TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
It's About The Second Amendment And Nothing Else
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: April 25, 2008
While clowning around with my grandchildren one day, I suddenly shouted, "Look at the sky, it has turned from blue to green."
Try as I might, I could never convince them that it was true, because they could see and couldn't be fooled. So it is with Robert Levy's column ("Employers Must Pull The Trigger," Our Opinion, April 22).
Levy claims that our right to have firearms locked in our cars in a parking lot is not about the Second Amendment but about the mythical right of corporations to usurp the Constitution and ban guns. But Levy didn't pull it off because we can see the truth. And the price he's asking us to pay for permission to do business with an anti-gun corporation could mean losing our lives - and that price is as clear as the sky is blue.
The Legislature passed, and Gov. Charlie Crist signed, a law to preserve the self-defense rights of law-abiding men and women in public parking lots. It reaffirms existing rights that have been jeopardized by politically motivated corporate policies.
Big business fought this measure, feigning corporate "private property rights" - a baseless argument considering that business consents to laws that limit property rights. Corporations must abide by civil rights laws, zoning laws, safety inspections and fire codes among others. Laws even dictate the number, size and placement of parking places and mandate space for shopping cart storage in publicly accessible parking lots.
Even Barry Richard, the attorney hired by the Florida Chamber to pitch its side, has acknowledged the truth. In a March 24, 2006, opinion paid for by the chamber, Richard honestly admitted, "The right to control one's property is not absolute. The state can regulate use of and access to property for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. State statutes, for example, prohibit the possession of certain materials on private property that constitute a public nuisance or safety hazard ... or the exclusion from public accommodations based upon race, gender, handicap, religion or national origin."
Clearly, the state can - and did - act to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves when traveling and in publicly accessible parking lots. It is definitely a safety issue, as a living person is clearly more important than an asphalt parking lot.
NRA believes in private property rights, but unlike citizens, corporations are discretionary creations of government. They come into existence through charters created by legislatures. Corporate interests don't override the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
Shrill arguments for property rights or profits must not take precedence over the lives of hardworking men and women. An employer's political philosophy or contempt for firearms rights does not trump a law-abiding person's fundamental, right to self-protection.
My motivation in teasing my grandchildren was simply to teach them to stand up for what they can see with their own eyes and what they know is true. Although Levy may continue to claim it's not about the Second Amendment, that clearly doesn't make it true.
Marion P. Hammer is past president of the National Rifle Association and executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida.
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 ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 25, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
There are few arguments any more "shrill" than asserting that "permission to do business with an anti-gun corporation could mean losing our lives." as though there are assassins lurking in every corner and under every bush and only your sacred weapon can keep you safe at Publix.
If I was the owner of a company at this point I would be strongly considering simply forbidding my employees from parking on my property.
Problem solved!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 25, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Assassins lurking? Car jackings are at epidemic proportions.A look at the newspapers show it is not safe out there and the crimes arent committed by CWP holders. Look up those stats.
Some folks worry about private property rights but forget about autos being private property also. Does an employer have a right to dictate what a law abiding citizen keeps in their private auto?The employer has to abide by other laws pertaining to parking spaces like handicap access, lined spaces and maximum numbers allowed in those parking lots.
Dont even mention that it is a 'safety issue' since anyone with bad intentions will disobey any restrictions on gun possession anyways so safety issues points are moot.
This is a law that allows CWP holders ( and not the general public) to keep their weapon in their private auto. These CWP holders have passed a background check ( state and FBI ) and you have a better chance to be struck by lightning and hit the state lotto, in the same day, than to be harmed at work by a CWP holder.
In fact Broward County kept statistics ( in 1987 ) of CWP holders using a gun in a crime and discontinued it 10 years later because of the lack of those predicted crimes.
I disagree with Ms Hammer that it is about the 2nd Amendment only. It is about the 2nd Amendment but also about MY private property rights, my private automobile.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 25, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Good lord yes, why, if you step outside you can see the DOZENS and DOZENS of carjackings happening RIGHT NOW ... RIGHT IN YOUR YARD!!!!!
RUUUUUUN!!!!
Get the BAZOOKAAAAAA!
I don't know, guys, somehow I have lived over sixty years and never been mugged, carjacked, robbed, assaulted ...
I actually support your rights to own your guns. I just think we need to be very careful about EVERYONE'S rights and not fall into this "Second Amendment uber alles" mentality.
Your world must be a very scary place.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 25, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This law is NOT about everybodys rights. Its about the rights of CWP holders. What part dont you understand ( it seems to be alot ).
In my world of 53 years, I havent been mugged either but as you can see via newscasts and newspaper, the potential is there.
