Walt Disney World fires back on guns at work

[Chuck S]

It's mostly the courts and lawyers (including prosecutors) that don't get it. They see that as "vigilantism".
They would much rather see 10 folks killed in aisle 2 while it takes the police 20 minutes to arrive on the scene and figure out who (and where) the gunman is.
And if you in aisle 3 managed to do something to prevent further killings and save lives, YOU would find yourself prosecuted for taking the law into your own hands.
But I gather you already know that---

Except, what if the person doing the killing on Aisle 2 is a disgruntled store employee with easy access to a gun from their car? You know, the phrase "going Postal" does have its roots in truth. There are more reports of disgruntled employee shooting up a place than some random criminal shooting everyone in a business.

 

[proteus]

A citizen carrying a gun is not a trained professional. Many advocates of self defence in public areas act as if any citizen carrying a gun will be more helpful than law enforcement. Sorry, but it doesn't make me comfortable that every Tom, Dick and Harry packs concealed arms. Would you feel "safe" in an elevator with 10 people inside who are all armed? I remember a jewlery store owner that got robbed, he got carried away and ending up shooting two innocent people besides his intended target.

Violence can happen anywhere so why don't we all carry loaded guns in plain view? It would deter criminals and force everyone to be polite, think of it. Makes you wonder why banks don't arm their staff, aren't they entitled to self defence as well? Extend that to any business where cash is handled be it Walmart, your local grocer or the barber shop. Since the supremes made their ruling it is clear you have the right anywhere, not just in the home.

 

[MarriedToAPrince]

As a citizen who supports gun rights and is married to a shotgun owner, I think that having a gun stored in your car is your right. Do I want someone carrying it around the parks and resorts and all that where there are so many children and such...no, but storing it in your car? That is someone's right. However on the other end I can see why they don't want them there but really if someone was to do something stupid, they are going to do it anyways.

 

[DancingBear]

Why do you think having a gun in your car while you drive around and park on somebody else's private property is your right?

 

[DancingBear]

Since the supremes made their ruling it is clear you have the right anywhere, not just in the home.

proteus, I know you were making an argument supporting some restrictions, but I just want to clarify that in fact District of Columbia v. Heller does not support this statement. Scalia said that the protection of the home was of special interest, and recognized that limitations on taking firearms certain places like schools and government buildings were constitutionally permissible.

 

[JMD]

For all of the people using the "I need my gun in my car for my safety to and from work" reasoning -- like the ex-security guard at WDW -- I'd be interested to know if any of them have ever actually been in a situation on their way to or from work (when they didn't have their gun with them because they knew it wasn't allowed on property). I would think that if there were that many instances of people being threatened, carjacked or in danger on the way to or from their Disney jobs, we'd have seen quite the expose on it by now. If it had happened to the security guard, it would have been the topline of the article about him.

If it were only that simple. I really wish I could see into the future and know exactly when something tragic might happen. If I knew ahead of time that I would be assaulted or carjacked on my way home from work, I would skip work that day or take an alternate route home. Unfortunately, I can't predict these things, so I have to be prepared at all times.

I realize that some people, by nature, are more fearful of the world and would rather prepare for the worst, and perhaps that's who these people are. But when I read a line like, "as a mom and female i don't go anywhere without my firearm" it does make me wonder what it is that has happened that caused you to feel that way. I'm a mom and a female, and I don't feel the need to carry a firearm. Never have.

It's not a matter of being more fearful, it's not being naive and thinking that nothing bad will ever to happen to you. Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their safety and the safety of their families. You've made your choices and Angelwolf67 has made hers. Personally, I take my safety into my own hands, I'm not prepared to just sit and wait for a police officer to come and help me.

 

[proteus]

proteus, I know you were making an argument supporting some restrictions, but I just want to clarify that in fact District of Columbia v. Heller does not support this statement. Scalia said that the protection of the home was of special interest, and recognized that limitations on taking firearms certain places like schools and government buildings were constitutionally permissible.

My opinion on the meaning of the 2nd amendment differs from the court intepretation but as an American I uphold the law as dictated by the courts.
I just feel the Supreme Court issued a ruling where they tried to play it both ways. Firstly, the constitution makes no apparent distinction between a home or a public venue. Secondly they are restricting the presumption of self defence to the home, doesn't make any sense to me, I could be assaulted anywhere.

I was discussing this with an NRA member the other day who advocated carrying arms in public (not concealed) because you can't wait for the cops to show up if...etc. etc. This same person (who has kids) didn't support the right of elementary school teachers to carry weapons "oh no, not around my children". So if someone goes postal in a school teachers aren't allowed to defend themselves? I also read that a kid at one of our public schools was sent home for drawing a gun in art class. I guess it has become extremely polarized, perhaps too much liberty on one end and too much in the way of restrictions on the other.

I'm not comfortable being around people displaying arms unless they are members of law enforcement, but that is just me, maybe others feel differently. It is kind of intimidating and if you imagine a scenario where someone comes out of a car saying "excuse me, that is my parking space" (right or wrong), I'm certainly not going to argue the point, lol. Like I said, it is a nice way of enforcing politeness.

