Judge Refuses To Stand In Way Of Guns-At-Work Law

TALLAHASSEE - Gun owners: Start planning your after-work duck hunting parties. A federal judge on Wednesday declined to stop Florida's new guns-at-work law from taking effect next Tuesday.

The law, which Gov. Charlie Crist signed in April, will allow employees possessing concealed-weapons permits to keep guns in their cars while parked on their employers' premises. Not only will employers not be able to stop them, they won't be able to ask whether an employee has a gun in his or her car.

The fight over guns at work, which began in the Legislature in 2005, has pitted conservative factions against one another. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, arguing that the law violates property owners' rights, sought an injunction from the federal court in Tallahassee Wednesday. On the other side: the state and National Rifle Association, arguing that the issue is a matter of individuals' rights to bear arms.

Chief District Judge R. Hinkle said that he was neither granting nor denying the Chamber's request for an injunction. But other obligations and the need to research the case further will probably prevent him from ruling in the case before mid-July, Hinkle said.

The law not only grants employees the right to keep guns in their cars, it also permits customers and other "invitees" to do so as well. But there's a catch, argued Chamber attorney Barry Richard, building on questions that Hinkle himself raised about the statute during Wednesday's arguments.

As Hinkle noted, the statute applies only to "employers" defined as businesses employing at least one employee who possesses a concealed-weapons permit. If the business lacks such an employee, then it does not qualify under the statute as an "employer" - meaning neither the employees nor the customers of that particular business have a right to keep a gun in their car on the premises.

A business might have only one employee with a weapons permit one day, but not have one the next, Richard argued - meaning that the rights of customers to have a gun on those premises would change daily.

"It's utterly irrational, and the United States Constitution protects us from legislative acts that are irrational and that impose onerous obligations on us," Richard said.

Attorney Jonathan Glogau, arguing on behalf of the state, rejected Richard's interpretation regarding customers' rights in such cases.

"The statute implies that it's not limited to the way the judge was suggesting," he said. "I hope I got that across. The law would apply, regardless of the dispute about carry permits."

Attorneys for the state and the NRA suggested that the law will benefit hunters who want to drive straight from work to go hunting, as well as employees who want to keep a gun in their car to protect them while they drive to or from work. A permit makes that legal, NRA attorney Chris Kise argued - but it's only feasible if the employee has a place to keep the gun during work hours.