Supporters of the right to keep and bear arms have long recognized the
value of firearms for the defense of life, liberty and property. But in
Florida, a perverse conception of the 2nd Amendment has produced the
opposite effect: The cause of gun rights is being used to attack
property rights.
In 1987, Florida wisely affirmed personal freedom by letting
law-abiding citizens get permits to carry concealed weapons. But this
year, the legislature decided it was not enough to let licensees pack
in public places. They also should be allowed to take their guns into
private venues -- even if the property owner objects.
The "take your guns to work" law says anyone with a conceal-carry
permit has a legal right to keep his gun locked in his car in the
company parking lot. Until recently, companies had the authority to
make the rules on their own premises. But when it comes to guns, that
freedom is defunct.
The National Rifle Association says any corporation that forbids
firearms in its parking areas is violating the 2nd Amendment. That may
sound like a promising argument, since the Supreme Court recently
struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as an infringement on the
constitutional guarantee. It's not.
Robert Levy, the Cato Institute lawyer who participated in the
successful challenge of the Washington ordinance, says the Florida law
"has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment." The Constitution, he notes,
is a limit on government power, not a constraint on what private
individuals or corporations may do.
A municipal government may not forbid guns to everyone on the territory
under its control. But, as far as the Constitution is concerned, a
private property owner certainly can.
A federal court recently upheld the law, but not because of the Bill of
Rights. It said that "the constitutional right to bear arms restricts
the actions of only the federal or state governments or their
subdivisions, not private actors," and noted that the NRA "has been
unable to cite any authority for its position."
So the law doesn't uphold gun rights. What it does do is infringe on
property rights. The Florida Chamber of Commerce makes the obvious
argument that there is no right "to have a gun in your car on someone else's property"
(my emphasis). But the law tells company owners they have no control
over workers who insist on bringing deadly weapons onto their premises.
Conceal-carry licensees complain that if they can't keep their guns in
their cars, they will have no protection on their way to and from work.
That's true. But what about employees who walk, bike or take the bus?
Since the law doesn't give them the right to take their guns into the
workplace, they have to leave them at home. Should the state force
companies to let workers carry pistols into the factory, office or
day-care center?
This is not a place where the government should substitute its judgment
for that of the property owners. One lawyer told The Bradenton Herald,
"I have clients that have to carry out terminations. Sometimes that
termination is volatile. A lot of places have a policy where they walk
the terminated employee to his car. What if you walk the guy to his car
that has a gun? I wouldn't want to be that supervisor."
Given that crimes by permit holders are exceedingly rare, the employers
who want to ban guns may be running from shadows. But decisions about
their safety, and that of their customers and employees, should be
theirs to make.
For some people, being temporarily deprived of a firearm creates great
anxiety. But for those with a strong aversion to guns, working at a
company that allows weapons in cars has the same effect. In a free
society, both sets of employees can solve the problem with a simple
expedient: exercising their liberty to find a company whose policies
suit their preferences.
