Legislation has been introduced in the Florida State Legislature that would force Florida companies to allow their employees to bring guns to work, as long as the weapons remained locked in their cars.
The legislation is modeled after an Oklahoma law that drew national attention when a number of major companies, including energy giant ConocoPhillips and oil-services conglomerate Halliburton, sued to have it overturned.
A Florida version could have similarly sweeping effects, particularly in Central Florida, where the region's largest employer -- Walt Disney World, with more than 57,000 workers -- does not allow its employees to bring guns onto park property. Universal Orlando, which employs 13,000 people, has a similar policy.
The legislation is backed by the NRA.
Marion Hammer, an NRA lobbyist, said the group will make the parking-lot bills (HB 129 and SB 206) a priority in 2006.
"For a business to tell you that in order to come onto their property, you have to give up your constitutional right is wrong," Hammer said.
Florida businesses are opposed to the legislation, despite an attempt to make it more palatable.
In an effort to blunt opposition from businesses, Baxley and Senate sponsor Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, included provisions that would shield companies from lawsuits should an employee commit a crime with the gun kept in a car on company property.
"I would think that business folks would embrace this readily because it gives them immunity from liability," Hammer said. "They should be happy as clams."
But businesses are unimpressed.
"If they have to get in the car and drive home to get a gun, chances are they are going to cool down a little bit," said Frank Mendizabal, a spokesman for Weyerhaeuser, which owns the Oklahoma mill that fired employees found with guns in their cars.
That the law could protect companies from lawsuits is irrelevant because immunity "doesn't prevent someone from being shot," he said.
This is a tough one since it is a conflict between the right of self-defense and private property rights. When in doubt consult the final authority, which is the Constitution. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
My first inclination was to side with the businesses. Private property rights are of paramount importance in this country and I believe that property owners have the right to say what does and does not come onto their property. However, the Second Amendment is an absolute. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. It does not limit itself to restricting the US Congress, as does the First Amendment. It simply says, in effect, "this action is prohibited." The question then becomes whether or not this applies to private entities such as businesses or individuals and not just governments.
My personal opinion, as you may surmise, is that businesses should allow their employees to bring their personal weapons to work. Ideally, they would be allowed to carry their concealed weapons while on the job, provided it is legal for them to carry the weapons at all. As for Mr. Mendizabal's statement that having to drive home to get a gun would allow the person to cool down, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the workplace homicides he cites occurred when the person came to work and brought their weapon into the workplace with them to begin with, rather than the person leaving the weapon in their vehicle and retrieving it when they decided that it was time for the lead to fly.
And don't forget that the number of criminal shootings committed by people with concealed weapon permits, as opposed to those that were in self-defense, is an extremely small percentage. Folks with CCW's are not the ones you should fear. If someone is going to shoot up the place, corporate policies against bringing guns to work won't stop them. And if that should happen, it seems to me that law-abiding armed employees would provide the best defense, unless you happen to have armed security which is rare.
But should companies be required by law to allow something on their property that they don't want, regardless of the wisdom of such prohibitions? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment