Gun law gets a big challenger
August 14, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, State Law
Florida’s “guns in the parking lot” law has been in effect for just a short time, but it’s already got a big-name challenger.
Just a few days after the new rule took effect, a Disney World security guard was fired after he wouldn’t let the company search his car for firearms (the law prohibits employers from searching cars for guns).
Also, the company e-mailed all employees, telling them it was exempt from the law based on an exception for employers that handle explosives (the park has a lot of fireworks).
The state attorney general’s gotten several complaints from employees, which may prompt legal action. We’ll keep you posted.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Fireworks are NOT explosives, though they may be incendiary - just ask the BATF, the heroes of Waco. Disney is NOT exempt. Bravo for the security guard. Hold their feet to the fire, and put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Disney really does want to control their employees. I think a trained security guard has the proper training to keep a firearm, in his car, and not in the park.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Begging your pardon, fireworks ARE explosives and are classed as such. They are class ‘C’ explosives and are required by federal statute to be placarded as explosives when transported. They require a safe zone of 72 feet per inch of circumference of the firing tube.
I predict the exemption will stand. If the SG wanted to exercise or challenge a “right” then he should have taken the proper way through the court to begin with. He should have been fired.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I have no expertise in explosives, but John has it right in para. 2. Our company is in OH and we do not want firearms on our property PERIOD. If people need to have their firearms with them during the work day then they can find a job somewhere else.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Disney World trying to claim an exemption simply based on explosives handling is absurd. True, they do a nightly fireworks display, however how many of the park employees are actually involved in executing that presentation? If it’s not the predominate number I would think it’s safe to say that “explosives” is not Disney’s main business function and they therefore should not be exempt under this loophole in the law.
Assuming the guard had gone through the necessary background checks to legally purchase the weapon as well as the training and additional background checks to obtain a concealed carry license, he should have every right to have the weapon in his personal vehicle and to deny his employer the right to search said vehicle for weapons. The only exception I can see would be in a case where a complaint was lodged that the weapon was used to threaten another employee or park guest, at which time the local authorities, NOT the employer, should become involved.
This is simply another example of a huge corporation who feels they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This law is ridiculous. I work in a very bad part of the city that I live in and do not feel secure at all at night when it is time to leave. People who legally carry handguns seldom are the ones commiting crimes. If you have a concealed weapons permit you should be allowed to carry to work.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I think the point is being missed or at the very least only wanting to acknowledge half of the problem. The argument is slanted toward what an employee wants as if that [b]want[/b] is greater than the exemption created in the law for places of business that have explosives. As I understand this issue the exemption is new after the USSC decided in favor of the DC case. So it already has been adjudicated.
Challenge the law fine, but do it in a manner commensurate with respect with the business having a moral and legal obligation within the law themselves. The exemption to my knowledge does not qualify amount of explosives, rather or not the employee is competent to carry a firearm, or subject the employee to a violation of his 2nd amendment rights.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
The employee would have fared better to allow the search of his car and then fight the action Disney took upon finding the gun. As it is, it’s a reasonable rule for an employer to be able to search vehicles and for an employee to refuse the search is certainly grounds for termination. That doesn’t mean everything found after the search is actionable. The employee would have had a much better shot (excuse me) of fighting for his right under the FL law for the gun than fighting refusing the search.
That said, how stupid is it going to look when someone with a gun causes a problem at work and the news media and OSHA descend on the workplace. The self-defense argument will look very shallow after a shootout when innocent people are injured.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Keep in mind that the Constitution acknowledges keeping and bearing arms as a right. So what other rights is Disney taking from their employees?
August 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Qualify “seldom”. Also which “seldom” is now the responsibility of the employer to absorb? Is “seldom” to the victim better since it is only one out of ten or maybe 100? Available firearms based on personal fear is even more of a reason to keep the numbers down in the work place. It is an open invitation for disaster. Reactionary, convenience, anger, fear, vigilantly, misunderstanding of a situation, untrained eye for criminal activity as opposed to being anxious to exercise a right to fire upon someone. All of these ae an eventuality of this I need my gun in the workplace madness.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The Consitution acknowledges keeping and bearing of arms at a right, but not at a school, an airport or my private property (and apparently Disney’s). John understand this issue well.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Lars, it’s an acknowledged fact that employers have pretty broad rights to control their workplaces, especially for the safety of all the employees and other people. Just as there are certain 1st Amendment restrictions in the workplace, it’s not unreasonable for there to be certain 2nd Amendment restrictions. An employer must be able to provide a safe workplace and having weapons floating around is not safe. We see every day escalation of violence on the street because a gun is available. It’s only a matter of time until a supervisor’s order or a comment by a co-worker is met with gunfire as a response.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Assuming that Lars (3:45PM posting) has some education and should be able to read & fully comprehend the English language, I can only surmise that Lars is another gun obsessed zealot who selectively disregards those parts of our Constituiton that they don’t like. I wonder what part of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” he doesn’t understand? Or is it that he just doesn’t like those words being in our Constitution and choses to ignore them?
