A federal judge calls guns-at-work law ’stupid’
July 2, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, policies
A federal judge soon will rule on the legality of a law allowing employees to bring guns to work. The judge’s first reaction to the law: He said it’s “stupid.”
The judge’s comments came when he examined a suit by business groups asking him to strike down Florida’s law that makes it OK for employees to bring weapons on company property.
The judge has initially delayed ruling on the business groups’ request to stop the law from going into effect on July 1, but he said he would issue a ruling later this month.
The law came about after a lawsuit involving an employee who insisted that he had a right guaranteed by the Constitution to keep a gun in his vehicle parked in company property. Florida’s legislature took up the employee’s fight and passed a law OK-ing guns at the workplace.
The business groups are using workplace safety as their grounds for asking for the gun ban on employer property.
Tags: Constitution, Florida, guns
July 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
It was wise for him to defer his ruling till after the Supreme’s upheld the 2nd Amendment. However, JUDGES are allowed to have guns at the bench, PLUS they usually have gun-toting bailiffs nearby! So why are guns OK for them, just not for everone else? Is he saying judges are BETTER than everone else?
July 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Your report is somewhat slanted. The law’s intent is to protect employees from unreasonable company rules that forbid them from having any gun or ammunition in their locked vehicle while in the company parking lot. In many areas, employees may hunt before or after work, and therefore have their guns with them to cut down on travel time. In other areas, they are needed for self defense. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
As as employer, we have a duty to protect ALL of our employees. If someone is allowed to bring a gun to work in their car, what is to stop them from going out and getting it when they get upset about something – and then coming back in the building with their gun and blowing people’s heads off? I’m sure that is an extreme case, but it could and probably will happen at some point if this is allowed. I am all for allowing people to possess guns – however, as an employer we have rules and can tell people to leave their guns off our property. There are rules of all types – and rules are there for a reason. If you don’t like the rules, don’t work there!
July 7th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
We have a Workplace Safety Policy that not bans bringing any weapon onto company property, which ensures the safety of ALL employees. This policy does not infringe upon the employees right to bear arms or tries to take their guns away, it just requires them to keep them off of company property. This new law does infringe on every company’s obligation to keep their employees safe, every employee’s right to feel safe at work, and conflicts with the safety program at least our Workers Comp Insurance company requires, as well as many of our customers, to be Safe Workplace compliant.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
So what’s to stop an upset employee from going home and getting a gun and coming back and blowing someone’s head off? That’s happened enough times. At least if others had weapons in their cars, there would be a possibility of being able to stop the person on the rampage before they can kill too many people. Unfortunately, too many people have the attitudes I’m seeing here: 1. That by banning weapons, you are able to keep them all out of the workplace, which has been proven false numerous times; and 2. That the police can protect you in an emergency, which is also a false premise as Larry so eloquently noted above.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I was not saying that by banning weapons you are going to be able to keep them out of the workplace – I am not the naive. However, as an employer, we also have a right and a responsiblity to keep our employees safe – and if my company does not want guns on their property then that should be our right. And the comment that if another employee could go out, get their own gun out of their car, come back into the building and shoot the “attacker” is going to protect you more than the police (which I don’t think there is anything that anyone can do to stop such an attack) – well, I hope they don’t take out a couple of other innocent employees or customers while trying to shoot the attacker. I was not saying that banning guns from property is a cure all for workplace violence, but it is a step that a company can take to try to protect its workers. Perhaps in the time it would take for a disgruntled employee to drive home it would give them time to cool off – instead of just being able to walk out to their car, get their gun and then walk right back in to shoot. Even when a company has a policy banning weapons, it does not mean employees will follow the policy – but it is a company’s duty to do what they can (including enforcing the policy should they find an employee in violation) to protect our employees and customers. Oh, and one of our local legislators told another collegue of mine that they could buy a lock box for their front door and have their employees (instead of keeping their guns in their cars) “deposit” their guns for the day and then pick them up when they go home. Hello – nightmare!!!
