that allows employees to bring concealed weapons onto their employers property, as long as they remain locked inside their cars (just in case they get into a road rage gunfight before their morning coffee I suppose), despite their employers wishes. Disney is having none of that (though they are using a loophole regarding their fireworks show and not arguing it on constitutional property issues). What I don't understand is how the government (and the NRA of course) can force a property owner to allow a gun onto their land. What's next? Forcing me to allow a hunter onto my land because I abut some woods? Those slopes can be awfully slippery. The Second Amendment applies to the government, not to Disney. While the government can not censor me from writing these words on this board, Disney can kick me off their property for saying something not so polite about the mouse and the owner of this board can delete my comments as this board belongs to them (I have this copied elsewhere so its not like my words would be lost forever). By the same reasoning, my employer can forbid me from bringing a firearm into work (and they do in all offices, including, the Florida office -- but the parking is part of an office complex and not owned by them), but, outside of reasonable restrictions (whatever those are), the government can not infringe on my right to own a gun (not that I would, I'd probably be more dangerous to myself with a gun than a mugger with a gun).
How does the state government justify a law that in essence denies what a private property owner can or can not allow on his or her property, outside of exceptions already noted as Constitutionally exempt such as zoning, civil rights, fire laws etc? Last time I checked, a gun owner was not a protected minority. If the government is telling me what I must allow on my land then the government has interfered with my enjoyment and maybe even seized it without a warrant. Is it really a legitimate state interest for the government to tell a business owner they must allow firearms on their property? I'm not familiar with the law or who owns Disney's parking lots, but doesn't Disney have a right to say what can and can not be brought onto their property? Unless this falls under the same constitutional arguments that finally ended segregation, I must be missing something. Otherwise, I don't believe the Second Amendment trumps what a private entity (by that I mean non-government) may or may not allow on his/her/their property.
If I was a business owner in Fla, I'd be looking to ban guns from coming onto my property for liability issues (though, the legislature exempts employers from liability, I don't want my insurance company's lawyer to prove it wrong). Now I wouldn't search my employees' cars and wouldn't know if they did bring weapons unless they advertised it as I would take a don't ask, don't tell approach. As an employer/business owner, my concern is to my customers, not an individual employee's. If the employee wants to park his gun loaded car on the street, that is fine. But, with certain exceptions, his or her individual rights would end at my property line. I wouldn't allow an employee to say bad things about me and my company, I wouldn't allow them to smoke on my property (more because of the smell of cigarette smoke and cleaning up the butts on my property) and I probably wouldn't let them drink on my property. As the property owner, my rights and beliefs would superceded my employee's individual gun rights. However, if if an employee didn't like my bans, then they would be free to find employment elsewhere. It is my property and I have rights too.
As to the woman in the article who insists she needs her gun to feel safe for her 35 mile drive: talk about paranoia. Where the heck is she driving anyway? Are the highways around Disney really that unsafe? I used to work in a really bad area of Brooklyn, NY (back when the crack wars were raging) and never felt the need for a gun, as if I was going to get into a shootout in the hood. My car had good acceleration to get me out of dodge if I had to move fast. In the same vein, walking around Newark with a gun wouldn't make me feel safer either (mainly because whoever had a gun aimed at me would probably shoot me before I had a chance to make my clean underwear unclean). By the way, if you can afford a 70 mile daily commute at today's gas prices, then you can afford to move to a nicer area little closer to work.
Anyway the one thing I am certain of: the taxpayers will be footing the huge legal fees this is sure to bring when the lawsuits start flying. Nice to know NJ isn't the only state with fools who care little about controlling spending "because it's not their money" running the show.
No comments:
Post a Comment