. It always will.
I am sick and tired of walking around in a land crippled by fear.
#20–OFTLO==I agree but the argument is purely linguistic for just the reasons you state. We have all our rights in theory, but in practice only those rights not taken away by law, so by direct application, it is the law that determines what right you have, not your status as a thinking, caring, wildly out of touch cynosure.
You raise an issue though that I find fascinating. What actually is the threat level in the USA? Other than cops, I have never seen a gun used in a threatening way. I have seen a knife only twice. Pool Stick–3-4 times. ((Off point, but I’ve seen too many gaggles of B-52’s and F-4’s, but that is a different context.))
So–I feel nervous walking is many streets in america==very few in Europe. Is that just faulty threat assessment? I could accept that which is why I find your point engaging. BUT–how to rationally deal with the statistics of America leading the civilized world in murder by guns. Now–I agree that relative to other countries is for certain issues, not relevant==only the absolute rate/exposure/risk is. How many murders per 100K population is sufficient in your mind, or how many multiples of today’s rate, before you would perceive the same problem that I perceive now?
Crazy society to be in where discussing the need for protection is “debateable.” A while back, I read a detective series that took place in the glory days of ancient Rome. Supposed to be accurate in the social details. If you owned “anything” you also had a retinue of guards to protect yourself, family, and stuff. Everything is relative.
Guns kill people. I’d think somehow “guns” as part of the problem would be part of the solution.
#21 “my experience living and working in dangerous inner city conditions… with a father and friends who are cops… with a wife who taught in inner city schools… is that guns aren’t likely to be a part of your day on any given day… ever.”
It’s happened twice to me, once the gun I carried saved my life. Didn’t do the perp’s life much good but, that’s their problem. I don’t live in an inner city either. So, your experience is just that, yours.
#22 – We have all our rights in theory, but in practice only those rights not taken away by law, so by direct application, it is the law that determines what right you have…
Since we are talking about abstracts, like rights, suffice it to say I can only offer a subjective response…
But it is my belief that we all have the rights we choose to take.
What actually is the threat level in the USA?
Stunningly low.
Other than cops, I have never seen a gun used in a threatening way.
In all my many dealings with cops, I have only once seen a gun pulled in the line of duty. It was not fired.
Amusing bit:
At age 19, I was in a bar in Dayton, Ohio and I went to the washroom which had 1 urinal and 1 stall. I needed the stall and so did my buddy who went in first. A big biker comes in, straddles the urinal, pulls out a hand cannon, hands it to me and says, “hold this.”
So, I took the gun and he did his thing. My buddy comes out and looks at me and I hand him the gun saying, “hold this.” He does and I go into the stall.
From inside, I hear the biker say, “thanks” so I know he got his gun back, and that was the last we saw of him.
Obviously nothing bad happened, nor were we alarmed… but it surely was a peculiar moment.
So–I feel nervous walking is many streets in america==very few in Europe. Is that just faulty threat assessment?
Yes.
I could accept that which is why I find your point engaging. BUT–how to rationally deal with the statistics of America leading the civilized world in murder by guns.
The statistics are only part of the story. Look at the demographics of who gets victimized, when, what they were doing, why, etc., which I know is hard data to get and sometimes of dubious reliability… but think of it…
There is an unfortunate and disproportionate number of black men in prison on gun related charges. Their common characteristics are that they are often poor, often affiliated with a gang, often poorly educated, and typically have shot other young black men in similar circumstances. Do you fit that mold? No? Then your chances of being victimized in a gun crime just went down.
Also, many murders are committed as irrational crimes of passion between people who know each other… often family or by marriage… and a common characteristic is that the shooter had handy access to a firearm and was involved in a very heated argument with the victim. Do you find yourself in a combative relationship with someone who has ready access to a gun? No? The again, your chance of getting shot just went down.
I’ve said many times… as a culture, and most of us as individuals, we suck at risk assessment.
How many murders per 100K population is sufficient in your mind, or how many multiples of today’s rate, before you would perceive the same problem that I perceive now?
As I just pointed out, that number will be meaningless.
Guns kill people. I’d think somehow “guns” as part of the problem would be part of the solution.