July 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Lynn P’s comments overlook a few things. If someone had to leave work, drive home, get a weapon and drive back to work, they would at least have time to cool off a bit and perhaps rethink the whole “killing someone will solve this problem” mindset. It would eliminate reacting in the heat of passion and allow a cooler head to prevail. And the thought of gun battles between employees is terrifying and little too “wild west” for me. If someone is so upset that they decide killing someone is the only solution, yes, they will find a way to do it. However, why should we make it easy for them? Also, property owners should have a say about what is being brought onto their property. Unfortunately, a law forcing them to allow employees to bring guns onto their property will not protect the property owner from being sued and held liable for the consequenses of actions taken with weapons the property owner wanted to prohibit in the first place.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I would like to give an example of a citizen intervention that occured recently.
A man went to several churches shooting and killing the people inside. The police were following behind him to clean up the mess, as they had no way to determine were he would go next. He finally came to a church were a woman had a CCW permit. After shooting many people at the church the woman shot the man. It was determined that he had several more churchs on his hit list that day. She in turn used the training that is required to have a CCW and saved many more lives that would have been taken that day.
Why does the rights of the nut jobs out there have to prevail over the good honesst citizens! Just because one bad guy stes an example does not make everything bad. Why has society got the doom and gloom attitude.
My frustration is that all the dialogue on this subject has been about the negative and no one has mentioned that sometimes GOD can be on the side of those who believe and positive things can happen.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Re Laura’s comment:
I am a little confused over your story. These comments are about employees having guns locked in their cars when they are on their employer’s property. Your talking about some spree killer targeting churches. Hardly the same thing. The point of this discussion is “Should the individual’s 2nd amendment rights prevail over the employer’s right to restrict what can and cannot be brought on company property?”
Is there anything (legal to possess) that you don’t want other people bringing on your property, even if they don’t use it?
One point that you do bring up though is revelant: “…rights of nut jobs prevailing over those of good honest citizens”. How can employees differentiate between employees that are “good, honest citizens” and those who may become a “nut job” when it comes to the presence of a weapon on company property prior to misuse? So many times you hear of people flipping out one day that always “seemed so normal”. Employers don’t want to try to figure this out so weapons are banned from company property altogether. While it won’t eliminate workplace violence, hopefully it will reduce the immediate potential.
It seems to me the only positive thing in your story was that the killer was eventually stopped – but many believers died first…including those that the woman shot before she shot the man!
August 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
dose it matter how the judge rules on this both will take it to the next step. it come down to a every simple issue dose FL like LA view the car as a part of the home. so the judge should rule on it base on the state constustion.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I am a ccw permit holder and find it hard to beleive that just because a person has a gun in their car that people think that they will get mad and kill someone. Most people that are going to kill someone will do it with whatever the have at hand on the the spot. Most of these people have a history of violance and are prohibited from carring or owning a gun anyway. I have a bad temper and I have never hurt anyone. The people that are legal to carry are not a threat. It is our right to carry arms as long as it is in accordance with the local and fed laws. At work or play it is against the law to kill someone. How much more tax payer dollars are we going to waste making more laws that say the same thing. It is against the law to kill. Period. at work at home at school at the bank it stupid to make a law to prohibit guns from work. Post a sign ( no weapons ) as the owner of a buisness it’s your choice. Parking lots not included. Put it under a roof and it becomes included.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I have been reading the comments of board and fond it to show the lack of understanding when it comes to guns, killing, and the work place. If you feel that a gun is a weapon and there for should not be allowed in the parking lot. Then you need to take a look at your work place for all items that can be weapons. Make a list of them. In this list you need to look for sharp objects, thing that can be use as clubs, things that can be use to impale someone and so on remember on 9/11 box knifes, nail files where used. (those items only killed 3000 people) After you have made you list think about how much work you going to get done with all those item removed. You will find that you can work. So is the problem the weapon or the employee ?