 

[DancingBear]

Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their safety and the safety of their families. You've made your choices and Angelwolf67 has made hers. Personally, I take my safety into my own hands, I'm not prepared to just sit and wait for a police officer to come and help me.

The problem is, not everyone makes good decisions with respect to their own safety and the safety of their families, and particularly not with respect to the safety of society at large. I'm sure that you are certain that you are making a good decision about carrying a weapon and when to use it, but how comfortable are you about the choices everyone else makes in that regard?

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Why do you think having a gun in your car while you drive around and park on somebody else's private property is your right?

That's the real question of this thread. If you come to my home (private property) with a gun in your car and I don't like it, I can ask you to leave. And if you don't, you're trespassing. Why is that any different for WDW, which is also private property.

 

[Jason71]

That's the real question of this thread. If you come to my home (private property) with a gun in your car and I don't like it, I can ask you to leave. And if you don't, you're trespassing. Why is that any different for WDW, which is also private property.

Because the state of Florida passed a new law this year basically stating "if you want to enjoy the privileges of being an employer in this state, you have to let your employees keep guns in their cars if they so choose."

http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2008-007.pdf

This case revolves around a statutory law question, not a constitutional law (or moral) one.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Because the state of Florida passed a new law this year basically stating "if you want to enjoy the privileges of being an employer in this state, you have to let your employees keep guns in their cars if they so choose."

http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2008-007.pdf

This case revolves around a statutory law question, not a constitutional law (or moral) one.

This may be so but Disney has legally received exemption from this law, right?

 

[Jason71]

This may be so but Disney has legally received exemption from this law, right?

Nothing is ever that simple with lawyers involved...

There is an exemption for locations "upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible
or explosive materials...". [emphasis added] Munitions factories and what-not. WDW is claiming this applies to the Mouse House as well, because of all the fireworks they set off. I really don't see that flying, Wishes and Illuminations are hardly the "primary business" of WDW, but that seems to be what they are hanging their arguments on, at least for now.

Why they didn't flex thier muscle in Tallahassee and get an exemption written in for theme parks I don't know. Maybe they counted on the Chamber of Commerce being able to kill the bill outright, which is what most government-watchers expected would happen.

 

[DancingBear]

Nothing is ever that simple with lawyers involved...

There is an exemption for locations "upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible
or explosive materials...". [emphasis added] Munitions factories and what-not. WDW is claiming this applies to the Mouse House as well, because of all the fireworks they set off. I really don't see that flying, Wishes and Illuminations are hardly the "primary business" of WDW, but that seems to be what they are hanging their arguments on, at least for now.

Why they didn't flex thier muscle in Tallahassee and get an exemption written in for theme parks I don't know. Maybe they counted on the Chamber of Commerce being able to kill the bill outright, which is what most government-watchers expected would happen.

Jason, don't underestimate Disney's lawyers. You only quoted half of the exemption. Disney's lobbyists got the remainder of the exemption added:

...or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. Section 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Under that part of the exemption you only need to have the permit, and you avoid the "primary business" test.

 

[Jason71]

Jason, don't underestimate Disney's lawyers. You only quoted half of the exemption. Disney's lobbyists got the remainder of the exemption added:

Under that part of the exemption you only need to have the permit, and you avoid the "primary business" test.

Good point, I'm sure they'll be fighting this for a while. Still not sure why they didn't try to slip a clearer exception in.

Didn't hear all the details yet, but apparently a federal judge upheld the law from a preliminary challenge this morning--not at all sure that it was Disney's challenge, tho.

 

[DancingBear]

Still not sure why they didn't try to slip a clearer exception in.

That's easy, they were trying to slip it in under the radar.

 

[KYMickey]

...or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. Section 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Under that part of the exemption you only need to have the permit, and you avoid the "primary business" test.

If what you posted is the true wording of the law Disney may not be able to use that exemption. Since they don't import, manufacture or deal in explosives, they just use them! I believe it will all come down to the wording on their permit!

 

[Chuck S]

They do manufacture. They make their own shells for the fireworks.

 

[DancingBear]

If what you posted is the true wording of the law Disney may not be able to use that exemption. Since they don't import, manufacture or deal in explosives, they just use them! I believe it will all come down to the wording on their permit!

Again, Disney's lobbyists are the ones that added that language. Give them some credit. Chuck S may be right that they actually do engage in these activities, but in any event all the statute says is you're exempt if you have the permit to engage in those activities.

 

[lw1126]

It's mostly the courts and lawyers (including prosecutors) that don't get it. They see that as "vigilantism".
They would much rather see 10 folks killed in aisle 2 while it takes the police 20 minutes to arrive on the scene and figure out who (and where) the gunman is.
And if you in aisle 3 managed to do something to prevent further killings and save lives, YOU would find yourself prosecuted for taking the law into your own hands.
But I gather you already know that---

And that's how it should be