Right to bear arms (at work) against employer's wishes

[Darth Wong]

Only in America ... Link.

Lawsuit Filed To Challenge Disney Gun Ban
Petition Claims Constitutional Rights Violated

POSTED: 12:18 pm EDT July 11, 2008
UPDATED: 8:33 pm EDT July 11, 2008

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A man fired by Walt Disney World after he brought his gun to work filed a lawsuit Friday against the entertainment company.

Disney officials claimed the company doesn't have to follow a new state law allowing people to bring firearms onto business properties.

Edwin Sotomayor worked at Disney as a security guard for 13 years. He was suspended on July 4 and later fired after bringing his .45-caliber pistol to work at Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Sotomayor showed up at the Orange County Courthouse with his attorney to file the lawsuit. It's a petition claiming his constitutional rights were violated and asks that Disney give him his job back and remove a no trespass warning to allow him back on the property.

Sotomayor claimed that Florida's new bring-your-gun-to-work law, which took effect on July 1, gives him the right as a holder of a concealed-weapons permit to bring his weapon and keep it locked in his trunk in a Disney parking lot.

"It is a big deal to me, and it is a big deal to me and thousands of people around the country that believe Disney is, you know, very un-American, and obviously, on the Fourth of July, they became very un-American," Sotomayor said.

Disney holds a permit to handle explosives on its property, mainly fireworks, and under Florida's new gun law, companies with those kinds of permits do not have to allow guns on their property.

Disney wouldn't comment specifically on the lawsuit filed by Sotomayor until it has a chance to review his claims, but a spokeswoman reaffirmed the company's position that it believes it is exempt from the new gun law.

Sotomayor stressed that he is not after money, just the rights in which he believes he is entitled.

This is what happens when you call it a "right" instead of a policy. OMG, my employer is violating my rights by telling me not to bring a gun to work! What's next? Dinner party guests suing homeowners for not letting them bring guns into their private property?

[Darksider]

What's next? Dinner party guests suing homeowners for not letting them bring guns into their private property?

dude, shut up!

You want to give the rednecks ideas?

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know, I was with the guy and thought that under FL law he would have the right to sue until I saw this part.

Disney holds a permit to handle explosives on its property, mainly fireworks, and under Florida's new gun law, companies with those kinds of permits do not have to allow guns on their property.

This is simply not a constitutional rights case. FL law has a provision that allows individuals to bring their guns to work (not carry them, but have them on the premises either in their car or a gun cabinet) . However, this law has an exception.

If I remember correctly, the state of AZ has a similar provision, and in fact a business or even the state is liable for any damages that result if they fail to provide a secure gun-cabinet on their premises if they deny individuals the right to carry

(IE. If an establishment is gun-free, it must provide storage space or be liable if someone comes in, and shoots you when you cannot defend yourself)

But I would have to go through the code again...

[Darth Wong]

Why should anyone be forced to allow people to bring guns onto their private property, regardless of whether they have explosives permits?

[General Zod]

How many people want to bet this retard intentionally brought his gun in with him just so he could sue Disney?

[Atlan]

How many people want to bet this retard intentionally brought his gun in with him just so he could sue Disney?

No bet.
Asshole is probably looking to rake in a couple of million. But with that kind of exception in the law, it seems to me he's not got as much of a case as he'd like to. And Disney has DEEEP pockets, for BIG lawyers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why should anyone be forced to allow people to bring guns onto their private property, regardless of whether they have explosives permits?

Really, those laws are policy decisions. Just depends on what the society in question values more. The right to control the exact details of things that go on on your property (that is semi-public access in the case of a business or disney world) or the right of an individual to be armed.

In the end it is a social choice made by the legislature

(Bear in mind, I am using "right" as a shorthand for "legal and social construction aimed at increasing social utility")

[Rogue 9]

The Second Amendment only limits the government, not private citizens or entities. Constitutionally, there's no question of forcing businesses to allow guns on their property; restrictions on the government's ability to make laws on certain subjects do not apply to them or their policies.