If you feel you have personnel that can go over the deep end and use a gun from his car, then why have you not help or remover them. If they are that unstable then they are a safety risk to others when working. If you look at it you will find that they bring down the moral of the work force, reduce output and a whole host of thing. So in short not guns in the parking lot is a feel good thing but yet does not take care of the issue of the unstable employee. But yet we can say see he broke the rule it not our fault. But in really we did not address the problem because we left the real threat in the work place the employee.
I must be up front about my back ground 20 Plus years USARMY Medic ret with 3 ½ of combat, I am a companion shooter; I grow up hunting but no longer hunt. I am work on getting my CWP or CCP, I and a strong supporter of the Constitution of the USA. I now work as a CORP. Risk Manager (NOTE the job title risk manager one who manages the risk)
June 16th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I tried to make two comments about being fired from a Florida company that is owned by a mouse. I had a firearm locked in my car in a remote parking lot on property and was let go after 22 years of spotless serivce — zero tolerance. But this site wouldn’t print either comment! I guess MM has more control over the public and society than you’d expect!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:02 am
In the time this first came about. The appeals court has ruled on this issue in OK and there ruling was on the side of the employee and state law. if you really want to understand this issue you need to take a good look at the Ok case. At one point the employee groups even try to use OSHA general duty rule to in force on guns. But the court threw OSHA real quick. Fl is just one of many states that give this right to its people, of my last count it was up to about 14 and growing.
Some employers are use loop hole like saying ok you can have your gun but you can not have ammo. Other are gating in there parking lot for employee parking ares, thus making them park in a non public parking area.
in reviewing the law in moast state if an employer realy dose not want gun in there employee cars the laws allow way to limit it.
to end heres some food for the brain
Doctors vs Gun owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that’s 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is1,500..
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Where do the rights of gun owners end and the rights of property owners start? What if I know someone who likes to carry a gun, and even has a permit for a concealed weapon. Can I tell that person he cannot come into my house with his gun? Or is that also infringing on his right to carry a gun? If I own property, whether it is my home or a business, I should have the right to tell people not to bring guns onto my property.
If gun owners want rights, they need to respect the rights of others.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’m with Bob on this. Inside, outside doesn’t matter. If you are on my property and doing something I don’t want you to do there, I have a right to tell you to get off my property unless you have a warrant. I’m not violating your rights, I’m protecting my own.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Bob you are right property owners do have rights. Along with gun owners so the question is where is the line drawn? As of right now there are 14 states that protect works from being fired if they have a gun in their car. As long as it is a public parking lot. Some state has gone as far as say you can make them park in a gun area only. If you do not want a gun to come in to your store you must post as so.
I would like you to stop and think about this next statement.
So let take this to smoking my company has a no smoking on company property. So I should be able to go look in to their car and see if they have tobacco in the car I now can fire them? If not tobacco, what if we said any medications over the counter or not (our schools are doing this), or lets replace it with long black rain coats (kids get pulled off to the side all the time for them) and this is done in the name of safety for the kids in school. So now we replace it with flags, bibles, and/or haircuts. If you look back in our history there was a time not so long ago that is was the right of the property own not to let someone on the property do to the color of their skin. So when does it stop? When does the right of a person start and a property owner start.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
A property owner’s rights stop at the property line.
I have the following two policies at my company:
Employees may not bring weapons onto company property.
Employees may not use tobacco on company property.
Note: it doesn’t say you may not bring tobacco products onto company property, it says don’t use them. The parking lot at my company is inside the fence on company property and is not a public parking lot. Security officers are instructed to inspect vehicles daily for loss prevention purposes. They would also be expected to report any weapons found.
Bringing up school dress codes and race is off topic and already covered under other laws.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
PS: We have dress codes which includes what color and style clothing you may wear. We also regulate hairstyles, piercings, and showing tattoos.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:26 am
nomi,
You hit it on the head by have you parking inside a fence and control area. So with that the law would back you on no wepones policy.
