TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Gun Rights Trample All Others
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: April 22, 2008
Like a majority of lawmakers, Gov. Charlie Crist places gun rights above all others.
By signing a bill that allows people to keep guns in their cars at work, he ignored the private property rights of business owners, who must pay the price for any gun-related incidents on their land.
The guns-at-work law also allows a secret group of citizens to buy constitutional protection by obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The National Rifle Association says none of the 480,000 people carrying concealed weapons in Florida pose a danger, suggesting there's never been a gun-related incident among them.
But you'll have to take their word on that because in a previous bow to the NRA, the Florida Legislature made secret the names of people who obtain concealed-weapons permits.
Crist professes to be an advocate of open government, but when the political calculation gets tough, he caves.
The people deserve better.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
Reader Comments
Posted by ( PATIORIO ) on April 22, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This is insane.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Garryowen ) on April 22, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
So...now that the Tribune and WFLA have to change their no-guns-on-company-property-or-vehicles, how are they going to find a way around it. I can see that since they have not let up on their agenda of tramplimg on 2nd Amendment rights, they'll find a way to identify and punish employees who will continue to insure their safety by arming themselves while on the way to and from work. Give it up, Media General...IT"S OVER AND YOU LOST!!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Wizardry82 ) on April 22, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Crist is a tax raising, big government hypocrite. But everyone bought into his smile and tan and thought he was wonderful. Now you all see the empty suit for what he is. Wind him up and he'll say anything you want, though even Tickle Me Elmo has a better grasp of good public policy.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( No_Tears ) on April 22, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Why is it OK for businesses to trample everyone's 2nd Amendment rights? Thank goodness SOMEONE is looking out for law abiding citizens.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( GJF ) on April 22, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
"The guns-at-work law also allows a secret group of citizens to buy constitutional protection by obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon."
And here I thought constitutional rights only had to be paid for in blood
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( somerandomguy ) on April 22, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Very ignorant piece....no wonder no one had the guts to put their name to it....since when is it ok for big business to trample an individual's constitutional rights???
Someone please post a VALID argument against this law, I dare you...
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Thunderhead ) on April 22, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
You speak of private property rights of business owners, but what about the private property rights of employees? The inside of one's car carries the same sanctity as the inside of one's home. Not even the police may search you car without your permission, a warrant, or a just probable cause. So who's rights are being violated, the businesses, or the peoples?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( duke6 ) on April 22, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Obviously the moron that wrote this piece can not tell the difference between the inside of a privately owned car and a “workplace.” Thankfully a majority of legislators and the Governor can.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( duke6 ) on April 22, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
BTW since Florida began issuing CWPs in 1987 1,328,991 permits have been issued. During that twenty or so year period 165 permits have been revoked because the permit holder used a gun in a crime.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( situp ) on April 22, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
This article is a total bunch of rubbish as well as the Trib's opinion of the law!! What is in my car is my business not theirs!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Concerned1963 ) on April 23, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
This has to be one of the most poorly written pieces of garbage I have read in a long time. No wonder editors don't sign their editorials.... they would be ashamed to show their faces in public. The Second Amendment does not trample other Rights, it protects them. Just read what the people who wrote the Amendment had to say about it. That would be contained in The Federalist Papers, for those of you who don't know.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( SwampRunner ) on April 25, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The trib shows there true colors when something like this comes up. They don't mind shotuing at the top of there lungs when they think something infringes on there first amendment rights, but to hell with the second and the fourth. You cant have it both ways! Protect them all.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( CapeJack ) on April 27, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"..business owners, who must pay the price for any gun-related incidents on their land."
OH REALLY? They're not responsible for the customer who wrinkled my front fender, didn't pay my insurance deductible, weren't responsible for my neighbor's injuries and loss to a purse snatcher, and not responsible for the ordeal my friend's elderly uncle endured at the hands of a carjacker.
As long as they're not responsible for the safety, security and protection of my family and me, I HAVE TO (AND WILL) BE!
Report Inappropriate Comments