Ironically for this guy's argument based on Florida's statute, there is a solid argument for the Florida law being unconstitutional: Under the right of assembly (upon which the right of free association has long been established by the courts), private businesses are free to not associate with someone who insists on carrying weapons, and may eject such a person from their properties at will.

[Master of Ossus]

It's absurd. It's not a constitutional case because this isn't the government: it's a company. A company doesn't have to let you go to work wearing and saying whatever you want, and there's no reason to let people come to work with firearms.

[Feil]

The Second Amendment only limits the government, not private citizens or entities. Constitutionally, there's no question of forcing businesses to allow guns on their property; restrictions on the government's ability to make laws on certain subjects do not apply to them or their policies.

Ironically for this guy's argument based on Florida's statute, there is a solid argument for the Florida law being unconstitutional: Under the right of assembly (upon which the right of free association has long been established by the courts), private businesses are free to not associate with someone who insists on carrying weapons, and may eject such a person from their properties at will.

There's really nothing I could say that you haven't already said. The guy is SOL: Florida law is on Disney's side, and the constitution doesn't apply. And I'm sure Disney's army of lawyers will make that abundantly clear.

Fuck, I just got an image of a literal army of lawyers wearing Micky Mouse ears.

[Isolder74]

I just got an image of a literal army of lawyers wearing Micky Mouse ears.

Please do not give them any ideas!

On the subject of the case, the Constitution indeed does not apply. It provides no provision against Disney or any other private entity from saying you can't carry your gun on their land.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its a large stretch to force this to apply to Disney.

[[R_H]]

"It is a big deal to me, and it is a big deal to me and thousands of people around the country that believe Disney is, you know, very un-American, and obviously, on the Fourth of July, they became very un-American," Sotomayor said.

Why's Disney un-American, other than them not letting him take his gun to work?

[Sea Skimmer]

Why should anyone be forced to allow people to bring guns onto their private property, regardless of whether they have explosives permits?

This isn’t anyone, this is a commercial enterprise on land zoned for commercial use. That means you DON’T get to do whatever the fuck you want. Businesses are forced to comply with numerous regulations concerning how they treat employees and how they use land. What’s more gun free zones to not stop workplace or school shootings, this has been proven over and over again, see Virginia Tech, so there is no reason why a worker shouldn’t be allowed to leave a gun locked inside a car so that they can have it when they aren’t at work and haven’t gone all the way home to pick it up. Its not like this law allows you to actually carry the gun inside and keep in on your lap as you sit in a cubical.

Now in this specific case Disney seems to be in the right owing to the explosives issue, but overall the law is nothing unreasonable.

[Alyrium Denryle]

"It is a big deal to me, and it is a big deal to me and thousands of people around the country that believe Disney is, you know, very un-American, and obviously, on the Fourth of July, they became very un-American," Sotomayor said.

Why's Disney un-American, other than them not letting him take his gun to work?

Because they support gay rights. Seriously, Disney was one of the first companies to voluntarily extend insurance benefits to gay couples in their employ

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is what happens when you call it a "right" instead of a policy. OMG, my employer is violating my rights by telling me not to bring a gun to work! What's next? Dinner party guests suing homeowners for not letting them bring guns into their private property?

Anyone can file a suit, that doesn't mean it will be granted. I'll expect a whole rash of these in light of the SCOTUS case, running from the reasonable to the absurd. A bunch of gun lunatics are probably going to disappointed when the courts define the line a lot closer to where it was before than they see it.

[Jaepheth]

Sotomayor claimed that Florida's new bring-your-gun-to-work law, which took effect on July 1, gives him the right as a holder of a concealed-weapons permit to bring his weapon and keep it locked in his trunk in a Disney parking lot.

So if this is what he's doing then how did anyone know he was doing it?
He either:
A. Was bragging he had a gun in his car (could be construed as creating a hostile work environment)
B. Gun was found by an explosives sniffing dog.

