Opinion: NRA power play stomps on safety

Who says the Florida Legislature doesn't look out for the working stiff? A bill (SB 2356) that so far is breezing through the Senate would stop employers from banning guns in their parking lots. Imagine the persuasive power of a worker (particularly if he is disgruntled) mentioning that his AK-47 is only a few steps away when asking for - no, demanding! - a raise.

Actually, there is nothing funny about this bill and a similar one (HB 1417) in the House. It's just another audacious power play by the National Rifle Association to prove it can make the Legislature do almost any stupid thing the bullying gun lobby wants. With hand puppets such as Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, the bill's sponsor, to do your bidding, it's child's play.

The bill would stop "a public or private entity from prohibiting a customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any personal private property that is a legal product when such product is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot." Where the bill mentions "personal private property" read "firearms," a bill analysis notes.

A few exceptions are written into the proposed law, including businesses involved in domestic security if a gun in the parking lot "presents an increased danger of explosion." Yet there are more things to fear from guns at the workplace than explosions. Assaults and violent acts cause one in seven workplace fatalities, and the proximity of guns would only increase the risk.

So who would be responsible for damages if someone breaks into a car in a company parking lot and uses the gun inside to injure or kill someone? Not the employer or parking lot owner, who is made immune from civil action by the bill. And not the gun owner, who was just exercising his constitutional right to put a dangerous weapon in an easily accessible place.

This bill tramples on the rights of private-property owners and those seeking workplace safety to further inflate the gun lobby's perceived rights. A vote for this bill is a vote for more violence in the workplace, more stolen guns on the street, more bloodshed in the community. We'll soon see which lawmakers have the courage to stand up to the NRA.

Share your thoughts on this story

Read our guidelines for comments

Comments on this article

by kevin	12/06/07 10:55 AM
there would not be a crazed shooter killing the sheep under their desks, my gun and I would take care of him

by Fred	11/16/07 09:13 AM
It must be awful for the editor to live in a world where he fears everyone is going to shoot him. I'm glad I don't live in that alternate reality where my paranoia degrades my way of life and I fear everyone's out to get me. It would be terrifying.

by Wayne	04/13/07 05:28 PM
I'm waiting to see which of my lawmakers are willing to stand up against large out of state corporations like my employer who keeps me from keeping a gun in my vehicle for my three hour commute.

by Frank	04/05/07 12:09 AM
There's no law requiring employers to provide parking for their employees. If employers do not want guns left in they can encourage employees to carry them. Or, they can offer a more secure location on the premises.

by Mike	04/03/07 11:56 PM
The proposal is not about the NRA flexing it's muscle. It's about gun owners reacting to employees being fired for having thier hunting rifles locked in thier cars durring hunting season, after thier employers policies had been hi-jacked by zealots.

by Mike	04/03/07 08:29 PM
Is this an April Fools Joke?

by Tim	04/03/07 07:54 PM
CCW holders and hunters are acknowledged to be some of the safest people to be around in the entire country. Funny how "proximity to a weapon" suddenly turns these people into ticking time bombs at work, but not anywhere else.

by Sam	04/03/07 06:14 PM
To John, who quit the NRA. I am glad you are no longer a memeber. I wonder if all of the idiots claiming blood in the streets are the same idiots who cried the same to CCW laws?

by Tim	04/03/07 02:25 PM
"So who would be responsible for damages if someone breaks into a car in a company parking lot and uses the gun Hinside to injure or kill someone?" How about the criminal who broke into a car and injured or killed someone? Makes sense to me.

by Jeff	04/03/07 02:15 PM
This article is a joke right?!?!?! It looks like the work of an idiot!

by P.	04/03/07 02:09 PM
Who's responsible for damages?!!! Ommmm, how bout the criminal who breaks into your car and decides to kill people? Are you some sort of idiot?

by Terry	04/03/07 01:38 PM
The "employer" LOST his provate property rights over 40 years ago. Quit whining! We are putting the 2nd Amendment FIRST! (PS: let the "employer" try paying less than the minimum wage, or refusing to hire blacks, if he thinks he still has freedom!)

by Gary	04/03/07 01:06 PM
[Last modified April 1, 2007..] That explains a lot. This Editorial has GOT to be an April Fools joke; very little of it makes any sense. As a Genuine AK-47 costs around $10,000 Iò019d like to know who would just leave such a firearm in their cars.

by Larry	04/03/07 12:27 PM
Employers need to ban cars from parking lots. After all, a disgruntled employee could go out and crash their vehicle into the building harming far more people than with gunfire. How's that for fearmongering?

