In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation [concealed carry permits], critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

(Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Could the background checks be more airtight? Of course. So let's fix that, instead of conjuring up scare stories.

On the other issue, as a business owner, I am keenly aware of my rights. I also know that government exercises all manner of control over what I can do on my premises. Some of this I agree with, other bits are annoying as hell, but it's fact. To suddenly and disingenuously try to toss business owners' rights in as a tool to defeat the legality of automobile storage of firearms is pretty weak, but certainly a predictable tactic.

I have no right to dictate policy on any other legally held personal property the employee might keep in his vehicle; why would I expect to be able to dictate this policy?

And really, common sense has to weigh in here. Florida residents have the legal right to possess firearms in their vehicles. What should they do, stop on the way to work and lock the gun in their bank box, then pick it up on the way home? Or be forced to leave it at home all the time? We know all too well that the latter is the goal of the gun-grabbing crowd.

(Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

I'll take the public review of permits from 2007, as reported by the Sun-Sentinel article I linked, thanks. After all, we do want the most recent data available. Let's look together:

In an investigation of the state's concealed weapon system, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel found those licensed to carry guns in the first half of 2006 included:

More than 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies but qualified because of a loophole in the law.

216 people with outstanding warrants, including a Tampa pizza deliveryman wanted since 2002 for fatally shooting a 15-year-old boy over a stolen order of chicken wings.

128 people with active domestic violence injunctions against them, including a Hallandale man who was ordered by a judge to stay away from his former son-in-law after pulling a handgun out of his pocket and telling the man: "I'll blow you away, you son of a b----."

Six registered sex offenders.

Loophole or not, there's 1600 people who--and I think we can agree on this point--shouldn't have been granted concealed-carry permits, and that's only in six months! When the system is that broken, why on earth should we expand the reach of concealed-carry permits? (Again, I'll have to point out that we have no means by which to follow up on this any further, since the Legislature made the list of permit recipients a secret.)

Florida residents have the legal right to possess firearms in their vehicles.

Not until the passage of this law in July - that's kind of my point.

I have no right to dictate policy on any other legally held personal property the employee might keep in his vehicle;

Is that true? We certainly control alcohol in vehicles, don't we? How about other weapons, such as knives?

why would I expect to be able to dictate this policy?

Because his vehicle is on your property, and he has effectively sold his rights to you while he works for you each day. It's really that simple. After all, we don't have unfettered First/Fourth Amendment rights in the workplace, right? (Think mandatory drug testing.) In "at will" employment states, employees can be dismissed for just about any reason. The Constitution doesn't trump a contract of employment; it limits government action, not private actors, right?

1. I said we should look at fixing the vetting process, didn't I? What are you arguing about?

2. Are you simply dismissing the citation I posted, because it doesn't dovetail with all the gun-grabbers' alarmist rhetoric?

3. We don't have any right to tell someone not to carry alcohol in a motor vehicle. We have the right to prohibit consumption, yes.

4. Florida residents have always had the right to carry firearms in their vehicles.

5. And finally, why are the gun grabbers, lefties all, and hardly the class usually in support of business in any sense, suddenly falling all over themselves in support of "business owners' rights?" Yeah, we know the answer to that one.

1) The vetting process should have been fixed before the reach of the permits was extended.

2) No, I'm dismissing it because, while it speaks to crime rate--which is affected by many other issues beyond concealed carry--my concern was simply with the issuance of permits to those who shouldn't have them. Tell you what: if any crime rates has gone up since 1997, can we blame it on the increased number of permits? I don't think so.

3) Actually, employers can prohibit alcohol on company property, including vehicles. They can also prohibit other weapons, such as knives, and explosives as well. In fact, the legislature made sure that this law did NOT apply to other legal weapons.

4) Not on private property belonging to others, they didn't.

The substance of the new law prohibits a business or employer from precluding employees (including independent contractors), customers and other invitees from bringing concealed firearms onto business property, such as a parking lot, providing the bearer has a valid permit for the weapon and the firearm is stored out of sight. Additionally, the law prohibits employers and business operators from making inquiries regarding the presence of a firearm in a motor vehicle on the business property or searching the vehicle to ascertain the presence of a firearm. Employers are also prohibited from conditioning an offer of employment on the fact that an applicant does or does not have a permit to carry a firearm, and may not require an employee to refrain from lawfully keeping a firearm in their personal vehicle. Most notably, the law prohibits an employer from terminating or otherwise discriminating against an employee or customer for possessing a firearm so long as the firearm is not exhibited on company property for any unlawful purpose. The law applies exclusively to firearms and ammunition and not to other types of weapons such as knives or explosives.

