Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Republicans should love this law, correct?

---------------------------------------------------
Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc_4;_ylt=AkkbrwuW4qriebJaalG7j0U E1vAI)
By Michael Peltier Wed Apr 9

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

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.

Critics say the measure usurps business owners' rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

"This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments," said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

Oklahoma, Alaska, Kentucky, and Mississippi have similar laws, although in Oklahoma, an appellate court barred the state from enforcing the legislation on grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.

"We are disappointed that politics clearly won over good policy," Mark Wilson, president and chief executive of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.

[Florida_Bronco]

I actually wrote to our local papers in support of this law about a year ago when it first came up. I support it 100%.

[W*GS]

[...]Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

What studies? Where's the data?

"This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners [...]" said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

Since when have Democrats given a **** about property rights?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I actually wrote to our local papers in support of this law about a year ago when it first came up. I support it 100%.You support taking away individual business owners rights?

[Florida_Bronco]

You support taking away individual business owners rights?

When they infringe on others constitutional rights, then yes.

[Arkie]

I'm all for the right to bear arms but not on somebody else's property.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

When they infringe on others constitutional rights, then yes.BS! They most definitely do NOT infringe on anyone's rights when it comes to private property.

[W*GS]

When they infringe on others constitutional rights, then yes.

So, you wouldn't mind a competitor coming into your store and putting up fliers advertising her business?

[Florida_Bronco]

BS! They most definitely do NOT infringe on anyone's rights when it comes to private property.

I disagree. Under current law, even those with concealed weapon permits are affected. Look at it this way, if you are a CWP and work for a company that prohibits you to bring your firearm to work, that basically prevents you from exercising your 2nd amendment right from the time you leave home for work until you return home from work. To me that is unacceptable.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I disagree. Under current law, even those with concealed weapon permits are affected. Look at it this way, if you are a CWP and work for a company that prohibits you to bring your firearm to work, that basically prevents you from exercising your 2nd amendment right from the time you leave home for work until you return home from work. To me that is unacceptable.You have a choice to work for someone else not demand that an employer give up his property rights. I knew some Republicans would put their foot in their mouths on this one.

[Florida_Bronco]

You have a choice to work for someone else not demand that an employer give up his property rights.

Fair enough, but why not just pass a law that would allow us CWP holders to exercise our rights? Even private property is subject to the law of the land and I don't see why the 2nd amendment should be any different.

[Florida_Bronco]

Oh, and for what it's worth I think this is a pretty fair law for both sides. It will allow those with CWP to have their weapons in a locked car out of sight but doesn't force the business owners to allow the workers to actually carry their firearms on their person.

So the firearm owners get to transport their firearms to work and have them available before and after work, but the business owners don't have to put up with their employees running around carrying them.

So the gun stays outside in the car. I personally don't see any problems with that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Oh, and for what it's worth I think this is a pretty fair law for both sides. It will allow those with CWP to have their weapons in a locked car out of sight but doesn't force the business owners to allow the workers to actually carry their firearms on their person.

So the firearm owners get to transport their firearms to work and have them available before and after work, but the business owners don't have to put up with their employees running around carrying them.

So the gun stays outside in the car. I personally don't see any problems with that.And ANYONE else who wants to bring one to work. And then if someone freaks out about something or someone at work their firearm is only walking distance away.

[Florida_Bronco]

And ANYONE else who wants to bring one to work. And then if someone freaks out about something or someone at work their firearm is only walking distance away.

Are you sure about that? I just watched the news and they clearly mentioned that this would only apply to CWP holders. Its been awhile since I looked at the actual law, so maybe they (and me) are mistaken.

And remember, those with CWP are pretty safe. The last time I checked, the number of people with CWP who had them revoked for any reason was a very small percentage. If this law does indeed apply only to CWP holders I don't feel there is anything to be worried about.

[loborugger]

Police stations are armed to the teeth. When was the last time anyone walked into a police station - be he/she a disgruntled employee or just some mutt off the street - and started shooting up the place.

An armed society is a polite society.

[REB]

You support taking away individual business owners rights?


Dont you? Aren't you one that doesn't want to leave it up to the "individual business owners" to decide whether or not to allow smoking in his/her establishment?

[REB]

You have a choice to work for someone else not demand that an employer give up his property rights. I knew some Republicans would put their foot in their mouths on this one.


Just as you have the choice whether or not to frequent a smoking establishment. Or at least should. Lefties love to pick and choose what choices we should be allowed to have.

[W*GS]

Dont you? Aren't you one that doesn't want to leave it up to the "individual business owners" to decide whether or not to allow smoking in his/her establishment?

On that note...

Smoking and drinking

Unlucky strikes
Apr 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

America's smoking bans are causing fatal accidents
Banning smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm. That, at least, is the theory. Whether it works may depend on how uniform anti-smoking legislation is.

Although many countries have introduced national bans, America has taken a piecemeal approach. A number of states, counties and municipalities have introduced various types of bans, and have enforced them with varying degrees of rigour.

The problem with this, say Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, economists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, is that smoking bans seem to have been followed by an increase in drunk-driving and in fatal accidents involving alcohol. In research published in the Journal of Public Economics, the authors find evidence that smokers are driving farther to places where smoking in bars is allowed.