I have a female friend who was mugged outside a bank, of all places but as the mugger left, she went to her glove box to retrieve her gun. Well he saw this and turned around. "What have you got for me in there?"" I got this for you" was her reply and when she pointed it at him he dropped her purse and ran like the wind.She hadnt been mugged before that time either.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 25, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Oops I forgot to mention that I am a bartender so keeping a gun within my reach is very necessary and doesnt frighten me whatsoever.Luckily for me my Boss knows I keep one and encourages it since Im trained ( military wise) and continue to go to local gun ranges to keep in practice.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 25, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Your friend is fortunate. When she reached into her glove compartment to get her gun, her attacker could just as easily shot her where she stood.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 25, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Never take a knife to a gun fight. He would have lost. He was fortunate, not her for she had the gun, he the knife.She only pulled her gun in case he came back, which he did.She didnt stop at the bank with money, she stopped to get some.In fact she is trained too as she was a MP in the army.No, never assume that the gun holder would lose, that is a lame argument and statistically false.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( SecCon ) on April 25, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Say what you will, but the one thing that seems to be common among many victims of violent crime is that they thought it would never happen to them. To me it's about personal security. What level is necessary is a matter of personal preference to me. As far as never being the victim of a crime ... I've never had someone enter my house at night when I've forgotten to lock the door, but I sure as heck am not going to leave it unlocked all the time. Just because you haven't been a victim in the past is certainly no guarantee you will never be one in the future. Anyway, for what it's worth ... that's the way I see it.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( nmhunter ) on April 25, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I'm curious. For those who hold that firearms should not be carried by those who are legally able, a question. Since it is fairly rare for a tire to go flat and one doesn't need it all that often, do you leave your spare at home most of the time?
For myself, I just don't know when I might need to be armed. I have been known to comment, "If I could predict the future do you think I would be working for a living?"
Yes, the corporations and businesses do have property rights but since I have an unalienable right to self-defense their property rights end long before they reach that particular one of mine.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( xyzz4569 ) on April 25, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JackNelsonSteward said: "I don't know, guys, somehow I have lived over sixty years and never been mugged, carjacked, robbed, assaulted ..."
The fact that you have not been assaulted means nothing. Do you have life insurance? Do you have fire insurance on your home? Do you wear your seatbelt? I have life insurance, but have not died yet, I have never had a house fire, and have never had a car accident. Just because bad things have not YET happened to me, doesn't mean that I am not prepared.
Again, the fact that bad things have not yet happened to you MEANS NOTHING!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( fr8dog ) on April 25, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
re; the person claiming never 2 have been mugged. good 4 u. i wasnt so lucky. but the good news is i was armed. score: me, (intended victim), 1: would-be perp TERMINALLY ZERO. will a gun guarantee your safety? no. it just levels the playing field in a potentially deadly game. & remember, when SECONDS count, police r only MINUTES away.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tinkshot ) on April 26, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
My right to defend my life and that of my loved ones trumps any property rights including those of an employer. Defense of one’s life is absolute and no one else has the right to demand that I give it up in order that they may exercise a lesser right of private property determination. The right to life is a pre-existing right that precedes the US Constitution, the Magna Carta and effectively the very establishment of government itself.
ALL property is fleeting dust. You can lose ALL of your property and acquire more but if I lose my life, THAT is permanent, No ‘Do-Overs’. THAT is why my right to life trumps property rights. This debate is not about tools (guns are tools) OR Safety, it is about CONTROL.
Even the police are not responsible for my defense, a fact that has been repeatedly emphasized by the courts. The police are there to protect society as a whole and do so by catching criminals AFTER they commit the crime. The “protection” comes by giving the criminal a possibility of consequence for his actions as a possible deterrent. If such “protection” were all that an individual needed to be secure then there would be NO crime in Chicago, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Until people learn reason and evil men stop doing evil deeds, I'll choose to protect myself.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 26, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
xyzz4569
I completely understand the "preparedness" argument. I assume you have and carry a defibrillator, right? And you have a fully stocked and functional first aid kit with you at all times? And you have a shelter dug out under your house, since tornadoes could come out of any thunderstorm. Speaking of thunderstorms, you DO have lightning rods up on your house, don't you? We have thunderstorms nearly every day in the summer, you know.
Well, let's leave property protection out of the scenario.
So, it comes down to WHAT you choose to be prepared for and WHY. I would imagine that your odds of having or being near someone else having a heart attack are somewhat higher than the odds of being attacked or being near someone else being attacked. If so, why carry a gun, and no defibrillator? That is a lifesaving piece of equipment! Your odds of either being in or being near an accident with injuries are most likely greater than the odds that you'll be assaulted. How about that first aid kit? You fully trained to use it? If not: Why the gun and not that?
