Victory for Private Business – Fed Judge Strikes Down Florida’s Gun at Work Law

While I’m a big supporter of the 2nd amendment, I’m also a bigger supporter of private property rights. This law infringes on business owners’ rights in deciding who can have a gun on their private property.

Basically this law stated that a private business could not ban employees or customers from bringing weapons in their cars on their business property. If the business fired the employee or refused to allow the employee or customer to bring a weapon, they could be sued for damages. The federal judge issued a temporary injunction striking down most of the law. Hopefully the judge’s ruling will stand. Otherwise, there’s no telling what other crazy requirements private business owners will be forced to do against their will.

You can read the article by clicking below:
Download file

Read the judge’s opinion here.

8 thoughts on “Victory for Private Business – Fed Judge Strikes Down Florida’s Gun at Work Law”

  1. I dont know, Mike. Seems to me if the State has allowed me to obtain a concealed carry permit, then said permit should be all encompassing and I should be allowed to carry my weapon at all times.

  2. And you can carry it in your car on the public streets, etc.,

    but likewise as a private business owner, I should have the right to say I want no weapons on my property without the fear of getting sued.

  3. Well, that’s a problem then. Because sure, I can carry my weapon legally to work but what do I do with it when I get there if my boss doesnt allow me to bring it onto the property?

    I either have a constitutional right to bear arms or I dont.

    I can undestand the “there’s no telling what other crazy requirements private business owners will be forced to do against their will” point of view. But as a business owner, that’s your responsibility just like, say, having to use union employees.

  4. The constitutional right only means is that the government cannot prohibit you from owning a weapon or keeping it at home etc.

    the constitution does not apply to private businesses.

    It’s like the stupid no smoking laws which force businesses to ban smoking rather than allowing them to make the choice of who they want to cater too.

  5. So Private businesses have more rights than individuals and the Constitution itself, will your Business supply adecuate security for me, so I don’t get held up and killed in your private parking lot ?
    Or will you as a private owner , jump in front of the knife and bullet meant for me as Am being held up in your parking lot ?

    So many issues to think about !
    Meanwhile I will Carry my .380 Beretta.

  6. but likewise as a private business owner, I should have the right to say I want no weapons on my property without the fear of getting sued

    Fine.

    You’ll guarantee my safety, right? and failing to do that, then I (or my estate) will be able to sue your business for that failure?

    I’d call that fair. Actually, I shouldn’t have to file suit – I should simply be able to submit an itemized bill and the business and its insurance carrier can pay up.

    Unfortunately, someone bent upon mayhem and murder isn’t likely to be stopped by a sign saying No firearms allowed. I suspect they’ll read that as this is happy hunting ground, and there is no bag limit!

  7. Peter, the constitution applies to government. A business has the same rights as an individual. They are the same under the law.

    This law is bad. If I want to have a rule in my workplace of no weapons, an employee can say screw you and sue me for damages.

    As for your question as to who will protect you if you get assaulted in the parking lot? If you are an employee and the lot is the employer’s, you have a claim under workers’ comp. If you’re a third party, you can sue for negligent security if in fact the owner was negligent.

    Or you can say, screw you, I won’t work for you and I will not come to your establishment.

    In lieu of the government saying that I must allow you to bring a gun to work even if I don’t want you to.

  8. The judge granted the injunction with respect to a provision in the 2008 law, which took effect July 1, that compelled some businesses but not others to allow customers to secure a gun in a vehicle, finding that probably was unconstitutional. Hinkle notes that the court’s ruling was issued only in response to a preliminary injunction requested by the business groups and that it was subject to revision when and if the case is considered on the merits. …

Comments are closed.