The researchers analysed data from 120 American counties, 20 of which had banned smoking. They found a smoking ban increased fatal alcohol-related car accidents by 13% in a typical county containing 680,000 people. This is the equivalent of 2.5 fatal accidents (equivalent to approximately six deaths). Furthermore, drunk-driving smokers have not changed their ways over time. In areas where the ban has been in place for longer than 18 months, the increased accident rate is 19%.

The findings, say the pair, are consistent with the suggestion that smokers are driving farther to alternative places to drink. This may be because they are driving to bars with outdoor seating, or to bars which are not enforcing the smoking ban.

Another explanation is that some smokers are “jurisdiction shopping” to places where they may puff. Accident rates can be especially high where border-hopping to still-smoky bars is possible. Accidents in Delaware county in Pennsylvania increased by 26% after the next-door state of Delaware introduced a smoking ban in 2002. Similarly, when Boulder county banned smoking, fatal accidents in Jefferson county, between Boulder county and Denver, went up by 40%. How this weighs up against the long-term health effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to well-meaning legislators.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[REB]

On that note...

Smoking and drinking

Unlucky strikes
Apr 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

America's smoking bans are causing fatal accidents
Banning smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm. That, at least, is the theory. Whether it works may depend on how uniform anti-smoking legislation is.

Although many countries have introduced national bans, America has taken a piecemeal approach. A number of states, counties and municipalities have introduced various types of bans, and have enforced them with varying degrees of rigour.

The problem with this, say Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, economists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, is that smoking bans seem to have been followed by an increase in drunk-driving and in fatal accidents involving alcohol. In research published in the Journal of Public Economics, the authors find evidence that smokers are driving farther to places where smoking in bars is allowed.

The researchers analysed data from 120 American counties, 20 of which had banned smoking. They found a smoking ban increased fatal alcohol-related car accidents by 13% in a typical county containing 680,000 people. This is the equivalent of 2.5 fatal accidents (equivalent to approximately six deaths). Furthermore, drunk-driving smokers have not changed their ways over time. In areas where the ban has been in place for longer than 18 months, the increased accident rate is 19%.

The findings, say the pair, are consistent with the suggestion that smokers are driving farther to alternative places to drink. This may be because they are driving to bars with outdoor seating, or to bars which are not enforcing the smoking ban.

Another explanation is that some smokers are “jurisdiction shopping” to places where they may puff. Accident rates can be especially high where border-hopping to still-smoky bars is possible. Accidents in Delaware county in Pennsylvania increased by 26% after the next-door state of Delaware introduced a smoking ban in 2002. Similarly, when Boulder county banned smoking, fatal accidents in Jefferson county, between Boulder county and Denver, went up by 40%. How this weighs up against the long-term health effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to well-meaning legislators.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.


Very interesting yet not surprising. When liquor stores use to be closed on sunday here in Delaware everyone simply crossed into Maryland to get their booze. State Line Liquors is the name of the joint and on sunday the whole parking lot was full of DE. license plates. DE's liquor stores are now allowed to be open till 5 on sundays. It all just goes to show over and over again that prohibition does not work. Where there's a will there's a way. And prohibiting usually just makes matters worse.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Are you sure about that? I just watched the news and they clearly mentioned that this would only apply to CWP holders. Its been awhile since I looked at the actual law, so maybe they (and me) are mistaken.

And remember, those with CWP are pretty safe. The last time I checked, the number of people with CWP who had them revoked for any reason was a very small percentage. If this law does indeed apply only to CWP holders I don't feel there is anything to be worried about.You may be right. How many classes are required for a Concealed Carry in FL? I see FL honors about 30 states CCP. It took me 15 minutes of paperwork to get mine in WA, no classes.
Dont you? Aren't you one that doesn't want to leave it up to the "individual business owners" to decide whether or not to allow smoking in his/her establishment?Sorry but anyone trying to defend intentionally poisoning the air, killing employees and customers within any establishment or public venue doesn't have any argument, try again. And of course, the huge, overwhelming majority of people on the planet agree it's ignorant and downright stupid to do so.

But I do defend your right to poison the air you breath and slowly infect yourself with some of worse diseases known to man. :)

America's smoking bans are causing fatal accidents

:rofl:
Now that's some funny sh*t!

[pedro]

Police stations are armed to the teeth. When was the last time anyone walked into a police station - be he/she a disgruntled employee or just some mutt off the street - and started shooting up the place.

An armed society is a polite society.

I don't know if the US is a polite society, but it's certainly well armed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828

[Bronco Yoda]

just think how much more civil the boss would be if you were allowed to carry at your desk...

[Rohirrim]

So now I don't have the right to tell somebody who is carrying a weapon to leave my property? That's an interesting reading of the Constitution.

[Beantown Bronco]

I can't think of one instance where it would be beneficial for any of my fellow co-workers to have guns in their cars instead of leaving them at home.

I disagree with the forcing of the employer's hands under this bill and fail to see how it would be unconstitutional to not pass it. There are plenty of "constitutional rights" that just don't translate to private property/privately owned businesses/places of work. This should be one of them IMO.