Gun legislation seeks to support law-abiding Floridians
By Letter to the Editor
Published October 10, 2005
Re: The NRA at work, Oct. 7.
Your editorial attacking the bills of Sen. Durell Peaden Jr. and Rep. Dennis Baxley, which seek to protect people legally keeping guns in their vehicles, used bad data to support employers' antigun policies.
According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, "for the most part, workplace homicides are not the result of disgruntled workers." In fact, because 75-82 percent of workplace homicides involve robbery, most are committed by strangers, according to the FBI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Instead of using reliable national data, your editorial relied on two flawed "studies."
The other study only looked at workplace shootings in comparison to the employers' policies, and didn't bother to ask who brought the gun. But it's a fair bet that most armed robbers don't read their victims' employee handbooks.
Law-abiding employees have a right under Florida law to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes. Carrying a firearm in your vehicle for protection while traveling to and from work and leaving that firearm locked securely in your vehicle while at work is a part of that right. This legislation doesn't give a new right. It protects an existing right by imposing penalties on those who are breaking the law by attempting to prohibit that right. Equally important is that it gives businesses immunity from liability if firearms stored on their property are misused or stolen.
Sen. Peaden and Rep. Baxley are simply trying to put Florida law on the side of law-abiding Floridians, not criminals. Their efforts deserve support.
Marion P. Hammer, NRA past president, Tallahassee
Tempest in a teapot
Re: The NRA at work, editorial.
This controversy is largely a tempest in a teapot. After years of researching pro and con on the entire "gun control" controversy, I haven't found a study on either side that wasn't contradicted by another study. The basic fallacy you fall into is assuming that potential criminals will be deterred by a law that prohibits them from having a gun in the first place. After all, if a person is angry enough that he would commit murder, he would violate an antiweapons law to do so.
The bill you mentioned is actually on the margins of the entire debate. An automobile is also "private property" and, in principle, the NRA is right. I would only object to the punishment. Violators should be subjected to noncriminal charges only. I don't think that a business owner should be slapped with a felony for telling an employee that he can't keep a legal firearm legally secured in his own automobile.
Leonard Martino, Tampa
An ugly GOP image
Re: Gun ban at work facing challenge, Oct. 3.
The article on the efforts of two Republican legislators to allow employees to bring guns to the parking lots of their workplaces did a good job of pointing out how Florida's Legislature insists on trying to out-crazy Oklahoma. You also managed to point out that employers would be shielded from legal liability if their employees commit a crime with one of the guns in question.
You neglected to mention that the victims of that crime would be left without recourse, unable to sue employers for failure to provide a safe working environment, unable to sue the perpetrator who would probably have died committing the crime, and with little chance of obtaining satisfaction from the government. How good is the average worker's life insurance? Better check now.
How long does it take to walk to your car when you're really, really angry? How many people can't stand their jobs or someone they work with?
I guess this is part of the Republican Party's effort to reshape America in their image. What a shame they don't realize how ugly that image is.
Jon Olson, Gulfport
Right wants judicial activism, too
Re: Harriet Miers.
It's ironic that the right's appreciation of "judicial restraint" has gone missing in the outcry over the Harriet Miers nomination. Again and again, conservatives have squawked that liberal appointees have "legislated from the bench," but now they're demanding guarantees that this Bush appointee actively work to further their agenda.
Make no mistake: The right's agitation over Miers' nomination reveals that their code-talk about "strict constructionism" and "originalism" is hollow and deceptive. They're not interested in "judicial restraint," or even equal justice under law. They're looking for an activist judge of their very own. We'd all do well to remember this at election time.
Andrew McAlister, Tampa
President made an astute choice
Recent op-ed pieces in the Times have been a bit confusing concerning the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Liberal contributors have been somewhat conciliatory toward Miers, while conservatives have been upset over the fact that she is not a right-wing ideologue. The left wing claims that Bush is too weak to name a true blue conservative to the bench, while the right claims to have been jilted by the president.
Both are flat out wrong. Neither party has the facts at hand to make an assumption one way or the other. The left will end up opposing Miers by using the "cronyism" argument and little else. The right will find Miers' position on their core issues to be much to their liking as time goes on. There is no reason for the president to submit the nomination of a hard-bitten conservative to the high court when he can further the conservative agenda in a more subtle way. President Bush has made this possible by sliding deftly past the Democrats rather than picking an unseemly fight. The president deserves credit for his political acumen.
Jay Johnson, St. Petersburg
A nominee too constant
President Bush probably intended to say that his Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was steadfast and reliable. But instead he said she would be the same in 20 years as she is today.
One of the great human abilities is the capacity to learn and change. Nominee Miers especially needs that capacity as someone without any judicial experience. (Some legal observers say it will be years before Miers is fully capable to serve as an associate justice.) But Bush claims this woman is fixed in concrete. On that basis alone, she should not be approved by the Senate.
J.L. Winckler, Tampa
Daylight saving blues
Re: Now might be the time for Central Standard, by Howard Troxler, Oct.2
I would like to see the entire state of Florida follow the example of Arizona, Hawaii and parts of Indiana and completely do away with daylight saving time. As hot and humid as Florida is from May to October (or later), I would welcome shorter days in the spring and summer, in order to be able to walk my dog or exercise earlier in the evening, instead of having to wait until 8 p.m. or later for things to cool down.
I agree Florida would be better off on either all Central or all Eastern Standard Time - just, please, no more daylight saving time!
Cheryl Karpinecz, Seminole