As for the other area i just wanted to get some thinking going. So offen we make rules or back laws that sond good but we do not look at where they can go or how they can be used. i am a strongbelive in never make a rule or law that you can not or will not enfoce every time.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:29 am
ps. you make a strong statment that school and color are off topi and already cover under the laws. will in 14 state this is now cover under the law. so why should anyone fight it if it is now law?
July 21st, 2009 at 9:05 am
James, the courts have actually ruled that companies that have policies banning smoking completely (at work or not) are legal. So a company with this extreme policy could look in someones vehicle to see if they have tobacco. Do a google on Weyco company – 46 states have laws allowing a company to fire an employee who smokes off the job.
Using race is a non-issue. People have no say in what race they are. They do have a say in carrying a weapon.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am
And James, since you wanted to go to the extreme for property rights, why not get some thinking going on the other extreme of gun rights. I own my home and have little children. Because of this I do not want guns in my home. I invite a neighbor over for a BBQ and I notice he is carrying a pistol. He has a CWP, and maybe is even an off-duty police officer with years of experience. Do I as a property owner have the right to ask him to leave his gin at home or not come in my back yard? After all, he has this “right” to carry a gun so how can I infringe on this?
July 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am
Somehow this all reminds me of a speech I once heard. There was one line that has stuck with me for years….
You have a right to swing your arm but your right ends where my face begins.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:35 am
Bob,
your are on target. for years I did not have gun in my home with kids, now they are gone and I am enjoying the shooting sports again with my kids now that they are of age. my hold point is let’s ask one another not pass laws. as a smoker of a pipe and a CWP I have no problem leaving my pipe or gun at home to come to your party. but should we need a law to stop me from doing it. for so long we have seen laws put in place to stop people from doing thing and now it has got to the point we have to pass laws to keep our rights this is sad day.
With all rights come reasonability, what we have loss is people standing up and take reasonability for their action. Along with the ability to talk to one another. So we make rules and laws to hide behind. If you ask me to stop smoking my pipe or not to bring my gun around you I will, but when you tell me I cannot do it or I have no right. I stop and look at thing in a different light. What we forget is this how most people will react. So may be the next law should be “everyone has to ask first”.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am
PS.
thank you all for a good debate.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Nomi, love that line. I will have to remember it in the future.
James, the companies did ask their employers to leave their guns at home and not bring them to work. The only laws passed have been by the NRA to prevent property owners from keeping guns off of their property. By your own argument 6 posts up, the NRA should not have fought to pass laws in these 14 states.
But on this I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
And it is nice that we can have the debate without all of the insults and grief that usually accompanies these talks.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:54 am
i already lived the life of fighting while in the army for 20+ so now i refuse to fight. i look forward to our next Debate it is what keeps us young.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Bob/James,
Thank you!
November 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Simply, I’m not for the law being passed. It is on par to having “love contracts” so key personnel can date the receptionist. As many have stated, it’s not the place for weaponry. I’m trying to train my personnel to act professionally, and use positive communication towards one another; to not be emotionally immature and not antagonize one another. Perhaps there are environments where people are joyful and won’t use the gun except to hunt after work; then there are other environments, and in every industry, because I have worked in IT, Defense, Banking, and Heavy Construction, there are hot heads who have told me, “Perhaps, I will just wait and take it up with them after work”. Well, if they have their gun with them, and it’s allowed then what is my companies liability?” Simply, I don’t want to work in a state that is that cavalier that it negates the safety of their workforce by passing laws that allow people to legally carry arms into a workplace. Recently, VA had a woman prosecuted because her son put weapons in her van. A workplace is a workplace – are we going to start discriminating about what workplaces have staff that are “mentally healthy” enough to bear arms? I don’t think so – or we do, they are law enforcement and armed security guards that go through stringent background checks to have the priveledge to do so.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
The woman was a cafeteria worker at a school…….. The kid was a student. I forgot to mention that. But it is a workplace, huh?