Are you fully trained in a martial art? In close quarters your martial arts training is likely to be as important as a firearm, maybe more.
Don't get all upset, now.
I just wonder why GUNS have such a powerful hold on people if other life-saving and personal protection equipment doesn't. I carried a gun around with me for years and ultimately concluded that the "protection" it offered me was mostly between my ears, and, having had the door handles twisted off my vehicle, carrying it around made me AND my vehicle a target for every crackhead in the vicinity.
Whaddya think?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( fr8dog ) on April 26, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JackNelsonSteward: re: “carrying it (a gun), around made me AND my vehicle a target for every crackhead in the vicinity.
Whaddya think?”
what i think is: if yer stupid enough to let it b known u have a gun in your car or on your person, thereby making yourself a target, dont b surprised @ the consequences.
re: preparedness. i carry a gun as its easily carried, and personal experience has shown its good insurance. re; 1st aid kit: yes, i have 1 in my car, as should every1. re: the other ridiculous items u suggest: im responsible 4 my life & no1 else’s. a gun is just another insurance policy, only better than most. once paid 4, its a useful, & in my case, a life saving investment that increases in value.
any other smart suggestions? didnt think so. lol
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tinkshot ) on April 26, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JackNelsonSteward,
Your strawman doesn’t wash.
First of all, it’s a Bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of NEEDS. My Rights apply whether you believe them, understand them, agree with them, or not. That’s why they’re called RIGHTS. And because they are Rights, I don’t need to ask YOURs or Anyone’s permission to exercise them. The authorities only need be involved if I ABUSE those rights.
Secondly, I carry a .45 because carrying a cop is just too darn much trouble. When they start making defibulators the size of my 1911, I MAY consider it. Like nmhunter said above, I have house insurance, car insurance, wear a seat belt and all the other things, not because the odds are that I am LIKELY to need them at any one moment, but because having those things in place means I don’t have to call a “time-out” on the world while I scramble around putting them in place. But I have the right to make those choices MYSELF, not you making them for me. I may not always carry a firearm, but that’s MY choice not yours.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tinkshot ) on April 26, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thirdly, I also don’t carry a dictionary or a thesaurus with me where ever I go either, but I still retain the right to make that choice.
Personally, I’ve compromised with the property owners enough. They have their little “victim disarmament zones” inside their buildings. Fat lot of good it will do the poor victims when some disgruntled employee decides that he really just doesn’t CARE that he will get fired after he kills 5-10-30 people hiding under their desks because they have no way to defend themselves. I hope the relatives of the next victims end up owning the company and garnish the wealth of the owners for the rest of the owners miserable lives.
At least for the moment I have some liberty back and can defend myself driving to and from those victim disarmament zones. But hey, you anti-liberty, anti-gun types don’t really care about the victims or the disasters that your feelings precipitate on others, it just makes you “feel good” to protest people taking responsibility for they’re own lives. One thing you all are good at, it's following a failed policy forever, confident that with just a lot more money, a little more time, and that fact your intentions are good, this failed policy, which hasn't worked and shows no signs of working, will suddenly, miraculously, work.
Listen, if you wish to close your eyes and walk serenely and ignorantly unarmed through paradise, more power to you. You are free to reject this reality and substitute one of your own. But if I were you, I’d make dang sure that I was IN that paradise before I did so.
Let me issue you a challenge, if your local version of reality is such a blooming paradise, why don’t you just make yourself up a BIG sign saying “NO WEAPONS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY” and stick it in your front yard. And when the break-ins come make sure you tell the nice lady at 911 to only send cops without guns or bullets to respond, because you don’t believe guns are the answer.
Bet you don’t………..
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 26, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JNS:I just wonder why GUNS have such a powerful hold on people if other life-saving and personal protection equipment doesn't. I carried a gun around with me for years and ultimately concluded that the "protection" it offered me was mostly between my ears, and, having had the door handles twisted off my vehicle, carrying it around made me AND my vehicle a target for every crackhead in the vicinity.
Whaddya think?
I think your BS'ing
By 'claiming' to have carried a gun for 'years' and now attempting to convince posters here that you overcame your need to protect yourself.
First you claimed never to have been mugged but then admit that your vehicle was broken into ( its a crime against your person no matter how you try to color it)Most people, sane people anyways would want to get more protection after a crime is committed against them and not discard the protection they had. You wonder why folks feel a need for guns and then admit you carried one 'for years'?
No your trying to rationalize why folks dont need their guns by insisting your safer without one.