Despite the NRA’s tired refrain about guns not killing people, in fact, you are right. Gun do kill people. It’s what they are made for. Their sole purpose is to kill what they are pointed at.
But taking them away doesn’t prevent killing and it might strip people of protection they need. I say “might” because I don’t know. The pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby are both guilty of tossing bullshit stats and anecdotes about grandmothers killing burglars or four year olds killing themselves all in service of their tilted agendas.
So all I’m saying is…
1. Guns don’t matter a whole lot.
2. You aren’t in a lot of danger.
3. Police states emerge when governments succeed in making citizens afraid.
…and drifting into a related topic we argue about a lot…
4. Cameras imply danger that must be watched, and thus contribute to creating a society of fear…
🙂
Americans desperately need a constitutional amendment which clearly allows gun control fixing the insane loophole in the Second Amendment which allows any and every reckless, paranoid goofball to arm themselves to the teeth.
I’ll be the first to put my John Hancock on it.
#23 – It’s happened twice to me, once the gun I carried saved my life. Didn’t do the perp’s life much good but, that’s their problem. I don’t live in an inner city either. So, your experience is just that, yours.
Well, it sounds like you discharged a weapon and I’m surely not going to ask you to go into it at all. But I’ll say this, without context its hard to know what to think of your experience. If you were a cop or in security or a mob henchman, it changes things.
My experience isn’t only mine. It trends to be similar to the experience of other people like me. Now Bobbo and I are very different people, but I’ll bet we have many similar demographic characteristics and along a long enough time line would usually have similar experiences related to crime.
I get the idea that you and I probably have some significant differences demographically and it stands to reason, would have different experiences. In fact, you made reference to being pulled over many times in another thread. I had similar past experience when pulled over, except that I would not say I was pulled over “many” times. I can likely count being pulled over by a cop on my fingers over my whole lifetime, including times when my car was struck by another car.
So curiously… were you a cop in a past life? Because I get that former cop vibe from you.
#26 – No cop background. Just a regular guy. Maybe a bit unlucky with a couple of encounters in (safe) areas but lucky enough to have owned a gun…
Funny thing though. My job used to take me into South Central L.A. and I never ran into a problem. Real friendly people.
#27 – Funny thing though. My job used to take me into South Central L.A. and I never ran into a problem. Real friendly people.
Yes… and that raises an interesting point… On a per capita basis, crime in Chicago or New York is no different than crime in small country towns. Specific rates in very localized areas rise and fall somewhat on socioeconomic metrics, but generally Falls Church, Virginia or Bismark, North Dakota is not any safer than Los Angeles, California or Miami, Florida.
You’ll find some odd exceptions in certain places, but generally, crime is rather even.
#28 – “On a per capita basis, crime in Chicago or New York is no different than crime in small country towns.”
You’re right for the most part.
Here’s an exception. Interesting that gun ownership is mandatory here:
http://tinyurl.com/24p3ll
#29 – My only objection to the Kennesaw law requiring gun ownership in each household is that guns aren’t cheap.
If my city (Indianapolis, at the moment) wanted to pass such a law (and these people would enjoy passing such a law), I’ll be expecting my complimentary gun to arrive in the mail, which in compliance with the law, I will promptly place in the back of the closet on the top shelf.
This might work in a small town… but not in some of the places I’ve lived. In college, in Dayton, Ohio, I used to live in a rented house across the street from alcoholic redneck triplets (I swear I couldn’t make this up) Lonnie, Donnie, and Ronnie… who were loud, belligerent, fighting constantly, and almost always drunk. On no fewer than two occasions, Donnie, the Alpha Hick, threatened to kill me. Once, for calling the cops on him. Another time for buying a Toyota and putting his dad out of work.
Of course, I had no real fear of him because in both instances he could barely stand… but had he been in possession of his legally required gun, there is no telling who would be hit by his wildly mis-aimed stray bullets.
#30 I agree the cost is not a good thing. I only posted to show that laws allowing gun possession don’t lead to a high rate of gun crime. Where I grew up I didn’t know anyone that didn’t have multiple weapons in house. Yet, I can say there was not one gun murder in my town (pop ~30,000) for the 12 years I lived there.