Judge rules on Florida parking lot bill

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle has ruled on Florida's "parking lot" bill, saying the law allows employees with concealed carry permits to keep their guns locked in their vehicles in employer-owned parking lots, while also ruling that a business may prohibit customers from carrying on its property. Both sides are spinning this as a victory, although I think businesses were on the losing end of the ruling.

Rick McAllister, president and CEO of the retail federation, said he doesn't believe his organization will appeal.

"On balance, it's a pretty good decision," he said. "Are we happy about the employee thing? No. We'll keep working to change the Legislature's mind."
...
However, Marion Hammer, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, called Monday's decision "a huge win for the people."

The NRA pushed for the law's passage in the last legislative session, citing the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of citizens to carry weapons.

"The problem has been corporate giants who think they can control everything their employees do or say or everything that goes on a piece of property," Hammer said. "They are employers, they are property owners. They are not emperors. For crying out loud."

Article here.

The St. Pete Times has another article analyzing the judge's order here, with a link to the judge's order on its blog here.

Given that there is nothing physically stopping anyone, anywhere, at any time, from having a loaded gun in a vehicle (regardless of the legality of such action, and absent physical searches of vehicles and their contents by a business), the Florida law seems a reasonable legislative accommodation for those who wish to have a firearm for personal protection in their vehicles.

The property rights of a business do not outweigh the self-defense rights of its employees. Protection of innocent life is generally (and correctly) afforded a higher level of legal protection than property rights, particularly when those rights are associated with an entity that is itself a creation of the legislature, such as a corporation. At least that's the way it should be.

Indeed, businesses are subject to all sorts of restrictions on their property rights, such as laws prohibiting race and gender discrimination, laws mandating a minimum hourly wage, laws regarding handicapped access, and a plethora of laws and regulations that are often industry-specific, such as health code regulations for restaurants. All these laws are restrictions on the property rights of businesses, dictating how and in what manner those businesses shall operate.

Note that property rights concerning non-commercial private property, such as a home, enjoy (again, correctly) a greater level of legal protection than those for commercial private property. While a business open to the general public cannot deny access to, say, people of a specific race, a homeowner can deny access to his home to anyone he chooses, for any reason. This is as it should be, and reflects the differing levels of property rights legal protections for commercial versus non-commercial private property.