Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

House panel passes NRA bill

The proposal allows employees to have guns in parking lots. But lobbyists and legislators already are arguing over what its language means.

By ALEX LEARY
Published April 5, 2006

TALLAHASSEE - After weeks of delay, legislation asserting one's right to carry a firearm into a workplace parking lot was approved by a House committee Tuesday. The bill, however, is significantly weaker than first proposed and faces additional challenges.

It took six tries for the House Judiciary Committee to pass the bill, which upholds the right to carry weapons in a locked vehicle but also states a business has the right to create policy banning them.

That compromise was meant to settle a pitched fight between the National Rifle Association and business groups. On that score, it may have succeeded.

But another section of HB 129 left few doubts the battle is over. The provision limits gun bans to when "reasonably necessary for the safety and welfare of employees, invitees, or the general public, or to safeguard business operations."

NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer thinks that would include only sensitive areas, such as plants dealing with hazardous waste. Business interests, who insist property rights are paramount, complained the clause is vague and raises concern about litigation.

"Reasonably necessary, what does that mean?" asked Mark Wilson, executive director of the Florida Chamber of Commerce. "Nobody on the committee could even define what it means. So how can an employer?"

In a last-minute effort that threatened to derail the process, Rep. Juan-Carlos Planas, R-Miami, offered an amendment eliminating the reasonably necessary language.

The move agitated Hammer, who called it a "breach of good faith."

Hammer originally sought legislation that could have led to fines and imprisonment for business owners who kept employees from storing guns in their locked vehicles. But the business lobby mounted strenuous opposition, winning concessions along the way and nearly killing the bill.

Still, Hammer said the bill that passed Tuesday was better than the status quo because it would give employers pause before enacting a policy against guns and provide employees legal standing should they challenge a ban.

Planas eventually withdrew his amendment, later saying he deferred to committee chairman Rep. David Simmons, R-Longwood, who spent weeks trying to negotiate a compromise. "And I felt I had successfully vetted the issue for other committees to look at," Planas said.

The bill then came up for vote and it was approved 8-2, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposing.

The controversy over what is reasonably necessary is certain to factor in the next House committee to take up the bill. There would be one more stop after that in the House, while the Senate has yet to act on similar legislation.

[Last modified April 5, 2006, 00:36:08]