If it was A then the guy sounds like the kind of power trip seeking dick that commonly becomes a security guard, and I hope Disney counter-sues his ass into oblivion.

[Darth Wong]

Disney owns the parking lot just as much as they own any other part of their property. I don't see why it makes such a big difference to keep it in his car.

[Darth Wong]

Why should anyone be forced to allow people to bring guns onto their private property, regardless of whether they have explosives permits?

This isn’t anyone, this is a commercial enterprise on land zoned for commercial use. That means you DON’T get to do whatever the fuck you want. Businesses are forced to comply with numerous regulations concerning how they treat employees and how they use land. What’s more gun free zones to not stop workplace or school shootings, this has been proven over and over again, see Virginia Tech, so there is no reason why a worker shouldn’t be allowed to leave a gun locked inside a car so that they can have it when they aren’t at work and haven’t gone all the way home to pick it up. Its not like this law allows you to actually carry the gun inside and keep in on your lap as you sit in a cubical.

Now in this specific case Disney seems to be in the right owing to the explosives issue, but overall the law is nothing unreasonable.

I recognize that governments can regulate private industries. That doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is reasonable to force private industries to let gun owners bring their guns to work.

[Rogue 9]

If it's locked in his car then I don't see why it would be a big deal, but Disney is still within its rights to tell him he can't have it even there.

But how they found out is an excellent question; do they randomly search employees' cars?

[Sea Skimmer]

Disney owns the parking lot just as much as they own any other part of their property. I don't see why it makes such a big difference to keep it in his car.

Because that means the weapon isn’t immediately at hand, so you don’t need to worry about someone just getting ready irritated at the boss or something, and deciding out of hand to pop off a couple rounds. Its no defense against a premeditated decision to murder, but a no guns policy isn’t either as I’ve already pointed out. Ergo safety isn’t suffering, but the right to self defense is no longer being unnecessarily restricted. Seems like a fine compromise to me.

[Singular Intellect]

One thought that does cross my mind...isn't a vehicle in fact considered private property? As I understand it, you can actually refuse a police officer from searching your vehicle unless they have a warrant, because it's considered your property in the same manner as your home.

To me this brings up an interesting question...does Disney have the right to dictate what people are allowed to have in their vehicles if it's perfectly legal for them to have said items in their car elsewhere? Said car is private property in itself, so they should have no jurisdication within it. They could have the car towed or moved, but they cannot justify it upon what's located inside the car.

If the gun leaves the car, then it's a different matter entirely since the gun has moved from one property to another.

Of course, my premise may be flawed since I'm not entirely certain about the nature of vehicles as private property...but the situation might not be as cut and dried as some think.

[General Zod]

>snip<

Of course, my premise may be flawed since I'm not entirely certain about the nature of vehicles as private property...but the situation might not be as cut and dried as some think.

Police officers can search people's backpacks and purses before permitting you entry into a facility if a facility has such regulations or if they think you're behaving suspiciously. Why are cars any different?

[Singular Intellect]

>snip<

Of course, my premise may be flawed since I'm not entirely certain about the nature of vehicles as private property...but the situation might not be as cut and dried as some think.

Police officers can search people's backpacks and purses before permitting you entry into a facility if a facility has such regulations or if they think you're behaving suspiciously. Why are cars any different?

I could very well be mistaken, I'm trying to look up information on the subject as we speak.

However, unless martial law is declared, I was under the impression the police can't actually force you to yield to inspection without a warrant, but they can deny you entry into said facility if you refuse to comply.

[Stark]

Hollywood has taught me that they can search your boot if it's not locked, but that they can't force you to unlock anything without a warrant.

Also, undercover cops have to tell people if they're a cop. That's why undercover work is so easy!

[Singular Intellect]

Hollywood has taught me that they can search your boot if it's not locked, but that they can't force you to unlock anything without a warrant.

I don't think the locked status is applicable to private property rights, otherwise the police could just walk into your home if you opened the door.