If this is so up-and-up straighforward, why did they exempt public and private properties that are:

* school property,
* correctional institutions,
* nuclear plants,
* home to activities involving "national defense, aerospace or homeland security,"
* locations whose primary business is "the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials,"
* "A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer."
* "Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state."

Yeah, we expect that last one simply because Federal rules preempt state law (cough), but the rest are kind of goofy if there's nothing to worry about, right? I mean, we exempt schools to protect the kids (right?), but we won't exempt 30,000-kids-per-day DISNEY WORLD?

Oh, and I particularly like the idea that your 2A rights extend to a company parking lot, but not to a company car, even if you're driving the company car on someone else's property. So, employers can exert greater control over their cars--wherever they may be--than they can over their parking lots. Such consistency...

1. I'm glad you want to make sure that every law is perfect before it goes into effect. The Florida legislature could use that info. Can you e-mail the procedure?

2. This speaks directly to the issue of crimes, or lack thereof, committed by concealed carry permit holders.

3. Can I prohibit employees from carrying Playboy magazines in their cars?

4. I said Florida residents had always been allowed to carry firearms in their cars. You said they hadn't been allowed to do so until this new legislation. I clarified the matter.

Here's my biggest concern:

Why would I want to visit Disney World if security isn't armed?
Any nutcase hiding a piece could pop off many before going down.

1) Ha ha, ho ho, it is to laugh. OK, I'll give you that one.

2) Actually, it doesn't, because the public is no longer allowed to know who has a concealed-carry permit. You can quote 10-year-old data, sure, but much has happened since then. The number of violent crimes in Florida has risen, but the rate of violent crime (per 100,000 people) has dropped. Unfortunately, we can't correlate more localized data (like the 28% rise in murders in South Florida from 2005 to 2006) with concealed-carry, because of the aforementioned imposition of secrecy.

3) We're talking about weapons here, and why we'd force employers to accept guns on their property while allowing them to prohibit other weapons. I mentioned alcohol bans simply because you claimed that employers couldn't prohibit other legal possessions. Your "Playboy" strawman comes across as either "willfully ignorant" or "desperate to change the subject."

I note that you didn't see fit to answer my question about exemptions to this statute, so I'll ask it once more. If we allow schools to continue to prohibit weapons--even in their parking lots--to protect the kids, why on earth wouldn't we allow loaded-with-kids-every-day Disney World to do the same?

Oh, and I really would like to hear your thoughts on this comment:

Oh, and I particularly like the idea that your 2A rights extend to a company parking lot, but not to a company car, even if you're driving the company car on someone else's property. So, employers can exert greater control over their cars--wherever they may be--than they can over their parking lots.

Please don't come back with "gee, the law isn't perfect." They made it a point to put that exemption in place - how does that reconcile with the 2nd Amendment?

Private vehicle vs. company vehicle. Seems like a pretty distinct difference there, Wes. The law does not require companies to allow the employee to go armed in the building, either.

So, if I'm reading the statute properly:

A) The company's property rights trump my 2A rights when the property in question is the (company-owned) car.
B) However, my 2A rights trump the company's property rights when the property in question is the (company-owned) parking lot, but only if it's my car.
C) However, the company's property rights trump my 2A rights when the property in question is the (company-owned) building.
D) None of the above applies to any arms other than handguns, because the company's property rights trump my 2A rights (across the board) for any weapon that is NOT a concealed-carry firearm.

Um...sure, that's a principled 2nd Amendment argument...not. This strikes me as a "we're going to wedge in anything we can get" argument. (I note, in passing, that the original draft of the bill applied to ALL firearms.)

On top of this doughnut-hole expression of 2A rights--it's only solid in the middle--there's really no way to justify exempting schools (to protect the kids) while NOT exempting someplace like Disney World, which has more kids on any given day than any school in Florida.

Ah, these things always go quiet once they're pushed from the front page...