Its your choice to not have a gun for your protection but dont try to BS me that I dont need mine because my gun endangers me and that appears to be the gist of your lame argument.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 26, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"Fat lot of good it will do the poor victims when some disgruntled employee decides that he really just doesn’t CARE that he will get fired after he kills 5-10-30 people hiding under their desks because they have no way to defend themselves"
Yeah, see, some of us are concerned that YOU will be that guy, and that you will go out to your conveniently located GUN, the one that's in your CAR and get busy on the rest of us. We worry about that because you seem to have a tilt toward the notion that you can HANDLE things with a GUN.
It's just a thought.
Lakota, think anything you want dear. If you can't distinguish between being mugged and having your car broken into, though, you may be more dangerous than I originally thought.
I told you that I concluded that the protection I imagined I was carrying was largely between my ears. Remember?
That's called a "change of mind."
Hang on to your gun.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 26, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
And having a gun in your car makes you a target of crackheads? Ha thats rich
"I carried a gun around with me for years and ultimately concluded that the "protection" it offered me was mostly between my ears, and, having had the door handles twisted off my vehicle, carrying it around made me AND my vehicle a target for every crackhead in the vicinity."
Your quote meant to show that the 'protection was between your ears' was your imagination hence the protection we felt it provided us was 'in our minds'
Nice try 'Dear" I will believe what I want and I believe you never owned a gun, you just said that to try to justify your lame argument of guns harming the user more than the criminal. Its been in almost everyone of your posts.A weak attempt at that.
Its funny how you dont worry about 'car jackers' but do worry about 'crackheads' targeting you because you might have a gun? Criminal studies have shown that criminals admit that if they knew a intended victim was armed, they would go on to a another victim.
Yes a crime against your property or automobile, is a crime against your person.
A police officer told me that.
I guess he is dangerous too hahahaha
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 27, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yeah 'Kota ... I came in here and made up a whole story just to make the point that YOU think I was making.
Y'know ... I'll just bet you that if you shoot someone for threatening to belt your CAR with a bat, the result will be MUCH different than if you shoot someone for threating to belt YOU with a bat.
Run that one by your imaginary "police officer" friend....
and stop making up stuff to justify your case.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 27, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Ha Im making up stuff? You claimed to have owned a gun when you obviously havent and Im making stuff up? I have worked with over 50 TPD officers through the years as a bartender who have worked as off duty security at the establishment I work at and they are informed that I too keep a gun behind the bar and to a man ( and woman) support the law giving law abiding citizens the right to conceal carry.If someone is threatening to 'belt my car' with a bat, how am I to know they are only just threatening my car and not me?If someone approaches me in my car or even if Im not in it and am nearby with a bat, under the Castle Domain law I have the right to defend myself with deadly force.
Imaginary? Haha Ok your limp argument has been uncovered and has been put to shame dim one . Try again
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 27, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Oooooo ... you've "uncovered" my "limp" argument ...!?
"Exposed" as it were, my "flaccid" "thrust?"
lololol
I think we're zeroing in on the proper domain of this conversation at long last!
You believe whatever makes you happy, 'Kota.
and ...
Hang on to that GUN!!!!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JJWIII ) on April 27, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I would imagine that over the past several decades and right up to this very day, there have and are literally thousands upon thousands of managers, employees, service workers, delivery persons, customers, etc. that have guns in their vehicles in various parking lots throughout this great state. I could be wrong but, it apparently wasn't a problem until the anti-gun people caused their propaganda machine to create a perceived problem! More than likely, virtually all of those with guns in their vehicles were and are law abiding people; some hunters, fishers, sport shooters, police, security guards, licensed concealed carry people, etc. that have no intent to harm, rob or kill anyone with their gun. Some say an employee or customer might snap and run get his gun and start shooting, well that sounds like it borders on anti-gun generated paranoia. IMO, the likelihood of someone needing a gun for self defense in a parking lot far outweighs the likelihood of someone snapping!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 27, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Ha your getting your brain beat out and you cant stand it. I showed this page to my 'imaginary' TPD co-workers and they had a great laugh at your expense.
"What a boob"
" Dont argue with this fool"
"Your right, this guy never owned a gun"
Was some of the printable comments.
Thanks for the verification of your limp argument was a lie.
Ha!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on April 27, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Well, darlin' I would invite you to "show me yours and I'll show you mine" but you wouldn't believe it anyway.
I hope, truly, that you (AND your imaginary friends) ARE as safe as you THINK you are because of your gun(s).
No kidding.
And
I hope you get LOTS of satisfaction out of the notion that you "beat my brains out."
It was fun.
If I was a drinkin' man, I'd look you up.
See you later.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Lakota55 ) on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I think you ARE a drinking man and you dont have to show me anything since you probably dont have anything I want to see Ha
Yeah it was fun and the expense was all yours.
And dont be worried about 'crackheads' following you for your imaginary gun. ( THAT was really amusing to my TPD co-workers)
Hahahah
Report Inappropriate Comments