It’s hard for me to envision Lars as an HR person, since it is HR’s job to protect employees, not subject them to being shot at work. If I sound sensitive to this subject, I am. In our small town, we’ve had three parking lot killings in the past 10 years. one of which occurred about a year ago. Last year an employee in our state that had been fired walked out to his car, got his supposedly 2nd Ammendment protected gun and killed the HR Director that had just let him go. What happened to that HR Director’s right to a safe workplace? The bottom line is that I don’t want a bunch of 2nd Ammendment zealots such as a Tim McVay bringing their guns inside of Disney World when my family or anyone else’s family is there. Hang in there Disney World. In the end you’re right legally, morally & ethically.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Okay, I don’t have a copy of the specific laws in question in front of me, so don’t go getting political on me. This is a PERSONAL opinion, not a legal one. Does anyone posting here actually know ALL of the facts of this case? If not, why would you say what anyone should, or should not have done? There are so many “what if’s”, or “he should of’s” that can be thrown at a case like this, that it makes replies like those found here hard for me to read. Of course I have my opinions, however, I hold them unless I’m certain of all the facts…..and you can bet that there are plenty facts about a case like this that will not make it to the media. And even if they did, do you really think you can believe every detail posted by the media? Come on, you should know better than that. Allow the court to gather ALL the facts, then hope and pray that the TRUTH prevails, and justice is done.
Ya’ll have fun pokin’ and proding at one another, I’ve said my piece.
DRG
Ohio
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
David. I respect the point you are attempting to make but by doing so you have succeeded at doing what you are chiding. Absent those that have personal opinions about gun control the issue remains rather or not Florida has the right to set parameters to restrict guns. That is a fact. It is also a fact that an employee was dismissed for a workplace violation. It is a fact that Disney has class 3 explosives and plenty of it. It is a fact that there is and will be controversy about the right to bear arms. So there are plenty of facts are to comment on.
Usually when someone walks down the ‘ we don’t have all the facts’ road it is because they feel strongly against popular opinion but have nothing to support it other than the closeted support of we don’t have all the facts. Your right of course, but remember allow us the same right, ok?
August 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
For those of you who favor employees being allowed to have guns in their cars while at work, I hope you’re really in touch with your sensitive side and don’t make anyone angry. Cause after they shoot you, someone else is going to have fire them.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Most people, given differing opinions could argue for…or against any subject. This subject is no different. I also know of cases (we all do) where a disgruntled employee used a firearm, knife, fire or other means to kill or “punish” those who wronged him or her. I personally do not believe that the right to keep a legal, registered firearm by an employee who is licensed to carry it, inside a locked vehicle will “cause” one of these terrible events to happen. It is not the law abiding employees I am the most concerned about. If everyone will check back in their memories as well, there have been cases in the news where an armed bystander STOPPED an event from happening or ended the violence with less loss of life. I also guarantee, before this law past, many of us had employees who has concealed weapons in their cars anyway.
I am responsible for participating in discipline and termination just like all other HR professionals and have had my tires slashed, threatening phone calls, etc. If I am too afraid to do my job, I should find another profession. This is the real world and bad things do happen, but guns don’t cause these things to happen, the PEOPLE who choose to use them for evil purposes do.
September 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Jackie T, I honestly can’t think of instances “where an armed bystander STOPPED an event from happening or ended the violence with less loss of life.” And what happens when the “armed bystander” takes out a few other innocent bystanders in an exchange of gunfire?
You truly are a brave man/woman that you are not concerned about such danger. I hope you never have to look at the business end of a gun. I hope you’ll still be able to look for another profession then.
September 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
TJ - I do personally know of 2 instances where a legally armed bystander stopped continued/ additional bloodshed. It has nothing to do with being “brave” and you did not read my comments very closely if you think I am “not concerned”. I am very concerned about my personal safety and the safety of my employees but am not naive enough to think that if someone wants to commit a violent crime, they will do so whether or not the weapon is in their car, or in their house or at the store. I am just reasonable enough to know that there are two ways of looking at each side of every argument. I am as concerned with breaking down on the side of the road and having a “not so helpful” person stop to help me as I am violence at work.
September 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
. . .not to forget. . . this was a case about an exemption in the Florida law where a property used/had/stored fireworks which are a class 3 explosive, could prohibit fire arms on their property. This firing was not about the general licensed citizen with a gun concealed in their car. It should be apparent that this employee challenged the exemption and was fired for a workplace violation.
Let’s say there is a workplace rule that you cannot use your personal cell phone while at your duty station. Any other place would be fine under normal circumstances. So you decide that instead of working within the framework of changing the policy that you happen not to like, you use your cell. You get disciplined. So now the company is at fault?
This is the same thing. The issue that it is about a gun is secondary to the issue that it was a workplace violation, a violation of Florida law that, by the way, was instituted AFTER the USSC decision.