by art	04/03/07 12:25 PM
I would like to see a law that says if the employer bars guns from private vehicles and some madman comes in and guns down 50 defenseless people then the employer is liable.

by Arthur	04/03/07 12:20 PM
hahah. The sentiments expressed in your column are an April's fool joke right? Because if you are serious they are so stupid, I am not even going to bother to rebut them. You think a "disgruntled" employee would not ignore the ban in the 1st place

by Dan	04/03/07 11:09 AM
"So who would be responsible for damages if...to injure or kill someone?" Just a guess off the top of my head, but how about the person breaking the law!

by Tony	04/03/07 10:18 AM
American's have a right to defend themselves. A business owner's rights don't trump that. A disgruntled employee doesn't care how far he is from a weapon. Firearms are used far more to prevent crimes than they are to commit them!

by Karl	04/03/07 09:27 AM
"Imagine the persuasive power of a worker...mentioning that his AK-47 is only a few steps away when asking for - no, demanding! - a raise." Come on, editors! Give us a break from the hyperbole...if you must fear-monger, at least be realistic.

by Al	04/03/07 09:11 AM
Is this editorial written by a child? Sounds like a lot of frothing at the mouth by a anti-gun-nut with little if any proof to back it up. I'm sorry but i do NOT agree with the idea that the more helpless you are the safer you are.

by Dan	04/03/07 09:00 AM
{..a worker mentioning that his AK-47 is only a few steps away..} Typical liberal writer. Loves the sound of his own writing, but never actually reads it. This is ridiculous. His AK47 could be at home and if he "mention" it, he violates existing law.

by joe	04/03/07 08:59 AM
Please forgive an "out of stater" for his comments but, we in Oklahoma have had this law for two years and haven't had the "Assaults and Violence" scenerios that we were warned about by the gun fearing liberals. Seems to work quite well.

by ZBoater	04/03/07 08:46 AM
Who do these restrictions really protect? The innocent, law abiding folks who comply, or the crazed gunman who will gladly ignore it, or simply go home and get his gun? Disarming folks in the name of safety is ignorant and hypocritical.

by Mark	04/03/07 08:13 AM
This argument is specious and foolish. Anyone who threatened violence would get the same results as they do now, to whit; quiet agreement and a clandestine call to the police or building security. The person would then be ejected and charged.

by lysander	04/03/07 07:39 AM
note: 1] the supreme court has ruled the police are not responsible for the safety of individual citizens. So who ya gonna call - Ghostbusters?; 2] criminals and wackos - by definition - do not, will not, and cannot be made to obey any law.

by John	04/03/07 07:33 AM
My right to defend my life and that of my loved ones trumps ANY property rights including those of an employer. Defense of oneò019s life is absolute and no one else has the right to demand that I give it up.

by John	04/03/07 02:47 AM
Public safety has everything to do with an armed or possible armed citizen. All you have to do is look at Great Britain to determine that and futility of gun control READ the police have no legal obligation to protect you non what so ever

by Russ	04/03/07 12:18 AM
We'll soon see which law makers have the courage to stand up to the radical left wing anti gun movement.

by James	04/02/07 06:38 PM
Why is it that the entire Bill of Rights applies to individuals except the 2nd? I carry a weapon. As does my wife. We are not "gun nuts" but refuse to be subject to the crime and druggies that occupy our streets. This is a good law.

by Todd	04/02/07 06:20 PM
What we clearly need is a constitutional amendment banning NRA members from owning firearms. That would solve 99% of the problem. Leave the law enforcement to the cops.

by lew	04/02/07 05:04 PM
Let's see what's next? How about amputating the shooting index finger to protect us from us!!!

by Shad	04/02/07 02:51 PM
Then if the gun isn't in this guys car, he can go home and get it and come back. Your argument doesn't hold water and still upholds the fact that, "Guns don't kill people - People kill people. The gun is merely a tool. This op/ed is poorly written

by R	04/02/07 02:30 PM
Just another sign that the govt is doing what the lobby wants and dosent have the people's best interest. This has to be one of the worst ideas out there.

by Sean	04/02/07 01:59 PM
I am tired of the law abiding citizen who gets his/her license after testing, background checks, firing range tests, and having to learn the law being told that they cannot use their constitutional rights to carry arms in self defense. Let's be fair.

by Robert	04/02/07 01:32 PM
Lovely. Another ill-informed "journalist" spewing incorrect facts about a topic he or she has no idea about. The NRA doesn't equal Gun owners. But then again I don't expect integrity or accuracy from journalists.